Update on the previous: In my experience, DISH does not reply to or take action on any regular mail correspondence and without evidence of CMRR, they routinely claim that there is "no record" of contact. CMRR mail is forwarded to the Executive Resolution Department and that's when the antics really begin. I retained the original and only paper copy of a contract declined, and after reading here decided to request a copy from DISH. The contract copy was sent, as promised, by Dish and it contained *four* alterations to the original document. I forwarded a copy of the original agreement and Dish's "updated" [that's exactly what they called it and hand-printed that word on the contract copy sent] copy to the CO AG's office. Now they can explain to the AG why they altered an original document. Records are indeed our friends.
Since contract alterations like this may have been done either by employees of DN in CO, or by their local agent with whom you dealt in your own state, be sure to also file a complaint with your state AG, and local DA. If contract fraud was committed by a local dealer, then other resulting complaints might likely have been reported to those governmental agencies. If they did it once, they probably did it systematically, and in fact that is what you can read between the lines of the multi-state settlement, and other complaints available on-line. You are not special, just better informed.
Updating the update: The CO AG office monitors egregious business practices for pattern and complaints about specific businesses are forwarded to the BBB. Each office, the CO AG and the BBB, responded in a very timely manner and the BBB contact *definitely* got the attention of DN. Due to past experience, the DN rep who telephoned was told that any communication needed to be in writing - on the record. Outcome, still pending but the BBB was definitely a positive approach.
Too many consumers assume that they can solve these problems on their own, but that assumes both good will and competence on the part of the party they are dealing with. If there is already a problem, and it hasn't been solved by the first call, that is your clue that one or both are already lacking. If one call does not resolve a problem, that failure of the company's system is likely to be representative of their response. Consumers also assume that BBB has no teeth, or that state AGs are unlikely to be bothered by their complaint. Although both might be true, if that leads to consumers NOT filing complaints, then the picture both BBB and state AGs have is that the occasional complaint that actually gets filed does not appear to be significant. In reality, it is more likely the tip of the iceberg. By contrast, the standard operating procedure for businesses reporting on consumers is to assume they are right, and if they think a consumer is late, or in default on any agreement, they report negatively. The other businesses who use consumer reports then assume all negative reported information is accurate, regardless of the source or the reliability of that source, to the consumer's detriment. There is no penalty to the sloppy, negligent, or predatory business who misreports negative consumer information, and the CRAs take no responsibility for policing the accuracy of their reporting clients. Knowing this, how should a consumer more proactively handle any problem he has in resolving a billing or credit reporting complaint? Do what the businesses do: Follow up all complaints in writing, so you have independent records to substantiate the issue and your complaints, then file complaints with BBB and regulatory agencies to build a publicly visible record of the offense. If it can't be resolved by one call, file complaints with both BBB and state AG, as a matter of course. Regardless of whether you piss off some CSR, what you really want to do is create a headache for his or her boss, or boss's boss. You will not get better or faster resolution by NOT filing complaints, and you can't assume additional phone calls will resolve what one phone call did not. Businesses that value their reputations will address and fix their own mistakes, not just on a case by case basis, but by improving their billing and complaint resolution systems. Those that don't, deserve the reputations they get, to serve as a warning to potential future customers, as well as to their competitors. They shouldn't expect to exploit the inherent cost inefficiencies of our legal system in correcting credit reporting errors with impunity. Just as the credit reporting system assumes that negative consumer reports are statistically representative of the responsibility and reliability of consumers, volumes of consumer complaints, whether to BBB or state AGs, are statistically representative of the behavior of businesses. When the numbers are large, they don't lie.
