Complaint Review: Consolidated Smart Systems - Gardena California

A hardcopy of the following affidavit has been separately submitted to the Federal Communications Commission with my notarized signature as part of a petition alleging that a landlord violated my 47 C.F.R., Chapter I, Part 1, Subpart S, Section 1.4000 rights (this posting does not reflect any developments since the affidavit was originally submitted) [To verify that this has been submitted to the FCC and to read the redacted personal informaton, go to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519124137 and scroll down to pages 29-37. To see comments of other customers, go to the same link and read pages 22-28]:

I rented an apartment in the building at [address redacted because www.ripoffreport.com does not want personal information posted] and a

parking space at the same address and signed an agreement to obey the house rules,

[swimming] pool rules, etc. Subsequently, on several days, I arrived, after 7 p.m., to find, on the

door to the apartment, notes from a company identifying itself as Consolidated Smart Systems

and indicating that cable television service and cable Internet service in the building would be

terminated, that the company would offer television service but not Internet service, and that one

or more representatives of the company would be in the building on the day on which the note

was left, but only until 7 p.m. I telephoned the number that was provided in the notes. While I

was on hold, I heard a recording in which the company compared its service, or the cost of its

service, favorably to that of cable television, but did not give specific dollar amounts. When I did

speak with a human representative, I requested that this telephone representative tell me the cost

of the service, but the representative did not do so.

I even attempted to find the cost of service on

the companys website, but was not successful at the time. I also entered the company's name in

an Internet search engine, clicked on some or all of the links found, and read some or all of the

text that appeared on the computer monitor when I clicked on those links. (Because it might be

considered hearsay, I omit the text that I read.) Reading what I read on the Internet was one of

several causes of my desire not to be a customer of Consolidated.

At some point prior to the start of service from Consolidated, another tenant told me of his

or her dissatisfaction at losing cable Internet service.

Subsequent to my unsuccessful attempts to obtain information by telephone, I met with

Art, a representative of the company, on a Saturday (I believe the date to have been April 29,

2006). He originally said that if I wanted to record programming, I could obtain TiVo and a

combination receiver-DVR recorder (which I later learned would have entailed a two-year service

agreement), at a higher total cost to myself than service without this type of receiver. However, I

did not wish to pay to record on this equipment and wanted to continue to record on a standard

VHS VCR that I already owned. To simultaneously do this and watch another channel with the

equipment that he said was available, I would have needed to pay for two receivers and either a

mirroring charge or some other charge. I was not offered the option of a dual-tuner receiver, at

any price, and I was not yet aware that they existed. (Instead, the position that I took at the time

was essentially that I should not have to pay for two receivers to be able to do what I had been

able to do with the cable television utility company's service without needing any

receivers.) Eventually, he agreed that Consolidated would provide a splitter (a promise that was

never kept). My understanding of his offer was that I would only be able to receive a few

channels on whichever equipment (the TV or the VCR) was connected to the splitter and not the

receiver, and would be able to receive all other channels on only one piece of equipment (the TV

or the VCR, but not both at the same time).

When I considered both the amount that he indicated that I would be required to pay

DIRECTV in order to receive service, and the amount that he indicated that I would also be

required to pay Consolidated in order to receive service, it became clear to me that my total

monthly cost would be substantially higher than my monthly cost for cable television service had

been. I believed that the company had previously said that would not be the case, and felt that

the prior statement had been dishonest. When I mentioned the prior statement, he asked what I

was paying the cable television company and accurately (but, in my opinion, irrelevantly), noted

that the figure I gave was similar to the amount that I would be required to pay DIRECTV, but did

not include the amount that I would be required to pay Consolidated in the comparison. This

representative also said that when comparing what was available from two companies, either that

I must or that I have to consider the service, and not just the cost. (He did not restrict this

statement to comparisons to cable television, and, in particular, did not exclude comparisons to

30

an individual antenna from a competing service provider from the prohibition against comparisons

based solely on cost.) I responded with a negative comment regarding the service provided by

him and/or the telephone representative. He then said that he was using the word service to

mean the channels that were available, and not to mean customer service. I expressed lack of

desire for the channels not included in the less expensive service to which I desired to make a

comparison. I also compared requiring me to pay more because I would receive channels that I

was not requesting to requiring a male person desiring television service to obtain both television

service and tampons, and to pay more than television service without tampons would otherwise

cost, even though tampons are not useful to a male person. The apartment manager seemed to

find this amusing, but the representative did not rescind the requirement to consider the additional

channels in any comparison that I might make to any other service.

The representativee also told me that, even if I intended to move from the property in less

than a year (as I was later told I must do), I should still enter into a one-year service agreement or

contract and that I would still be able to cancel before the expiration of the contract or the service

agreement. However, I did not believe him and found his excessive efforts to push me to accept

a one-year contract or agreement highly suspicious. My reluctance to agree to a year of

payments was partly because he refused to provide a copy of the terms with which I would have

to comply for that year. When I requested to see all terms of this arrangement, he told me that he

could show me only the terms of Consolidated, and that Consolidated did not have a copy of the

terms of DIRECTV to which I would also have to agree to obtain service. He said that DIRECTV

had these terms, that he had no copies, and that I would obtain one later, when a receiver was

installed in my apartment and it was time to call DIRECTV to activate it. (However, I later learned

that Consolidated did have copies of DIRECTVs terms, when the person from Consolidated who

installed a receiver brought a copy of DIRECTVs terms and told me to sign something, even

though my requests to review the terms in advance had been denied.) At this meeting, the

representative also said that tenants would be provided with receivers in the order in which they

signed orders for service (with the tenants credit card numbers), and that, if I waited to sign such

an order, I would have no service (from either the satellite system or the local cable company)

from when the cable television companys service was made unavailable until when a receiver

was eventually installed in my apartment (after the apartments of tenants who signed the

agreement with Consolidated without knowing the terms of the agreement with

DIRECTV). However, I did not wish to agree to a year of payments before I knew all the

terms. This was partly because, in spite of his assurances to the contrary, I was concerned that,

if I moved to a location where the service was not available, I might have to continue to pay for

the remainder of the one-year term, even though I would not be receiving service.

The representative of Consolidated did eventually tell me orally that an inexpensive

option (which I had not been offered when he first told me my options) existed, was provided on a

month-to-month basis (without any longer-term contract), would provide me with the small

number of channels, would not require any receivers, would provide me with the ability to receive

multiple channels simultaneously, and would cost less than $12 per month, but would not provide

me with all the channels that I desired; however, he did not put any of this information in writing

and did not mention it earlier when he was trying to persuade me to accept a more expensive

package or when he was suggesting that I obtain a second receiver (at further additional

cost). He also eventually told orally me that, regardless of which option I elected, I would be able

to receive the channels that were included in the inexpensive option as soon as service began in

the building, even if a receiver was not yet installed in my apartment; however, he did not put this

information in writing and did not mention it earlier, when he was trying to persuade me that I

should sign up immediately to avoid a period of no service while waiting for a receiver.

For several reasons, including (but not necessarily limited to) the hearsay I had

previously read on the Internet, a belief that this representative had not been honest with me

concerning the availability and prices of the services he was promoting, the increase in total cost

(including service and receiver) that I anticipated, personal disapproval of his practice of

withholding information (which I considered unethical and dishonest), personal disapproval of his

company's arrangement with my landlord (which I considered to be an unreasonable

anticompetitive restraint of trade between the cable television company and myself and

suspected might violate antitrust laws), Consolidateds insistence that even those tenants who

31

would not be paying by credit card still provide a credit card number, and Consolidateds

implausible assurance that these credit cards would not be billed (which I have since been

informed was untrue), I decided that, although I did wish to continue to receive television service,

I wanted to do so from a company other than the company that he represented. When I asked if I

could obtain an individual antenna from another company, he said that the Consolidated had an

"exclusive contract" (I now assume this to be the "lease" later mentioned by Mr. [Landlords last

name was included here in paper filing but was removed from Internet filing]) to provide television

services in the building. However, I assumed that this applied only to satellite and cable service,

and was not aware that it also applied to receipt of analog signals directly from a local

broadcaster. Therefore, I purchased an expensive individual analog antenna system (consisting

of a "rabbit ears" type antenna and signal-amplifying [boosting] electronics) and attempted to use

it, but did not receive an acceptable reception on most channels.

Eventually, Mr. [Landlords last name was included here in paper filing but was removed

from Internet filing] and the apartment manager came to my apartment and delivered a written

statement (petitioners exhibit E) that the landlord would pay any cancellation charges and that

Consolidated had agreed to provide the ability to simultaneously receive 15 local channels on

an unlimited number of televisions, for an amount that was less than $12 per month, to those who

desired only some service. During this meeting, Mr. [Landlords last name was included here in

paper filing but was removed from Internet filing] also told me orally that he was aware that other

tenants (not only myself) had found Consolidateds representative dishonest or untrustworthy,

that he regretted signing a contract with Consolidated, that he was bound by the contract to allow

them to proceed with the planned discontinuation of service from the local cable television utility

company, and that if Consolidated performed in the manner that I (correctly) expected, then he

would then break his contract with them, at some future time, but not until after using

Consolidated had already been the only way to obtain service. Also during this meeting, Mr.

[Landlords last name was included here in paper filing but was removed from Internet filing]

asked what I was paying the cable television company and noted that the figure I gave was

similar to the amount that I would be required to pay DIRECTV, but did not include the amount

that I would be required to pay Consolidated in the comparison.

I eventually, and reluctantly, agreed to receive the service of this company, because I

was not permitted to obtain service in the building without using this company. I even elected an

option that required a receiver and was considerably more expensive than the option that did not,

because agreeing to a receiver was the only way to receive a service option that included the

channels that I desired (although this option also included many channels that I did not

desire). However, I was careful to note on the agreement that if the company failed to honor the

promise of the splitter, then I was not agreeing to any service that required a receiver, and that I

was in no event agreeing to pay for any service that I was not free to cancel at any time.

In defiance of my express written instructions, the company subsequently installed a

receiver without a splitter. The installer requested that I sign something. I refused on the ground

that he had not installed a splitter. Next, I discovered that, contrary to the representatives

assurances that some channels would be available before the receiver was installed and

activated, I could not receive any channels. Since I was not being provided with what had

originally been agreed (a splitter and the ability to receive some channels before the receiver was

activated), I requested to be provided with the less expensive service that did not require a

receiver and would allow simultaneous receiving of all 15 local channels. Consolidated did not

provide this service, but did orally agree to provide DIRECTV service through a central antenna

for less than $12 per month, and to pay DIRECTVs bills themselves, so I did not immediately

attempt to enforce the original agreement, even though I still would not receive the ability to

access more than one channel simultaneously or to receive any service prior to receiver

activation. The oral agreement did not include any sunset provision and I did not agree to begin

paying DIRECTVs bills at any future time. One of their representatives or employees called

DIRECTV to activate the receiver or service; I did not activate it myself. Contrary to the earlier

statement by a representative or employee of Consolidated, I was not able to receive any

channels (even the 15 local channels) until the receiver was activated, which did not occur until

the following day. (According to information that I later received from DIRECTV, the activation

occurred on May 19, 2006; I believe the date of installation was May 18, 2006.)

32

I then received a letter or statement in the mail from DIRECTV falsely stating that I had

agreed to pay for satellite television services for at least one year, at a rate more than twice that

which Consolidated had told me that I would be charged. When I called to dispute this and stated

I had never agreed to pay for a full year, or to pay the price stated, the DIRECTV telephone

representative stated that the person who activated the service to the receiver in my apartment

had put the service in my name and had, by activating the service, created a binding agreement

that I would pay for the service for one year. I informed DIRECTV, for the first of several times,

that I had not activated the service to the receiver and that Consolidated had done so. When I

requested that DIRECTV send a statement retracting the false statement that I had agreed to pay

for one year, DIRECTV told me to look for this information on the Internet, but I requested that a

paper copy be sent instead. DIRECTV finally agreed to send one, but I have never received it,

even though the promise to send it was made during the spring of 2006. I called again, and was

told that, contrary to what I had been previously told, DIRECTV could not send a paper statement

that I had not agreed to pay for one year (even though it had sent a false paper statement that I

had so agreed). Eventually, I stopped receiving bills from DIRECTV and started receiving and

paying bills from Consolidated. Someone claiming to be from Consolidated left a message on my

answering machine saying that I would not be receiving any more bills (from DIRECTV), which I

thought meant that Consolidated would be paying all the future bills, per the oral agreement, but I

now realize was true only in the more literal sense that the bills would not be sent to my address,

not in the sense of whether I would be required to pay them.

Another tenant (not the same one as mentioned earlier) told me that he or she had also

been billed more than he or she had been told, that he or she was being required to pay a total of

two bills per month (I believe that one was from Consolidated and one was from DIRECTV), and

that he or she had not been told that he or she would be required to pay more than one bill per

month. I then checked the document that is now my exhibit "H", and found that, if his or her

statements to me that he or she had two receivers and did not have them connected to a

telephone line were true, then he or she should have been charged more than the amount that he

or she said that he or she was told that he or she would be charged. However, I believed his or

her allegation that he or she was orally promised a lower price than exhibit H indicates and

concluded that this persons statement confirmed my earlier belief that Consolidated was

dishonest and untrustworthy. (Because Herbert [Landlords last name was included here in paper

filing but was removed from Internet filing], our landlord, has prohibited me from further contacting

any tenant on this topic [Petitioner's exhibit "A"], I did not request an affidavit from this tenant,

which I otherwise would have done. Should hearsay rules preclude consideration of this

conversation for its probative value, I ask that it still be considered for the narrow purpose of

establishing my motivation for communicating with the other tenants, which Mr. [Landlords last

name was included here in paper filing but was removed from Internet filing] has put in issue in

the letter now designated as my exhibit "A", and for the purpose of determining whether I have

reasonable cause to seek another provider, rather than risk being overcharged by Consolidated.)

The same tenant also mentioned having been issued a warning by the apartment

manager, said that the warning caused worry about the possibility of being evicted, and stated

that the apartment manager had indicated that this warning was the result of the apartment

manager overhearing the tenant criticizing the apartment manager (to a third party). (Due to

issues of relevance and hearsay, I ask that the last sentence, relating to the warning, be

considered under the "state of mind" exception to the hearsay rule, to the extent that it relates to

the issue of whether this tenant is in a sufficient state of fear of retaliatory eviction that good

cause exists to allow this tenant to provide factual knowledge without his or her identity being

disclosed to Mr. [Landlords last name was included here in paper filing but was removed from

Internet filing], and not for its direct probative value.)

At a different time, still another tenant stated orally that he or she already owned an

individual antenna, that he or she was not using it, that he or she was receiving service from the

same provider as myself (through the central system), that he or she had two receivers in

different rooms, that one was not working at the time, that his or her total cost was approximately

$71 per month, and that his or her total cost would have been approximately $61 per month if he

or she was not required to use the central system and to pay Consolidated to do so. This tenant

also stated that he or she was unwilling to sign an affidavit, that the reason for this unwillingness

33

was that "if they [the landlord and apartment manager] want you gone [or out of here, or words to

that effect], you'll [or you will] be gone [or out of here, or words to that effect]", and that leaving

would cost "three thousand dollars" in moving expenses. The comments in quotes occurred after

this tenant had been informed that California law prohibits retaliatory eviction and in a manner

that indicated that the tenant felt that the hypothetical involuntary departure would occur, whether

or not it was lawful. (Due to issues of relevance and hearsay, I ask that the last two sentences

[beginning with the mention of unwillingness to sign an affidavit] be considered under the "state of

mind" exception to the hearsay rule, to the extent that it relates to the issue of whether this tenant

is in a sufficient state of fear of retaliatory eviction that good cause exists to allow this tenant to

provide factual knowledge without his or her identity being disclosed to Mr. [Landlords last name

was included here in paper filing but was removed from Internet filing], and not for their direct

probative value.)

Several months subsequent to the start of "service" from Consolidated, Herbert

[Landlords last name was included here in paper filing but was removed from Internet filing], the

landlord, sent me a letter (petitioners exhibit F) saying that the reason why not all the promised

services were made available was because of the amount of space that would have been

required for the equipment to provide one of the promised services and that my cost would

increase by $18.04 per month to an amount of $29.99 per month instead of (not in addition to)

the previous cost (which apparently was $11.95). The new figure of $29.99 was more than twice

the amount I had been promised. He subsequently called me at work and informed me that he

had negotiated with Consolidated (if this occurred, it would have been prior to the installation of

the receiver in my apartment) to have a service (not the one to which I had originally agreed)

provided at the low cost that Consolidated had told me I would be charged, but only for a few

months, and that he thought that this was a good deal. However, I was not told of the terms that

he had negotiated (especially that the cost to me would be increasing so dramatically), until after

the start of the school year, and several months after when, according to his oral statement, the

negotiation had taken place. I had at no time authorized him to negotiate on my behalf. Had I

been requested to so authorize him, I almost certainly would have refused to authorize him to

negotiate on my behalf for lower rates from Consolidated, because I felt that Consolidated had

acted fraudulently (both by misrepresenting their prices and services to me and by using my

identity to initiate an one-year agreement with DIRECTV that I had not authorized and had even

expressly refused in my written instructions) and had already decided that I would rather receive

service from a more honest company than receive a rate reduction from Consolidated. In

addition, I did not sign any waiver of my right not to be represented by a person with a conflict of

interest (I have learned that Consolidated pays or paid a commission either directly to him or to a

business or trust that he owns or controls). I expressed my desire to obtain service from a

provider other than Consolidated and he told me that he had "signed a lease" with Consolidated

agreeing to "enforce" a rule prohibiting me from obtaining service from any other provider. I

requested, but did not receive, a copy of this lease, but believe it to be the exclusive contract

previously mentioned. (He stated that it had confidential business information.) He also agreed

to help enforce any agreement with me that Consolidated had broken, but subsequently reneged.

After I complained about the increase in cost and not being notified earlier, he sent me another

letter (petitioners exhibit A), informing me that he was the landlord, that I was prohibited by the

rules of the building from having my own antenna anywhere in the complex, even within my

apartment, and that he would evict me if I did not obey the rules of the building. In this letter, he

noted that both "satellite dishes" and "antennae" [sic] were prohibited, making it clear that I would

risk eviction if I operated any individual antenna, even the analog antenna that I had obtained for

receiving (for free) local broadcast signals, and not only if I obtained (at my expense) satellite

television service from an individual antenna. He did not offer to reimburse me for the value of

the analog antenna or the VCR. His letter did make an interesting point that his delay in telling

me that the terms that he had negotiated allowed my cost to double within the first few months of

service did not violate some provision of law requiring him to give thirty days notice, but my efforts

to locate such a provision of law did not result in finding any such provision applicable to

residents of apartment buildings facing increases of more than 10%, or any applicable to delays

otherwise prohibited by federal regulations. This second letter also noted that he had spent the

better part of an hour on the telephone with me (presumably referring to when he called me at

34

work) and was unwilling to further involve himself in the dispute between myself and

Consolidated. I researched my legal options and began to write this petition no later than

September 2006 (as demonstrated by petitioners exhibit I). (At the time, I intended to the target

of the petition to be the contract or other agreement between Consolidated and the landlords who

provided it with exclusivity; however, because I was unable to obtain a copy of that document, I

later changed the petition to instead challenge the restriction imposed by Mr. [Landlords last

name was included here in paper filing but was removed from Internet filing].)

By the time that this increase was scheduled to take effect (and perhaps even by the time

that I was notified of it), I had received advertisements in the mail for both DIRECTV and DISH

Network. These included at least one advertisement for satellite television service with a dualtuner

receiver for an amount that was less than $30 per month, and was equal, within plus or

minus 4%, to that which Mr. [Landlords last name was included here in paper filing but was

removed from Internet filing] stated I would be required to pay for service through Consolidated

(and considerably less than the amount that I was eventually charged). This would have made

my cost per tuner approximately half that which I would have paid according to his letter, because

I still had only single-tuner service, because, in violation of our original agreement, Consolidated

had not provided a splitter or a dual-tuner receiver. However, I later learned that I was actually

billed $11.95 per month by Consolidated and $29.99 per month by DIRECTV, for a total of $41.94

per month, which is approximately $12 per month more than amount advertised by the

competitor, and approximately $27 per month more than the per-tuner cost of the competitors

service of slightly less than $15 per month per tuner.

After several months had elapsed, during which I received, and paid the bills sent by

Consolidated, and received no other bills for television services, I found out by telephone that the

DIRECTV account had a past due balance. DIRECTV also admitted by telephone both that the

bills had been sent to the billing address on the account and that the billing address on the

account was 620 West 135th Street, Gardena, CA (this is Consolidateds address and not my

own) and agreed to immediately send duplicate copies of the bills to my address, so that I could

pay them before the scheduled service interruption date. I never received those bills (and did not

receive any bills from DIRECTV until after service had already been interrupted). Also, DIRECTV

said that I was required to pay them $29.99 for each month for which they had not been paid, not

$18.04, even though I had already paid Consolidated $11.95 for each of the months in question

and the landlords letter said that I would be billed a total of $29.99 instead of (not in addition to)

$11.95, and I had never agreed to pay, or been told that I would be billed, $41.94 per month.

I repeatedly tried to resolve the various aspects of this situation with both DIRECTV and

Consolidated, especially:

1. that my name was on an account that I had not opened,

2. that I had not received the bills, and

3. that the total of the bills that I had paid to Consolidated and the amount demanded by

DIRECTV exceeded both the amount that I had agreed to pay and the amount stated

in the landlords letter.

DIRECTV continued to insist that, because someone had put my name was on the

account, they were entitled to demand payment from me, even if I had not received a bill. (I later

learned that section 1584.5 of the California Civil Code prohibits demanding payment from a

person who has been sent goods or services which that person has not ordered or solicited, but

did not know this at the time.) Each time that I called Consolidated, I would be told that a person

(not always the same one) who was needed to resolve the problem was not there and either that I

should call back or that they would call me back. At one point, Consolidated admitted that

persons for whom Consolidated is not required to pay the DIRECTV bills should not be charged

the full $11.95 (but are still required to pay Consolidated something, in addition to paying the

DIRECTV bills), but refused to either pay the DIRECTV bills or refund the difference between the

bills that I had paid and the amount that persons for whom they did not pay DIRECTV bills are

supposed to be charged. They said that as long as they were not sure whether they were or

were not supposed to be paying the DIRECTV bills for certain months, they would neither pay the

DIRECTV bills for those months nor return the amount that they had kept in excess of what they

would have been entitled to keep if they were not supposed to paying the DIRECTV bills, and that

they were not required to do either until they determined which they were required to do (to the

35

best of my knowledge, they have still neither paid the DIRECTV bills nor returned any of the

money I paid them, even though they are aware that they are required to do at least one of these

two things, even if not which one). At another point, I mentioned to Consolidated that the total

amount that I was being charged was in excess of that which a person prohibited from having an

individual antenna could legally be charged and the telephone representative admitted that

Consolidated was aware of the law. Also, on many occasions, Consolidated said that they would

call back and did not (DIRECTV also did this at least once). When it became clear that I was not

going to be able to resolve the situation by telephone or without government intervention, I drove

to a police station (twice) to report that a DIRECTV account had been opened in my name by

another person. Deputy Benavides told me that I should call Consolidated again and demand to

speak to a manager. Subsequently, I called Consolidated and, even after I told them that I was

under orders from law enforcement to speak to a manager, was neither allowed to do so nor

allowed to speak to the person who I had previously been told by Consolidated would able to

resolve the situation. Meanwhile, I downloaded an Identity Theft Affidavit from the Federal Trade

Commissions website, and had my signature notarized, and sent it by certified mail to DIRECTV

(at a cost of approximately $15 for notarization, photocopying, and certified mail). I also

telephoned the District Attorneys Office and the landlord. I reached the landlords answering

machine (or voice mail), and told the answering machine (or voice mail) that I was being charged

more than his letter stated, that I had reported Art (the Consolidated representative mentioned

previously) to law enforcement, and that other tenants had told me that they too were having

problems, and that I still desired to obtain my service from another provider. I never received a

call back and the landlord did not address my complaints; instead, I was served with notice

terminating my tenancy. The postage meter date on an envelope from the District Attorneys

Office responding to my call and the date of delivery on the return receipt postcard from the

certified mail sent to DIRECTV were both the business day immediately prior to the date on which

I was served with notice terminating my tenancy.

I found a business card bearing the phrases Trishna Patel, consolidatedsmartsytems,

and YOUR PROVEN RESOURCE TO INCREASE ANCILLARY PROFIT (petitioners exhibit J)

left at my door with handwritten instructions to call a telephone number in another area code.

While I no longer recall doing so, I apparently left a message on voice mail or an answering

machine telling this person that the service was going to be disconnected unless the bills (which

were sent to Consolidateds address and which I had not received) were paid. (I was not offered

reimbursement for the telephone call.) I subsequently found a message from her on my

answering machine saying that nothing would be disconnected. I called her and told her that

DIRECTV had said otherwise; she said that she would call me back, but did not do so. Almost

immediately after her message saying that the service would not be disconnected, the DIRECTV

service was stopped. I then resumed operating my individual antenna, in violation of the

landlords rule, but I only received an acceptable reception on a few stations. I then called

Consolidated on February 24 to terminate its services as well and Consolidated agreed on

February 24 that it would remove the equipment from my apartment on February 27. They did

not, and, on February 28, I sent an e-mail saying to cancel my account effective retroactively to

the date on which DIRECTV terminated the service because Consolidated had not paid the bills

that its employee "Art" had agreed would be paid and that I hereby exercise my right under

section 1689(b) of the California Civil Code to rescind any contract between myself and

Consolidated Smart Systems. Consolidated sent me a bill for service for March 1-31.

After DIRECTV had stopped service, I finally received a bill, showing a shutoff date prior

to the date of the bill. However, even though I had notified DIRECTV repeatedly that I had never

opened or activated the account and that another person (who I believe to be Art from

Consolidated) did so, and even sent a notarized identity theft affidavit by certified mail, when I

finally received this bill, it showed additional charges after both the telephone notification and the

date that the certified mail was delivered. I also found a note from Consolidated falsely saying

that I had agreed to paid DIRECTVs bills after the first six months and would be responsible for

the past due charges (which Art had agreed that Consolidated would pay) as well as any

cancellation fees (which the landlord had agreed to pay).

I had central antenna service for 9 months and approximately 3 days (May 19, 2006,

according to DIRECTVs records, to approximately February 22, 2007). However, I was only able

36

to make full use of the service for the first 8 months, because I was forced to spend most of my

free time during the final weeks trying to remedy the billing situation, rather than watching

television.

I was billed by Consolidated $11.95 per month, not only for months for which I had

service, but also for March 2007, which began after DIRECTV had discontinued service to me

(because Consolidated had not paid the bills that were sent only to Consolidateds address), after

I had twice told Consolidated to cancel my service, and after the date by which Consolidated had

agreed that its equipment would be removed. I was billed $29.99 per month by DIRECTV for

three of the months that were during the period for which I was also billed by Consolidated,

including one month which included only three days prior to the day on which DIRECTV stopped

service (approximately $20 was eventually credited for that month, but I was still charged

approximately $10 for those days, or approximately $100 per month on an annualized basis.)

Sending the notarized affidavit that DIRECTV requires to DIRECTV cost me $10 for notarization

and $4.88 to send by certified mail, return receipt requested. After it was delivered to their

address, DIRECTV continued to demand a notarized affidavit, which would presumably cost a

similar amount to the first one, and also demanded that I send a various other documentation.

DIRECTV also repeatedly claimed not to have received the documentation that I had sent, and

for which I had received a return receipt card. During this time, they sent an e-mail saying After

the requested information is received by our office, you will receive a letter in approximately four

weeks, informing you of the results of our investigation. Eventually, they admitted that it might

have been delivered, but not processed. They still did not admit to receiving it, said that they

could not determine where any particular package was, and admitted that they had still not

processed it, even though over a month had passed since the date of delivery. This contradicted

the earlier statement that they would send the letter in approximately four weeks from receipt of

the documentation, unless that statement meant literally from when the appropriate office

received it, and not from when it was delivered to the company. I eventually sent another packet

of documentation, paying an even larger amount to the postal service for restricted delivery, but

I expect that this package will also be ignored or followed by further demands for documentation.

At some point, I realized that I had two other problems:

1. One of the agreements into which I had not entered said that if the access card

was not returned to DIRECTV, I would be charged $300.

2. It seemed unlikely that Consolidated would remove the receiver before the date

that I was required to vacate. If I left it behind and Consolidated later demanded

its return, I would not be able to comply, since I would no longer have the

apartment. On the other hand, I did not own it and I would be stealing if I brought

it with me.

Therefore, on Saturday, March 24, 2007, after the equipment had been in my apartment

for more than a month after the termination of service by DIRECTV, I sent Consolidated notice to,

within three days of receipt of the notice, either remove the receiver from my apartment or make

the payments that they had previously agreed to make, and sent the access card to DIRECTV by

insured mail. (I have not received reimbursement for that expense.) I then received an e-mail

dated Monday, March 26, 2007, stating (in its entirety):

Stephen,

We at CSS received your legal notices. Upon the review of what you have sent over and

requested we are going to be able to provide you the following:

1. CSS will pay your outstanding DTV balance.

2. If you wish to receive TV, the only option at Ponderosa will be the $29.99 Preferred

Choice Package.

3. We are willing to waive the $6.95 CSS service fee.

If you ARE NOT interested in continuing your service- we will just we will simply pay the DTV

bill. You can keep the equipment or we can schedule a technician to come pick up. Once

37

again, there is no other way to receive television- but to go through Consolidated. If that is not

a problem, then we hope we have solved the issue once and for all.

-Consolidated Smarts [sic] Systems

(1800) 262-1327

Had they actually made the payment, this might have solved the billing issue (although

not the 47CFR1.4000 issue), but merely saying that they would do so did not solve either issue,

since I had no reason to believe them. Indeed, even though the three day period for compliance

expired under California law at midnight Thursday, March 29, 2007, Consolidated has not

removed the receiver and I have not received confirmation that they have paid the DIRECTV bill

and have not received a response to a request that I sent for the date on which they will do so.

As noted before, had I paid the DIRECTV bills in time to avoid a service interruption

(even though I had not received the bills), then I would have continued to be charged $29.99 per

month by DIRECTV and to be charged some amount by Consolidated (presumably, at least

$11.95 per month, since they charged that much even after I told them not to continue service).

Additionally, Consolidated stated on one or more of the notes that was left on my door

prior to the original installation that they will not be providing Internet service. I have seen

numerous television commercials for satellite-based Internet service, but I am not able to receive

that service because Consolidated does not provide it through the central antenna and Mr.

[Landlords last name was included here in paper filing but was removed from Internet filing]

refuses to allow me to use an individual antenna.

Finally, to resolve any confusion that may result from the multiple copies of the rental

agreement that appear as petitioners exhibit B, I have been the sole resident of the apartment

since March 1, 2006, but my employer paid the rent for March 2006 and April 2006, for reasons

unrelated to this matter. I paid the rent for May 2006 and all subsequent months. The original

rental agreement was signed by me, but had to be replaced by the second agreement, signed by

an officer of the company that employs me, because that company was going to pay the rent for

the first two months and needed certain paperwork to satisfy tax laws, etc. That rental agreement

(the second) applied to March 2006 and April 2006. The third rental agreement was signed in

April and applied to all subsequent months. (My signature is on the first rental agreement. I

believe that I also signed the third rental agreement, but my copy of the third rental agreement

does not have my signature. I believe that the landlord or apartment manager has the copy that I

signed.) Also, although all three rental agreements provided for an apartment, I believe that only

the third and final rental agreement, applying to May 2006 and subsequent months, provided for a

parking space as well.

I, [name redacted because www.ripoffreport.com does not want personal information posted], hereby swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct

to the best of my knowledge.

Stephen

Camarillo, California

U.S.A.