Re: False alarms

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Bob Worthy wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> Isn't that what this thread is about? Who should pay for false alarms? We
> are talking their language, "I don't wanta pay nothin".  I think the industy
> has been listening to it for to long. Maybe the answer is to not take any
> customer that is not willing to spend the time, along with all potential
> users, to become properly educated and is also willing to pay for what it
> actually takes to design, install, monitor, and service this pandora's box
> of potential false alarms, if it is not properly designed, installed,
> monitored, and serviced properly. Unfortunately, we are far past that, from
> ever happening industry wide. As long as this industy chooses to deal with
> short term numbers rather than long term careers, we that care must continue
> to look for a solution that will satisfy everyone, even if it is short term
> to give us time to work on the big picture. (Soapbox?) :o}
> >

As usual the only way to make those that don't strive to better their
FA rate, is to make it costly if they don't. And that's the dilemma. If
it were "always" the end user at fault, then fining them would be the
catalyst necessary to make them change. But it's not always the end
user, I'd guess that more often than the "industry" wants to admit,
it's due to improper training and improper application and quality of
product.

So, if you fine the alarm company and it's not their fault, or the end
user and it's not THEIR fault .... who the hell gets to be fined? I
think that THAT is the part of Toronto's plan that takes care of that
conflict. It doesn't make any difference which of either of the two are
at fault. The central gets fined. The central passes it on to the alarm
company, who's got to pass it on to the end user. If the end user is at
fault, he pays. If there's a conflict, it's between the alarm installer
and the end user to either come to an agreement or part ways. If the
installer isn't doing good installs, and makes no effort to correct his
ways, he's eventually going to lose more and more end users because of
conflicts with his customers. If he doesn't pay the Central, they drop
him. If an end user continues to be negligent, but goes on to another
alarm company,  it's going to benefit the new alarm company to do a
"due dilligence" on past history of "takeovers" so that they don't get
a "lemon" account. And if a central get's an inquiry from an existing
installer to take over his accounts it's going to pay the Central to do
a "due dilligence" on the installer before they take on a problem
installer.

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)