This is exactly why I never do autopay with anyone. In 1995 or so when companies first offered this I was on autopay with AOL. They stole $800 from me claiming I had gone to one of the pay sites (I didn't, I knew what the little dollar sign next to particular sites meant) then had the audacity to tell me it was my fault and go ahead and try to get it back! So I have spent the last 17 years slamming AOL every chance I get. Later around 1997 I had the power company pull the same thing, so I have never used this option again and never will!
So Completely Frustrated
- Thread starter bobsie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 8K
"CAUTION: Contents are HOT!" -- On a cup of coffee.
"For external use only!" -- On a curling iron.
"Do not use while sleeping." -- On an electric razor.
"This respirator does not supply oxygen." -- On a dust mask.
"Harmful if swallowed." -- On a fishing lure.
"CAUTION: Griddle surface may be hot during and after use." -- On a waffle iron.
"Do not use orally." -- On a toilet bowl cleaning brush.
"Do not use for drying pets." -- In the manual for a microwave oven.
"Should not be used for navigation." -- On a globe.
Now, you're being silly. The warnings you quoted are unnecessary, as they are common knowledge, and merely added to prevent lawsuits. There is no comparison to what I'm suggesting.
The wording that I recommend would make something that is not general knowledge, and not entirely clear the way it is written and displayed currently, into an easy-to-understand explanation of how the the payment change works. Considering how many people of seemingly normal intelligence have had problems with the current disclaimer, I'd say it could use an update.
I never saw anything saying they would take a charge nor was I given an opportunity to confirm the charge. All I was given was a request to confirm the new information.
I never saw that. Or if I did, I did not understand what it meant. Since I was on autopay, I assumed the payment would be taken from my new bank account on the due date as stated on my bill.
All I want is a plain English explanation as to why this happened. If it is policy, they sure have not explained it very well in their email responses. If it was a mistake, a simple apology would be helpful. I do not remember the statement everyone says is displayed. I may have seen it but misunderstood it. I usually am very careful when doing anything financial. When a Dish account is on autopay, then the stated billing date is the only date where a transaction should be charged. If they need to verify the account, fine, but you do not take the payment 3 weeks ahead of what the billing date is on the bill.
If it was 3 weeks ahead of the bill date and you weren't behind on the bill there shouldn't have been any charge or,a prorated charge.
A perfectly reasonable assumption.
It sounds like a simple, clear disclaimer like the one I posted would have helped you and others avoid this issue.
Thanks. I guess you always insinuate things about people you do not know? I am a trained journalist. I am a Computer Consultant with over 40 years in the IT business. I run a web hosting company. I program in 6 languages and have written documentation (in plain English) for all my programs. I have worked on a Help Desk in a Fortune 500 company, dealing with over 400 employees and 2 networks. I DO NOT have a lack of reading comprehension.
It is my experience that anytime a company executes a charge to a credit card, they display a summary of the charges and ask you to confirm the order. The only confirmation request I saw was to confirm the change of accounts numbers to the new number. So, instead of the bill being paid from the new account as I anticipated, I ended up paying from the old account, something I did not expect, was not warned of, and did not want to happen, not to mention it was only 2 days after the bill was issued and 3 weeks before the autopay due date.
I understand your frustration, as far as a clear explanation, I believe there have been a few posts on this thread that offer such a plain English explanation. Fish for an apology from a mistake all you can, but I assure you that one will not find your line. It is the policy as a result of system limitations and to an extent account protection, and I am sure that the explanations you received by email where not clearly explained. (In case you are unaware, I refuse to deal with Dish Customer Service as they serve only to raise my blood pressure and make me weep for society. I only deal with DIRT Members on here, they are good at what they do.) My Post #28 provides information that helps to clear it up and frankly information that you should have received when inquiring initially through email. If nothing else, now you know and knowing is half the battle. I think I heard that somewhere before...
Cheers
Actually, there hasn't been any. There have been a few posts offering the current disclaimer. But, it is not a plain English explanation, certainly not the clearest it can be to avoid such misunderstandings.
Taken from my previous post:
I believe it is due to the fact that the Autopay system actually takes a few days (or longer, hard to say really) to setup so by default the system requires a zero balance when any change (or initial setup) takes place. That way there can be absolutely no case of missed payment leading to potential late fee, service interruption, etc.
I don't see this as cryptic, perhaps I am wrong. Of course this is my explanation and not the disclaimer that Dish populates, but the OP was looking for an explanation so I offer this.
Sorry, but I can't see how "Upon submit, your current balance will be charged to the form of payment you select below." could be any clearer? UPON SUBMIT means exactly that. Doesn't mean "UPON DUE DATE."
GaryPen said:
Sorry, but the current disclaimer is a plain English explanation. Could it be worded differently? Sure. But what it states is very straightforward.
I see. Yes. Your explanation is pretty clear. However, the disclaimer is not. It's really the latter that we have been referring to as not clear, and the root of the problem.
Understood. I agree that the way they go about providing the information could use some work.
Yes it could. I even demonstrated how.
Not straightforward enough, it seems. Even you agree it could be worded differently. I assume you mean worded differently to make it more straightforward.
What those who are defending the poorly written disclaimer fail to understand is that simplicity is the key to usability. And, clarity is the key to understanding. Software developers seem to have the same difficulty understanding those basic tenets.
Similar threads
