# Unwarranted Charges - Receiver Return Fee



## sulliva9 (Mar 11, 2011)

Mr. Ergan: I lost my job two months ago. In an effort to conserve my existing funds, I opted to cancel my Dish Service. I have been a customer for 9 years. I received instructions to disconnect my equipment and the shipping boxes. As I stood out in the snow, disconnecting my equipment, I pondered why I was doing this but shrugged it off. I paid my last bill and thought I was done.
I have received a bill from DISH for 32.10. Upon inquiring from your chat line, *I was informed that I was being charged shipping to return this equipment. *

I find this extremely unfair and a wrong business practice. Dish saves by having the homeowner disconnect, package and ship; the homeowner pays the bill. Since you do not have a store where I can return this equipment, I feel that I should not be charged for this 'shipping fee'. Please have this charge removed from my account immediately. Sincerely, sulliva9


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

sulliva9 said:


> Mr. Ergan: I lost my job two months ago. In an effort to conserve my existing funds, I opted to cancel my Dish Service. I have been a customer for 9 years. I received instructions to disconnect my equipment and the shipping boxes. As I stood out in the snow, disconnecting my equipment, I pondered why I was doing this but shrugged it off. I paid my last bill and thought I was done.
> I have received a bill from DISH for 32.10. Upon inquiring from your chat line, *I was informed that I was being charged shipping to return this equipment. *
> 
> I find this extremely unfair and a wrong business practice. Dish saves by having the homeowner disconnect, package and ship; the homeowner pays the bill. Since you do not have a store where I can return this equipment, I feel that I should not be charged for this 'shipping fee'. Please have this charge removed from my account immediately. Sincerely, sulliva9


:welcome_s to DBSTalk.
Is this a communication you sent to Dish Network or are you just posting it here?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

It should be sent to [email protected]


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Well, since you would have been advised of the fee when you cancelled, probably not.


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

Fee has been in effect for over a year, wake up and smell the roses.


----------



## bnborg (Jun 3, 2005)

I agree with the OP. It's unwarranted.

Making unilateral changes to a contract after execution is unfair, if nothing else. Even if the language of the contract allows it, the laws probably do not. A jury would probably rule the contract unenforceable. But the amount involved makes it unfeasible to fight.

These are just my opinions and I am not a lawyer.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

bnborg said:


> I agree with the OP. It's unwarranted.
> 
> Making unilateral changes to a contract after execution is unfair, if nothing else. Even if the language of the contract allows it, the laws probably do not. A jury would probably rule the contract unenforceable. *But the amount involved makes it unfeasible to fight*.
> 
> These are just my opinions and I am not a lawyer.


That's the key for their decision to cut ... ummm make more money from customer's pockets (counting them by millions ...)


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

hard times for everyone, there is no such thing as free lunch.


----------



## Zero327 (Oct 10, 2006)

bnborg said:


> I agree with the OP. It's unwarranted.
> 
> Making unilateral changes to a contract after execution is unfair, if nothing else. Even if the language of the contract allows it, the laws probably do not. A jury would probably rule the contract unenforceable. But the amount involved makes it unfeasible to fight.
> 
> These are just my opinions and I am not a lawyer.


It's in the newest agreements, on the e-mail disconnect notices and written on the shipping labels he used to return the equipment. Every jury in the world, crooked ones included would rule the contract enforceable.

As far as they logic they're using, it's quite simple. You don't want to pay for the service anymore, that's your prerogative. But the instant you're no longer "our customer", you pay for your own expenses, which includes returning the leased equipment. It's quite prudent business actually.


----------



## winston (Mar 14, 2011)

Dish is charging me 15.00 shipping to swap my 722 that tech service determined to be bad for another 722. I also lease.


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

winston said:


> Dish is charging me 15.00 shipping to swap my 722 that tech service determined to be bad for another 722. I also lease.


That is also an existing policy, nothing new. If you want free shipping on replacement receivers subscribe to the protection plan.


----------



## winston (Mar 14, 2011)

I guess its better than leasing a car


----------



## Blowgun (May 23, 2008)

I can understand DISH wanting the receivers back. What I don't understand is having someone inexperienced climb up on their roof to send back the dish and switch, when they didn't install them in the first place. Sounds like throwing salt into a wound.

By leaving the dish and switch where they are provides incentive to the current and to future residents, to subscribe with DISH. And, in the case of sulliva9, DISH would have provided the opportunity to welcome sulliva9 painlessly back once their finances became stable.

When we moved, with the exception of taking the receivers with us, we left everything else behind. All the new owners had to do was add a receiver(s), and DISH had a house completely wired for their service. Which, probably saved DISH money in the long run, certainly the new owners.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Blowgun said:


> I can understand DISH wanting the receivers back. What I don't understand is having someone inexperienced climb up on their roof to send back the dish and switch, when they didn't install them in the first place. Sounds like throwing salt into a wound.
> 
> By leaving the dish and switch where they are provides incentive to the current and to future residents, to subscribe with DISH. And, in the case of sulliva9, DISH would have provided the opportunity to welcome sulliva9 painlessly back once their finances became stable.
> 
> When we moved, with the exception of taking the receivers with us, we left everything else behind. All the new owners had to do was add a receiver(s), and DISH had a house completely wired for their service. Which, probably saved DISH money in the long run, certainly the new owners.


I had to read your post twice. Are you saying DISH now has a policy of having a customer who cancels service dismantle, package, and return the dish, switch and receiver plus pay for the shipping for returning their equipment? Surely you jest.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> I had to read your post twice. Are you saying DISH now has a policy of having a customer who cancels service dismantle, package, and return the dish, switch and receiver plus pay for the shipping for returning their equipment? Surely you jest.


yes, he surely does...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH has asked for the LNB to be returned, but all the customer has to say is they can't reach it and that is the end of the request. Only the leased receivers MUST be returned (penalties available in the contract for non-return) and yes - if you use the prepaid label you will pay the $15 charge. If you use other trackable shipping you can pay your own way. Returning the reflector is not required.

Most likely this is a misunderstanding by stressed out people. DISH probably needs to find a better way to express their wishes and requirements. When people sign up they are not thinking of cancellation so it is easy for the customer to gloss over what they are agreeing to.

I've never seen the pre-paid label ... how is it presented? Does it come in an envelope or have a stub that warns that use of that label will cost $15? Would the be a better way to communicate the cost? Or is the focus on the much greater cost of not returning the receiver? Add to that the request for the LNB ... is that request clearly optional or is it lumped in with the required receiver return? (IE: "Return the LNB if it can be safely removed from the dish." in the instructions instead of a simple "return the LNB".)

Of course, regardless of how well it is communicated the stress of the moment may be overwhelming receiving the message. But the clearer the message is the more likely that people will understand what is being asked.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"I've never seen the pre-paid label ... how is it presented? " - before when it been prepaid, it's included in your return box.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> "I've never seen the pre-paid label ... how is it presented? " - before when it been prepaid, it's included in your return box.


Before DISH picked up the tab. Now that DISH is charging when their label (and shipping account) is used how clear is it that using that label will incur a fee?


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

I cancelled dish about 3 years ago and had to pay to send the receiver back. I never expected them to cover that. 
They asked for the LNB and I said I couldn't reach it and that was the end of that. 
Then I re-subbed to dish a year later and am now out of contract again and thinking of cancelling.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Kudos to you, sulliva9.

Frankly, I'm shocked by the number of people who are willing to "suck it up" simply because "that's they way it is."

Always be negotiating, whether it's a new car, used car, new home or even clothing.

You'd be surprised by how amenable the selling party can be when you politely approach them with a reasonable offer.

In sulliva9's case, the implied reasonable offer is, remove the charges so that I can overcome my current economic hardship, and in return I won't continue writing about your obstinance.


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Always be negotiating, whether it's a new car, used car, new home or even clothing.


Doesn't that usually happen BEFORE agreeing to a contract?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> ... in return I won't continue writing about your obstinance.


Continue? One post.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> Continue? One post.


One post that we know about. How many similar problems get "resolved" when the aggrieved party contacts the local newspaper, which then features a human interest story regarding the subject matter.

With respect to signing contracts, well, contracts are meant to be broken. If Tishman and Blackrock can walk away from financial commitments to Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village that they can meet, why shouldn't sulliva9 be allowed to attempt to renegotiate an unwarranted charge?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> ...
> 
> With respect to signing contracts, well, contracts are meant to be broken. If Tishman and Blackrock can walk away from financial commitments to Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village that they can meet, why shouldn't sulliva9 be allowed to attempt to renegotiate an unwarranted charge?


Really?????? Contracts are meant to be broken?  Try that with your mortgage, car note, etc. I've been on the internet about 16 years and that's about the dumbest thing I've ever read.


----------



## Blowgun (May 23, 2008)

MysteryMan said:


> I had to read your post twice. Are you saying DISH now has a policy of having a customer who cancels service dismantle, package, and return the dish, switch and receiver plus pay for the shipping for returning their equipment? Surely you jest.


James reminded me it's the LMB off the dish that they want back and the policy has been around for awhile.



James Long said:


> DISH has asked for the LNB to be returned, but all the customer has to say is they can't reach it and that is the end of the request.


You're right, my mistake, it's the LNB they want back, not the entire dish. However, when I've read about enforcement of this policy, and it's not always been in this forum, there are people who were told by DISH that, DISH absolutely wanted the LNB and switch returned, regardless of the inconvenience. With regard to the policy, I can only presume that CS agents are better trained now, that if the customer "can't reach it", don't press the issue.

Still, I wonder why two $20 single LNB's and a $35 DP34 switch are such a big deal, when it would likely cost more than that to put the LNB's back when service is restarted at the residents. I remember when a DISH technician came out and changed the configuration of our dishes. When he was leaving I asked about the old, perfectly good, LNB's and he said you can keep them if you want. I guess they only become important when you cancel service. :lol:


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

sigma1914 said:


> Really?????? Contracts are meant to be broken?  Try that with your mortgage, car note, etc. I've been on the internet about 16 years and that's about the dumbest thing I've ever read.


Well, not exactly broken, but amended in their favor.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> I had to read your post twice. Are you saying DISH now has a policy of having a customer who cancels service dismantle, package, and return the dish, switch and receiver plus pay for the shipping for returning their equipment? Surely you jest.


All they want from the outside is the LNB. Kinda stupid policy. I wonder if anyone was hurt or killed removing the LNB. Who would be responsible?

Also leaving the LNB in place helps the next occupant's installation. After all it's unlike cable, you can't steal the satellite signal with an authorized STB.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm not saying I like the shipping charge on returning receivers... But, consider this..

You never pay shipping to receive it in the first place. For those who think it inappropriate to pay shipping when you are cancelling service... would it be more appropriate for you to pay shipping when you first obtain your receiver?

Maybe that would be perceived more fairly... though I expect people would complain about that too.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> Really?????? Contracts are meant to be broken?  Try that with your mortgage, car note, etc. I've been on the internet about 16 years and that's about the dumbest thing I've ever read.


Well, I find it regrettable that you feel that way.

In the case I laid out, Tishman and BlackRock were contractually obligated to support Stuyvesant. But both firms were in so deep, and they would have had to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the project with no assurance of making money, that they preferred to walk away, the same way many strategic defaulters have chosen to do so over the past two years.

In either case, strategic defaulters on their homes or Tishman/Blackrock, I can't blame them. You do what you have to do, and if there's a dispute, bring in an attorney.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Well, I find it regrettable that you feel that way.
> 
> In the case I laid out, Tishman and BlackRock were contractually obligated to support Stuyvesant. But both firms were in so deep, and they would have had to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the project with no assurance of making money, that they preferred to walk away, the same way many strategic defaulters have chosen to do so over the past two years.
> 
> In either case, strategic defaulters on their homes or Tishman/Blackrock, I can't blame them. You do what you have to do, and if there's a dispute, bring in an attorney.


And they have what relevance to equipment return shipping fees? Nada. Basically the guy was advised, decided to forget that fact and now made a 1-shot-and-gone whine post. This needs to end.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

coldsteel said:


> And they have what relevance to equipment return shipping fees? Nada. Basically the guy was advised, decided to forget that fact and now made a 1-shot-and-gone whine post. This needs to end.


I agree ... this thread MUST get back to satellite issues.

Consider the line drawn ...
:backtotop


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> With respect to signing contracts, well, contracts are meant to be broken. If Tishman and Blackrock can walk away from financial commitments to Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village that they can meet, why shouldn't sulliva9 be allowed to attempt to renegotiate an unwarranted charge?


As a former resident of Stuy Town with family still there, Blackrock and Tishman should never have been involved in the first place; they should have been made into co-ops. What any of that has to do with return fees I don't know.


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> If Tishman and Blackrock can walk away from financial commitments to Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village that they can meet, why shouldn't sulliva9 be allowed to attempt to renegotiate an unwarranted charge?


Pointing to one bad act to excuse another isn't very convincing.

Oops, posted after I read post #31.


----------

