# HR10-250 Listed As Lease - Court Resolution Ideas



## funinthesun (Jan 20, 2008)

DirecTV is sticking fast to a HR10-250 unit I bought from someone saying that it is a lease. They say they wont even check the history of it and just the fact that it is listed they say that I can not activate it.

What bullcrapoloa is this. They dont own the box. Leases were never in play during that box.

Im so freaking sick of D* bullcrap and their ignorant and uncaring customer service that I would love to take them to court over this box and see what the judge has to say about it.

I would just love to see theme waste their time and money with an attorney to show up and prove they own it and have the right to call it a lease.

I talked to over 5 people and they all robotically say its a leased box and they can not look at the previous owners info without their permission. How in the frick is that going happen? Its a bogus comment. They CAN and do all the time look into the prior history.

Its like one bad lazy lie after another. 2 of them actually lookd into it and the stupid D* reps even said they listed it as leased just because they upgraded the people to the HR21 and now the HR10-250 box becomes a leased box. That is wrong. They cant just posses it without actually owning it prior.

How can I get this corrected. Any help would be appreciated, even ideas about how to sue them in small claims court.


----------



## coachO (Nov 26, 2004)

I do recall that they leased them after Feb 28, 2006. I bought my second one just before that date to avoid having a new one listed as leased. You may be able to search and find all that discussion.


----------



## Da Goon (Oct 22, 2006)

funinthesun said:


> Any help would be appreciated, even ideas about how to sue them in small claims court.


You can't. Read your customer agreement @ directv.com/agreements. Call and ask for the access card team. Ask to speak to a supervisor and be as polite as you can. They'll fix it if they can find it on another account.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

This is a ridiculously trivial matter to threaten a lawsuit over. They go for $50 on ebay. Just buy another one. Before buying any used box, call DirecTV with the RID # of that box and check it's eligibility for service. Leased boxes, and owned boxes from accounts carrying a balance will almost always cause problems. If you do not call and check before you buy the box, you are gambling. By not checking, you gambled and lost.

If you want to proceed to sue over this issue, you will need proof the box is owned. If you can prove you own the box, then you must prove that it is illegal for DirecTV to deny service to it. If they want to set criteria by which they determine which units are eligibile for service, and this unit does not meet that criteria...where exactly has a law been broken?


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

funinthesun said:


> I would just love to see theme waste their time and money with an attorney to show up and prove they own it and have the right to call it a lease.


Why would they need to do that. *YOU* are the one that has to prove that the boxes are owned. DirecTV doesn't have to do anything.

Having said that, all boxes activated since 2006 have been leased, even HR10s. So it very well indeed may be a leased box that was then replaced in an upgrade. Normally DirecTV would have you send back the box that got upgraded but they don't want the HR10's back so they let people keep them if they want to still use them.

Besides, why do you care if it's leased or owned? They are basically worthless on the open market, about $50 if that as pointed out.

Good luck with all that, seems like a whole lot of frustration you're giving yourself for nothing basically, the cost of 3 large supreme Pizza's. 

But if you want to fight it I believe it was mentioned above to talk to the access card department, they are the only ones that can switch it to owned. And that's only if their computers indicate it was indeed owned or someone just wants to get you off the phone and they don't care.


----------



## incog-neato (Sep 18, 2007)

I've heard this "rumor" (have no verification) that what they are starting to do now to avoid "abuse" of their "protection plan" and upgrade replacements since they are NOT taking back the HR10's is to mark them as leased once they are used as a PP replacement so they can't be resold and AGAIN be used for replacements under the protection plan.

Scenario:
You own an HR10. It "dies" and hey replace it with an HR20 at no cost under the protection plan.
They tell you to dispose of it yourself because they have no use for it.
You sell it to someone for $5 for parts or give it to a friend.
That person activates it under their protection plan, waits the required 30 days, then calls in stating it has died and they send an HR20 replacement for the same "dead" receiver.

I have seen people on the boards actually stating they have done this or asking if "they could get away with doing it." Since the OP "bought it from someone" there is the distinct possibility that that "someone" had got an HR20 for it because it allegedly went bad. The new buyer (hopefully) didn't know what it's previous history was and now got screwed. 

Bottom line is, before buying a used HR10 is to call DTV with the RID number and see if can be activated.


----------



## incog-neato (Sep 18, 2007)

"All boxes" is not true. D* did go to a lease program on 3/1/06 but only if the box was recieved NEW after March 1 2006 from D* or a retial store were they leased. If it was originally owned and changed hands it was still owned. If it was owned and replaced under the protection plan it the replacement remained owned. Also, if the customer was one of hundreds of thousands of D* mdu property customers, even to this day, the customers OWNS all their advanced equipment (and only has a 1 year contract, not 2 years). Any advanced receiver sold to a multi-dwelling customer who is serviced by a D* contracted system operator owns all their advanced equipment, even today. So there were and still are lots of exceptions to the lease program.



shibby191 said:


> Having said that, all boxes activated since 2006 have been leased, even HR10


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

funinthesun said:


> I would just love to see theme waste their time and money with an attorney to show up and prove they own it and have the right to call it a lease.


You'd only be wasting your own time.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Yep, as much as I dislike D*.... the OP does not have a case.... and would be wasting their time. It does seem funny that you're going to give them money by way of monthly fees and continued service and they're not willing to take it.

The only way to send them a message is to cancel.... and that I assume... is the one thing that the OP would not be willing to do.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

incog-neato said:


> If it was originally owned and changed hands it was still owned. .


Supposed to be. Doesn't always work that way. I have 3 Series2 Tivos listed as "leased" on my bill. Series2's were out of production almost 2 years before all this leasing nonsense started. I bought them used and activated them. On the last activation, I specifically explained it was to be activated as an owned receiver. 
Some day, when I'm in the mood to argue, on the phone, and be on hold for long periods of time, I'm going to call them about correcting that.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

magnus said:


> Yep, as much as I dislike D*.... the OP does not have a case.... and would be wasting their time. It does seem funny that you're going to give them money by way of monthly fees and continued service and they're not willing to take it.
> 
> The only way to send them a message is to cancel.... and that I assume... is the one thing that the OP would not be willing to do.


Well, DirecTV is certainly willing to take his money in monthly fees. The OP problem is that he wants it listed as owned instead of leased. Either way DirecTV still gets their 5 bucks a month, owned or leased it's the same. So I don't think this is a case of DirecTV not wanting to take his money.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

True.... I guess the ball is in his court... if the OP wants to give D* money for a box that they feel should be owned.



shibby191 said:


> Well, DirecTV is certainly willing to take his money in monthly fees. The OP problem is that he wants it listed as owned instead of leased. Either way DirecTV still gets their 5 bucks a month, owned or leased it's the same. So I don't think this is a case of DirecTV not wanting to take his money.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

Really, the only difference is that when you're done you can't sell the box and must instead send it back to D*. Since my basement is filled with old receivers that I never got around to putting up on Ebay the whole lease/own thing didn't bother me at all. I still have an 8 year old E* Dishplayer so procrastination is not a new thing for me.


----------



## moonman (Jul 21, 2004)

http://www.tvpredictions.com/dlawsuit022408.htm
Lawsuit Charges DIRECTV With Receiver Rip-Off
Class action lawsuit says consumers are not told they must return their 'paid-for' set-tops upon cancellation. 
By Swanni


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

That's it in a nutshell.... anyone that has gone to BB and seen the Directv receivers displayed there... would know that they do not prominently display the facts of this to the consumer.

To me it's crazy to pay $199 for a box that you have to give back. Directv is very deceptive when it comes to this kind of thing. And ofcourse there is the practice of telling consumers that it won't increase the commitment to Directv.... when in reality it does.



moonman said:


> http://www.tvpredictions.com/dlawsuit022408.htm
> Lawsuit Charges DIRECTV With Receiver Rip-Off
> Class action lawsuit says consumers are not told they must return their 'paid-for' set-tops upon cancellation.
> By Swanni


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

moonman said:


> http://www.tvpredictions.com/dlawsuit022408.htm


Excellent. It's about time someone did something about this bogus leasing program. I have no problem with them leasing receivers, if they would do it in a more fair manner, for the following reasons:

With leased equipment, instead of subsidized, owned equipment, there is no longer a logical reason for the long term service agreements, and the exorbitant early termination fees that accompany them. DirecTV should have a right to require a service committment long enough to recoup their installation costs. Six months, maybe twelve, at the most. The 24 month thing they do now is ridiculous.

The "lease upgrade" fees now charged for a box are the same as the purchased price used to be for the subsidized units. DTV's having the proverbial "cake and eating it too" by requiring customers to pay for the box, while DTV retains ownership.

Furthermore, if these boxes lease $4.99 a month, why are those of us with owned boxes paying $4.99 a month? Am I the only one who thinks that is inconsistent? They're effectively making those of us with owned boxes pay a lease on them. If they are to be fair, should not owned boxes be mirrored for free, or at least at a price less than a leased unit?


----------



## Mark Lopez (Jan 1, 2000)

magnus said:


> That's it in a nutshell.... anyone that has gone to BB and seen the Directv receivers displayed there... would know that they do not prominently display the facts of this to the consumer.
> 
> To me it's crazy to pay $199 for a box that you have to give back. Directv is very deceptive when it comes to this kind of thing.


 How much more prominent do you need it to be than the big ass sticker right on the top of the box? Deceptive?


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

magnus said:


> To me it's crazy to pay $199 for a box that you have to give back. Directv is very deceptive when it comes to this kind of thing. And ofcourse there is the practice of telling consumers that it won't increase the commitment to Directv.... when in reality it does.


$199 up front with no monthly fee then the 4.99 mirror fee you pay anyway. Or pay cable $15+ a month forever. Take your pick.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

CrashHD said:


> Excellent. It's about time someone did something about this bogus leasing program. I have no problem with them leasing receivers, if they would do it in a more fair manner, for the following reasons:
> 
> With leased equipment, instead of subsidized, owned equipment, there is no longer a logical reason for the long term service agreements, and the exorbitant early termination fees that accompany them. DirecTV should have a right to require a service committment long enough to recoup their installation costs. Six months, maybe twelve, at the most. The 24 month thing they do now is ridiculous.


Better sue Dish too then, they do the same thing.



> Furthermore, if these boxes lease $4.99 a month, why are those of us with owned boxes paying $4.99 a month? Am I the only one who thinks that is inconsistent? They're effectively making those of us with owned boxes pay a lease on them. If they are to be fair, should not owned boxes be mirrored for free, or at least at a price less than a leased unit?


Ummm, it's a programming mirror fee. The same one that has been there for 14 years. 
Owned it's called "additional receiver fee".
Leased it's called "lease fee" (probably poor choice of words.

In either case you pay the same.

Like I said just above: Pay the lease fee up front to DirecTV and no monthly fees beyond the 4.99 you pay anyway. Or go with cable and pay $15+ a month forever (and sometimes an up front fee as well, Charter charges $40 up front and requires a 12 month commitment).


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

magnus said:


> That's it in a nutshell.... anyone that has gone to BB and seen the Directv receivers displayed there... would know that they do not prominently display the facts of this to the consumer.
> 
> To me it's crazy to pay $199 for a box that you have to give back. Directv is very deceptive when it comes to this kind of thing. And ofcourse there is the practice of telling consumers that it won't increase the commitment to Directv.... when in reality it does.


Personally I would rather pay DirecTV $199 for a box that I have to return than to pay $700 to own a box that is worthless without DirecTV anyway.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

shibby191 said:


> Better sue Dish too then, they do the same thing.


No, they don't. Dish leases their equipment for free. If they want to provide it for their customer at no charge, it's perfectly reasonable for them to take it back when service is ended.



shibby191 said:


> Ummm, it's a programming mirror fee. The same one that has been there for 14 years.
> Owned it's called "additional receiver fee".
> Leased it's called "lease fee" (probably poor choice of words.
> In either case you pay the same.


You got my point, and yet you missed it. The cost is the same it's been for years. In the past, you bought the unit for a reasonable, yet discounted fee, and paid $4.99/month to mirror. Now, you pay the same amount in both upfront and monthly fees, in a transaction made to look like a sale, but is actually a lease. The only thing that effectively changed are that DTV keeps the boxes at the end. If they want to lease their hardware, that's just fine, but they should be more reasonable about it. Isn't the upfront cost to "lease" an HR20 about $199 right now, assuming you don't get offered a deal? For that price, you ought to own it outright.



Mark Lopez said:


> How much more prominent do you need it to be than the big ass sticker right on the top of the box? Deceptive?


No. That is not in the least bit deceptive. When did they start doing that? The last time I looked at new hardware, I had to ask more than one CSR to get a definitive answer as to whether the unit was sale or lease. There was no such sticker on the box, although that was a good while ago.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Pay $299 up front (and $199 Lifetime) and never pay again. I like that a lot better.



shibby191 said:


> $199 up front with no monthly fee then the 4.99 mirror fee you pay anyway. Or pay cable $15+ a month forever. Take your pick.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Never once... have I seen that. However, maybe they started doing this after many complaints about their practices. And.... anyone that sees that message and is still willing to pay $199 for it.... well ya gotta wonder about that.



Mark Lopez said:


> How much more prominent do you need it to be than the big ass sticker right on the top of the box? Deceptive?


----------



## Mark Lopez (Jan 1, 2000)

magnus said:


> Never once... have I seen that. However, maybe they started doing this after many complaints about their practices. And.... anyone that sees that message and is still willing to pay $199 for it.... well ya gotta wonder about that.


Some people wouldn't see things no matter how big the notice is . 

And wonder about what?  I paid a grand each for 2 HR10s when they first came out. The benefit to 'owning' them is they are now worth about $50 each. Had they had a $199 lease back then, I would have been all over it and saved $1600 (well $1500 if you subtract the $100 I could get for them now).

Sorry, but anyone whining about $199 for a HD DVR (leased or not) is something you really have to wonder about.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Well, *some people* do not have all of your disposable income. It's nice that you can drop 1k on a DVR and not blink an eye (I would not have even come close to that). It's also nice that you think $199 for an item you don't own is worth it but some people just do not see the value in it. 




Mark Lopez said:


> Some people wouldn't see things no matter how big the notice is .
> 
> And wonder about what?  I paid a grand each for 2 HR10s when they first came out. The benefit to 'owning' them is they are now worth about $50 each. Had they had a $199 lease back then, I would have been all over it and saved $1600 (well $1500 if you subtract the $100 I could get for them now).
> 
> Sorry, but anyone whining about $199 for a HD DVR (leased or not) is something you really have to wonder about.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

CrashHD said:


> No, they don't. Dish leases their equipment for free. If they want to provide it for their customer at no charge, it's perfectly reasonable for them to take it back when service is ended.


Hmmmm, I wonder what all those Dish subs complain about having to pay for an HD DVR and lease it. 



> Isn't the upfront cost to "lease" an HR20 about $199 right now, assuming you don't get offered a deal? For that price, you ought to own it outright.


Of course the hardware alone costs just north of $400 now. They hope to get that under $300 by years end I guess they should just eat the $200 (and $100 for the dish and $100 for the multiswitch and a couple hundred for the install) and get nothing back in return? But hey, you know their business better then they do. Don't like it then go get ripped off by cable.


----------



## Mark Lopez (Jan 1, 2000)

magnus said:


> Well, *some people* do not have all of your disposable income. It's nice that you can drop 1k on a DVR and not blink an eye (I would not have even come close to that). It's also nice that you think $199 for an item you don't own is worth it but some people just do not see the value in it.


Even if you paid a lot less than that, it still is only worth $50 today, so I still don't see the big deal is over the lease. And if the unit dies, they will replace it. How many people had to go out and buy new hard drive for their Tivos when it failed?


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I do not see the point.... you overpaid.... it's just what you decided to do. You decided to try and beat the Jones' and in the end you feel like you made a mistake (that's called buyers remorse).



Mark Lopez said:


> Even if you paid a lot less than that, it still is only worth $50 today, so I still don't see the big deal is over the lease.


I do not know. How many?? I fail to see the point in this comment either. The hard drive might have gone out in a few years but that's what DVRs do. A new hard drive does not cost much and can easily be replaced.

For the hassle of sending a unit back to Directv or Tivo... I would rather replace the drive myself anyway.



> And if the unit dies, they will replace it. How many people had to go out and buy new hard drive for their Tivos when it failed?


----------



## Mark Lopez (Jan 1, 2000)

magnus said:


> I do not see the point.... you overpaid.... it's just what you decided to do. You decided to try and beat the Jones' and in the end you feel like you made a mistake (that's called buyers remorse).


 Buyers remorse? WTF are you talking about?

In case you missed the point, it's that it doesn't matter if the unit is purchased or leased if it is worth nothing in a few years.



magnus said:


> I do not know. How many?? I fail to see the point in this comment either. The hard drive might have gone out in a few years but that's what DVRs do. A new hard drive does not cost much and can easily be replaced.


The point is, with a leased unit, they will replace it no matter how many times it dies.



magnus said:


> For the hassle of sending a unit back to Directv or Tivo... I would rather replace the drive myself anyway.


Hassle? They send you a replacement and a return tag. How much hassle is that? 

But whatever, if you feel $199 for a lease is some sort of rip off, by all means take your business elsewhere. In the mean time, I have lots of HD to go watch on my paid leased DVR.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

magnus said:


> That's it in a nutshell.... anyone that has gone to BB and seen the Directv receivers displayed there... would know that they do not prominently display the facts of this to the consumer.


Maybe at your BB... but the stores in my area... the very prodominant DirecTV display's, make it very clear that they are leases. And the ones in Home Depot, have it clearly stated that the equipment prices shown, are leases and require programming.

Also DirecTV CSRs are to inform customers at the time of activation (which you can't do at BEST BUY), about the lease aspects of the box as well.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

magnus said:


> Well, *some people* do not have all of your disposable income. It's nice that you can drop 1k on a DVR and not blink an eye (I would not have even come close to that). It's also nice that you think $199 for an item you don't own is worth it but some people just do not see the value in it.


IMHO...

If money is that tight for those inviduals... SAT TV Service is not the correct option for them. As the service bills are on average $80... and I am sure that HDTV that they are connecting it to are not "cheap" either.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Ok, you win.... it's always better to lease. 



Mark Lopez said:


>


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I'm sure they always do that... along with telling them that the commitment is going to be 2 years.



ebonovic said:


> Also DirecTV CSRs are to inform customers at the time of activation (which you can't do at BEST BUY), about the lease aspects of the box as well.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I think there is more to it than that. I would not say that I'm cheap but it does not make sense to me to drop 1k just to be the first on the block with HD. You pay a premium to be first and that's ok but it's not for me.

Also, the $80 bills were ok for a while but at some point you really gotta ask yourself is it really worth it to pay that for a handful of shows that you can't see over the air. After really taking a look at what I was watching... it did not make sense to continue with D*.



ebonovic said:


> IMHO...
> 
> If money is that tight for those inviduals... SAT TV Service is not the correct option for them. As the service bills are on average $80... and I am sure that HDTV that they are connecting it to are not "cheap" either.


----------



## Mark Lopez (Jan 1, 2000)

magnus said:


> I think there is more to it than that. I would not say that I'm cheap but it does not make sense to me to drop 1k just to be the first on the block with HD. You pay a premium to be first and that's ok but it's not for me.


And no one is asking you to. All they are asking is $199. 



magnus said:


> ....but at some point you really gotta ask yourself is it really worth it to pay that for a handful of shows that you can't see over the air.


Don't know about for you, but it is a lot more than a handful here. Of course I watch more substantial things than American Idol.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Yep, I can't stand that POS program. I really can't stand reality programming at all. I wish everyone would stop watching that crap.



Mark Lopez said:


> Don't know about for you, but it is a lot more than a handful here. Of course I watch more substantial things than American Idol.


----------



## incog-neato (Sep 18, 2007)

For probably the first time I have to agree with Mr. Lopez.


Mark Lopez said:


> And wonder about what?  I paid a grand each for 2 HR10s when they first came out. The benefit to 'owning' them is they are now worth about $50 each.


----------



## incog-neato (Sep 18, 2007)

That label just recently started appearing around here (BB, Costco & CC). They used to have shelf stickers with the price tag stating (in fine print) it was a lease. Nothing was ever on the box. Obviously they are now trying to make it more clear.


ebonovic said:


> Maybe at your BB... but the stores in my area... the very prodominant DirecTV display's, make it very clear that they are leases. And the ones in Home Depot, have it clearly stated that the equipment prices shown, are leases and require programming.
> 
> Also DirecTV CSRs are to inform customers at the time of activation (which you can't do at BEST BUY), about the lease aspects of the box as well.


----------



## sjberra (May 16, 2005)

magnus said:


> That's it in a nutshell.... anyone that has gone to BB and seen the Directv receivers displayed there... would know that they do not prominently display the facts of this to the consumer.
> 
> To me it's crazy to pay $199 for a box that you have to give back. Directv is very deceptive when it comes to this kind of thing. And ofcourse there is the practice of telling consumers that it won't increase the commitment to Directv.... when in reality it does.


Maybe in your area, but all the locations that handle Directv equipment here have the sign up, the sales weasel specificly tells you and the make you sign a paper that states you understand it is leased. this is nothing new, did it on the sd unit I had installed a few years back.

As far as the up front cost on the lease - just signed a new lease on a new ford for my wife, dang if they did not charge me a up front cost for the lease. So that add in is not unique to Directv.


----------



## bpratt (Nov 20, 2004)

Have you seen this class action suit against D*?
http://www.tvpredictions.com/dlawsuit022408.htm


----------



## Mark Lopez (Jan 1, 2000)

bpratt said:


> Have you seen this class action suit against D*?
> http://www.tvpredictions.com/dlawsuit022408.htm


And after years in court, the customers will get a $1.99 credit and the lawyers will get the bulk of the settlement (if they even win).


----------



## moonman (Jul 21, 2004)

bpratt said:


> Have you seen this class action suit against D*?
> http://www.tvpredictions.com/dlawsuit022408.htm


-------------
Yep.in post # 14 of this thread !!


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

Mark Lopez said:


> And after years in court, the customers will get a $1.99 credit and the lawyers will get the bulk of the settlement (if they even win).


Correct -- Except settlement of the suit is a virtual certainty once it is filed and accepted by the court, but settlement wouldn't necessarily be considered a win for either side. The positive aspect of the lawsuit is that it will force DirecTV to be more upfront about the "lease" model. As you have shown in your pictures of the warning label, they are already making progress in that area. IMO, the real issue of the "lease" model is the habitual incorrect classification of actually owned equipment (older HR10-250s, for example, that are bought and sold on ebay) and the difficulty the consumer must endure to have that status changed. In response to the OP's question about possible remedy, the charge of Criminal Conversion come to mind -- i.e. Where DirecTV wrongfully asserts ownership of property that is not theirs to own. Incorporation has many beneftis to DirecTV, but it also opens up the company to criminal liability in criminal court, since it is treated as a "person" under law. This is the avenue that should be vigorously pursued by victims of the haphazard "lease" labeling practices of DirecTV.

BTW: So I am not wrongfully accused of being a DirecTV basher, I am currently enjoying my HR21 and HR10's. Neverthehless, I believe there have been serious problems with DirecTV's disclosure of the new terms of its lease model (vis a vis the training of its agents, CSR's and salespeople) for which it must be held accountable and brought to justice in a court of law.


----------

