Re: False alarms

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

R.H.Campbell wrote:
> Ok ,understood; however, its the end user who ultimately puts the pressure
> on their alarm company to pay up when the problem is clearly an equipment
> problem. Agreed, its almost impossible to get any large company to actually
> pay; however, that in turn puts pressure on the end user to dump that
> company and seek out a more customer oriented one. And if it's the client's
> fault (as it seems to be in most cases), I would think they would quickly
> learn be more careful next time, or if they didn't understand why it
> happened, then seek out the assistance of their alarmco to explain the cause
> of the false. Either way the problem gets dealt with directly, and the city
> is "paid" for the use of police time (although they might not see it that
> way and care only that they have to respond to falses....)
>
> I'm not trying to take away from the way Toronto does it, since it does seem
> to work; however, the old adage that the "abuser pays" seems to also be a
> fair and equitable way to do things. And it's certainly an easier way to
> administer things without getting the centrals into passing along costs
> which only adds to their administrative overheads.....
>
> No ?
>
> RHC
>
I just have this "notion" that every alarm installers is saying that
most FA are caused by end users because the installers actually
'believe' that their installs, product, quality, training is "the best"
..... when really it's not. By eliminating them from the
"inconvenience" of the fine process, it absolves them of all
responsibility ..... in their mind  ....  whether they're doing the
right thing ... or not. Every installer that
** IS ** doing the right thing and is ** already ** using quality
equipment, methods, procedures and follow up, the fining of dealers
will not affect them. They're already making the effort. But it sure
will affect the baddies and regardless if either category of installer
has bad users, they're going to clean them up or clean them out. Those
that don't, will go out of business, ( probably more so from not
wanting to deal with the fining process which will add to the "detail "
work ... which the lack of detail , is what's causing them to do poor
installs to begin with.) And ..... in the interest of keeping the
administration to a minimum, with the maximum amount of return ( $ )
for the authorities, it makes sense for them to only have to
administrate to the smaller amount of Centrals than thousands of end
users. If nothing else it shows and effort by the ENTIRE industry to
cooperate and gets the ENTIRE industry involved with no absolution of
ANYONE. EVERYONE is involved and everyone will have to cooperate .....
no one is excused. It's not a blame issue ..... it's getting everyone
included in the effort. Centrals, installers, endusers, authorities.
Done any other way simply absolves all the others of any blame and, in
fact could be an incentive to become even more lax than they already
are.

I know ** I ** could handle both processes.... being fined direct or
through a Central, because my FA are kept minimal. I follow up with the
end user on every one. They KNOW ... they're going to get a call from
me and we're going to work out a plan to correct the problem. Stop
reports on trouble zones, move motion detectors, better control of
people or animals. Reminders on how to operate the system. Whatever it
takes. End users don't want false alarms either but if there is no
incentive from the installer, just like you and me, they're not going
to take the time from their busy lives to effect changes. Even with
fines, some will simply just pay and continue with their normal
routines. If the dealer is getting fined, you can bet it wont. And if
the dealer wont .... if his Central monitoring is at risk, ..... that's
HIS incentive.

>From what I hear from my Centrals, many/most alarm installers don't
even ask for or want daly or even weekly reports on the signals from
their accounts. What does THAT tell you?  If the installers don't care,
why should the end users. So that alone, could be the reason why "most
FA come from the end user" that we hear repeatedly .....   .....
funnny,  .... but that seem to be coming from alarm installers.
DUUUUHHH! How convenient that there's not too much credibility in that
"statistic" or if it IS true ..... WHY is it true? What AREN'T they
doing to change it? And WHY aren't they?

 All they need is an incentive  ($).