Re: False alarms

["Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks for translating it so other old geezers could understand. The
only ones affected are the ones causing the problem.

Jim wrote:
> 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  ($).