Re: False alarms

[Nomen Nescio <nobody@xxxxxxxxx>]

Everywhere Man said:

>By saying "fine me instead" I am trying to get them
>to take a stronger look at our industry and see that we can be a
>tremendous asset and NOT the burden they believe us to be. I'm telling
>them I am willing to pay the price if my methods don't work, and that
>they have a real opportunity to alleviate some of the waste caused by
>false alarms.

I am opposed to fining the alarm company instead of the subscriber, for
several reasons.

First, it turns us into the collection agency for the city.  The city gets
to charge whatever it wants for false alarms, but we become the bad guys
because we are the ones who actually collect the money for things like user
errors.  Let the city collect its own money.

Second, how much extra time do you think you'll be spending on suing your
customers for false alarms that are their fault, but they refuse to pay?
Meanwhile, we'll have to write the city a check out of our own pocket.
Imagine the arguments you'll get into when the roof leaks, or a wild cat
gets loose in the warehouse:  "Your alarm shouldn't go off when that
happens!  You pay for it."

Third, subscribers will definitely lie when their money is at stake.  Think
they'll admit to letting the cat run around the house?  Think they'll admit
their mother-in-law didn't quite understand how to use the system?  They'll
say they haven't a clue why the alarm went off, and there must be something
wrong with your system.

Unhappy subscribers will already put pressure on their alarm company when
those false alarm charges start rolling in.  One interesting idea might be
to write into the false alarm ordinance that an alarm user has the right to
terminate any alarm service contract without penalty if the system causes
more than X false alarms in one year that are not the user's fault.
There'd still be arguments, but it gives the customer a chance to get out
from under a bad situation.

- badenov