Re: False alarms

["R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

"Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145227579.783804.131740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> By fining the end user, there's never any incentive to the installer to
> use better methods or eqipment or training procedures. By fining the
> alarm installer, there's no incentive for the end user to learn their
> system or remain aware of the conditions of their premise.
>
> ( Just a note that I'm just playing devil's advocate here)
>