Awesome billing error in my favor, and now I'm moving

[bebop]

I'll throw this into the mix, just to see where it goes:

My bill this month is $3.77, with $0.78 of that being tax. I have 2 receivers, Choice Xtra, 4 movie packages (promo), MRV, HD...and it's my second bill.

I can't figure it out - it's the craziest bill I've ever seen. The previous balance from last month was $242, I paid $141 of it on autopay. I'm not including all the details, because it's two pages.

I'm still waiting to see what happens in the long run. I was expecting to see a bill for around $28-$41 range depending on how they credited my bill, but not $3. I'm pretty good at math, but that goes out the window when trying to understand all the charges/adjustments/credits/fees/errors/fixes. I'm guessing I got an extra credit somewhere, who knows.

Now it hasn't been going on for 10 months, and I've contacted DTV over a dozen times. I was told in my last correspondence to wait 2 more billing cycles to see what I'm expecting. I haven't talked to anyone who has been able to explain what is going on, so I've come to the point of just waiting to see what the bill says and if they over-charge me again I'll contact them. I've put way too many hours into it and I can't control it.

With my experience, it doesn't surprise me that someone wouldn't want to contact DTV to tell them if they are under-charged. Getting over-charged and incorrectly charged feels like it takes a lawyer to fix it.

 

[cave1376]

Sometimes when someone adds, removes, upgrades equipment or changes their programming mid billing cycle is when these unusual bills occur. The following bill will have the corrections.

When I added my hd equipment, my bill came out to $18. The following bill had the correction for the previous bill. That bill came out $210. I wasn't mad cause I knew the $18 on my previous bill would be corrected on my next bill. The OP probably did something similar but D* has yet to catch the mistake. She might get caught when or if she does move.

 

[TDK1044]

I'm sorry but the right answer is "It depends". The provider is the entity that has hired lawyers to create their fine print masterpieces. One would expect them to be thorough and include terms about billing errors and what the parties rights and duties would be.

What if there is no language on this? You are asking people to set aside their contract and assume what's fair and what isn't. In the law, contract terms are very often established by performance. This occurs when like the original contract doesn't have anything on it and a judge is trying to figure out what happens in a circumstance not covered in the writing.

I am sorry, but in this system when a party pays what's billed in writing, the other party repeatedly accepts what's paid and continues to provide the product or service at that price, a perfectly honest and upstanding citizen has a legitimate right to say that a deal is a deal.

As a matter of law, you are technically correct. But to me, this is more of a moral issue rather than a legal one. If the OP worked for your company, would you trust her? Would you allow her access to your financial processes? If she was getting paid $40,000 per month from you instead of $4,000 because of a glitch in your accounting system, and she chose never to mention it to you for more than a year, would you simply forgive the debt and say that it was your company's fault for not catching it? Or would you politely ask for the funds back?

This is about having a moral compass. The OP wouldn't know true north if it bit her in the ass.

 

[trinidex]

The post has always been about ethics or the lack of. If it bothers you that much, don't read it.

 

[Juan]

I don't get the "channel 5" part

 

[vurbano]

My point is, the questions have been answered and now we're getting into ethics.

I'm not suggesting we close threads because they are answered, but rather because they get off topic.

Agreed but apparently james Long is not done logging in under several different user names.

 

[spaceghost]

As a matter of law, you are technically correct. But to me, this is more of a moral issue rather than a legal one. If the OP worked for your company, would you trust her? Would you allow her access to your financial processes? If she was getting paid $40,000 per month from you instead of $4,000 because of a glitch in your accounting system, and she chose never to mention it to you for more than a year, would you simply forgive the debt and say that it was your company's fault for not catching it? Or would you politely ask for the funds back?

This is about having a moral compass. The OP wouldn't know true north if it bit her in the ass.

You're questioning an ethics issues between a single individual which has no effect on others against a multi-billion dollar company who doesn't care one bit about you other than you paying your bill in full each month. The OP is not asking for a job. Heck, she isn't even trying to soothe her conscience. This is more about a brag session than anything. Let her go about doing her business, and if you believe in a form of karma, then let it run its coarse.

Now if you want to get up in arms about something, lets discuss the people who sit on their rear all day, collecting free benefits from the gov (our tax dollars) who have no intentions on bettering themselves, and watching DirecTV (ok, more likely Dish) all day. There are bigger atrocities to worry about than someone getting a free ride on a tv bill and making judgments about their character.

 

[TDK1044]

Sure. But this is a DirecTV Forum. Here we deal with issues created in threads related to DirecTV, not US politics and world events. I'm not even sure that the OP is doing anything other than watching people react to an issue that isn't even real. No way to know.

 

[trinidex]

The post has always been about ethics or the lack of. If it bothers you that much, don't read it.

And yet I can't stop!

 

[jwgreen68]

And yet I can't stop!

Its like a car wreck, you can't stop yourself from looking! : )

 

[wildbill129]

If you go back to the original post, you will see that she was simply here to troll. JMHO, of course!

Agreed........not worth the keyboard strokes to reply....

 

[Jimbo]

OK guy, while you all keep replying, the OP hasn't been back on the site since the 16th, obviously laughing all the way.

 

[Mr Tony]

thread has obviously run its course

closed