Re: False alarms

["Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx>]

Great post, Jim! That is a major league BUMP post.
When I posted this I didn't expect anyone to agree with anything that I
said, and at the association meeting I will probably get shot (like I
care), but I have a real opportunity in the city of Mount Vernon to get
them to see the solution for false alarms as something other than
writing a summons. 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. On the flip side if they choose NOT to explore new
methods then the onus is on them, and they appear unwilling to work
towards a resolution of a problem they constantly gripe about.
The worst that can happen is nothing, and the best that can happen is
we have a reduction of false alarms, and our customers are no longer
penalized for any possible mistakes we may have made.
Some people take offense because I don't subscribe to the theory that
the customer is wrong most of the time. If it's offense they take then
they should bring a UHaul because offense will be plenty. My customers
pay my bills. Without my customers I am zip.
These people place a trust in me to protect them, and expect their
alarm provider to have integrity. I will never lie to my customers, nor
did I lie to the chamber members.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
It wasn't my intent to piss people off with this but if it pisses them
off then it's their issue. I am not going to shovel shit when asked to
discuss false alarms, and I know you wouldn't either.
I remember Irv Fisher posting here but he hasn't been around in close
to 7 years.
I can't believe they fine the centrals in Canada, but if it has caused
the rate to drop then the centrals actually save money. You're dead
right that the central is the one source for all of the data, and after
a few hits in the wallet maybe they won't be so willing to sign up
every dealer possible.
As you know, there are very few centrals approved by the FDNY to
monitor fire in NYC but I can't recall how long ago NYC adopted the
policy of FDNY approved centrals being the only ones who could
monitoring fire. I'm sure it reduced false fire dispatches in the city,
and wonder if the same can happen on the burg side.
On Long Island there are towns that require local licensing as well as
State licensing.
I'd wager that helps keep numbers down because those towns are not apt
to get swamped with installing companies marketing their residents.
Actually nobody markets there because you and Mike Sokoloy own the
whole damn shooting match. You're the Long Island "Borg"
As for walking away from deals I am sure you have done that quite a bit
but your reason is different then mine. I walk away because they will
be a headache. You walk away because you're a lazy old bastard who
needs to come up here and do some work :-)

Jim wrote:
> Everywhere Man wrote:
> > petem wrote:
> > > My opinion is plain simple,you have some really good nerv to come here and
> > > talk about giving fine to installing alarm company. <
> >
> > Well if it's good nerv to discuss my opinion on false alarms then my
> > thanks. It beats bad nerv. Bickering about who is to blame isn't going
> > to reduce false alarms anymore than fining the customer would.
> > One company in Mount Vernon had 600+ (six hundred) false alarms. At
> > what point does it become our responsibility to shut the guy off so we
> > don't allow the customer to drive up the false alarm rate? When the
> > concept of no response is being toyed with that should be enough of a
> > warning that the police have had enough. Unless we are all going to
> > employ armed guards this should be of major concern to us.
> > The police can say whatever the hell they want about how they respond
> > like every alarm is a real emergency but that's a crock of crap. Alarm
> > calls are becoming more and more of a low priority.
>
> I'm sure you already know this but no one has said it yet:
>
> Fining the alarm companys is no different than fining the  end user.
> there are bad alarm installers and bad end users. As you well know
> there are some end users that you can spend an hour with explaining the
> system and 15 minutes later they wont remember a thing much less a year
> or more later. There is many times one or more people in a household
> that really don't WANT to grasp the seriousness of false alarms in the
> community. You install as system in a home with a young child of 12 in
> the family. Three years later your dealing with a teenager who just
> doesn't give a crap whether the cops are called or not.
>
> On the other side there are alarm companys who don't do all that they
> could to cut down on the number of false signals. I've been able to
> keep my down below 1% for years but let me tell you it's a struggle
> with constant log keeping and follow up telephone calls. There are some
> who just always have an excuse for the reason why a false alarm
> occured. "Oh it was PROBABLY this or that or an IDONKNOW what happened.
> Some I've had to lengthen exit/entrance delays. Eliminate motion
> sensors and so on. One thing I'll say though ....the very fact that
> they know I'm going to call them after a false signal, has an effect on
> the reduction of false signals. I've seen that happen often. Every time
> I call it's a chance for a review for them to learn something about the
> system that they've forgotten or just never retained from day one.
>
> >
> > >
> > > What you dont know is that,here we have so much fly by night company that
> > > there is no way just to know who the heck installed a system.. <
> >
> > And we have the same here. We have companies MAILING customers alarm
> > systems.
> > Maybe fines against the company isn't the answer, I doubt we will ever
> > know for sure, but fining the end user sure as all shit hasn't worked
> > yet.
> >
> > >
> > > You will need to think also about poeple that badly use there alarm,not
> > > because they ar mean,but cause the forget,they didnt close the windows of
> > > the kitchen and at the first good wind gust the pir gave an alarm,now wheres
> > > the alarm company fault,how could they have prevented that alarm? by
> > > installing contact on every door? <
> >
> > If the customer had a better understanding about the system they
> > wouldn't continually make these mistakes. How often do these same
> > people forget to lock their doors, or put on a seat belt? The NBFAA and
> > FARA have a pretty decent suggestion that we use here. It's a 7 day no
> > dispatch policy. For the first 7 days there will be no dispatch on
> > alarms because the majority of user errors occur right after install.
> > With a 7 day no dispatch the customer won't fear using their system,
> > and might become more comfortable learning the features. Unfortunately
> > not everyone offers that and that contributes to user error.
> >
> > >
>
>
> You know what it is. The very fact that a system is used every day
> ..... day in and day out, with out considering any of the the things
> that may set it off ..... is, I think, a major reason the end user is
> the cause of most false signals. Consider...... for months and months
> after a system is installed, a system can be armed and disarmed and not
> a thought given about the conditions that must be met and considered
> when using an alarm system . You can give all the warnings and
> precautions that you want when you turn the sytem over to them but
> after months and months and months ..... even years of using the system
> with out having to consider any thing like party balloons, leaving a
> fan on, forgetting to put the cat downstairs, checking the basement
> window you had open over the weekend and a thousand other things, after
> awhile, people just get so used to punching in their numbers and
> walking out, that the number of false alarms actually goes UP for a
> period of time, until they are reminded by having me call them
> repeatedly. This is much more of a deterrent to false alarms than
> having central call them at work, ( too late to do anything about it
> now and to busy with work problems, to worry about my alarm now)  and
> the police show up at a residence with no one home.
>
>
>
> > > i f so you are saying that alarm system should only be install on high end
> > > home where they can afford full perimeter and volumetric protection <
> >
> > No Pete I am not saying that. I am talking about nimrods who aim motion
> > detectors at stairways, and at windows. Goofballs who use 30 year old
> > wiring rather than charge the customer for new wiring. Dingbats who
> > install single tech motions, and don't caulk behind it, or don't
> > instruct their clients to vacuum around the motion and smoke detectors
> > on a monthly basis. Installers who don't teach the customer how to test
> > the system weekly. Jackasses who sell DIY systems and offer monitoring
> > without ever inspecting the system.
> > These fly-by-nighters that you are talking about are the reason we are
> > all paying the price. A quality install does not necessarily mean a
> > full perimeter system. It means use quality regardless of the system
> > size.
> > I would bet my left nut that Jim (Alarminex) doesn't have a false alarm
> > rate anywhere near 99%. What makes him different? Quality! Think Jack
> > Stevens has a rate like that?
> > Now for every Jack Stevens, and Jim there are HUNDREDS of slimebags who
> > don't use quality. Bob Campbell always mentions a Canuck company that
> > offers nothing but garbage. I can't recall the name, but they are not a
> > small company. Frankie and Mikey always mention them too. They
> > advertise low rates on the radio. If they were to be fined for every
> > false alarm how long would they hang around muddying the waters for the
> > rest of us? Now what company contributes more to the problem? Would it
> > be that large company or Jack Stevens? Now who ends up paying the
> > larger price for it? Jack Stevens. Why? Because our industry gets a
> > black eye from these scumbags and he now becomes guilty by association.
> > I'm just using Jack and Jim (Roger Grimsby) as two examples of people
> > we are familiar with.
> >
>
> Obviously no one can tell if a system is installed correctly or not and
> the cops don't care. So you wind up fining the bad companies but also
> the good install companies who have dumb clients. Certainly the
> companys who are concerned will already be doing things to cut down on
> their false alarm rate and the bad ones will be paying the majority of
> the fines, but over all, I don't think it will cut down on what the
> authorities see as a 99% false alarm rate regardless of how may actual
> signals are received or how many the number has been reduced from what
> it "would" have been if there were no fines ...... but factoring in the
> increase of the number of installs that have taken place since the
> original count ...... Da yadda yadda yadda....
>
> > >
> > > and what about the business side of the story,commercial account where the
> > > cleaning team change every damn month and they cant read english..have
> > > difficulty just to speak english,and plain just dont care about alarms..<
> >
> > And what about not taking on an account that will cause headaches like
> > that? Walk away from the deal. There are more than enough commercial
> > accounts that don't have that baggage. Shudder to think about actually
> > saying NO to some RMR just because it comes along with umpteen false
> > alarms per month, right?
> >
>
> Are you saying ..... "If everyone would work together and do the same
> thing with the same goal" (?)  Just like here is ASA?   Yeh ......
> sure. And all the accounts that the good companys drop, there'll be the
> bottom feeders that will never ask why the end user "dropped" is old
> alarm company.   ( by the way, I'm leading up to another alternative)
> > >
> > > what can i do about that? ask my customer to pay me back the fine? they
> > > first thing that will happen ,they will go to fly by nights connected to
> > > central station in another juridiction,and voila..case closed,where do you
> > > will send the fine? <
> >
> > Again, we should use discretion when signing up a client. If it is
> > going to be a trouble situation then just walk away. Let someone else
> > sign them up. Why bother with a headache?
> >
> >
> You think that way but there are those who would, will actually make a
> business out of picking up these accounts for what ever period of time
> it takes them to make their "set up fees" and use up the "grace period"
> of false alarms ..... and then move one to the next morsel from the
> bottom of the pile. I'd even conjecture that someone would even charge
> these "risk" users a premium on top of their monthly charge but with no
> effort to reduce the false signals.
>
> > >
> > > the only way to fix the false alarm issue is to have a way of confirming if
> > > an alarm is real or not,and that is video confirmation,let have the
> > > integration of video system to alarm system as a big incentive for sale to
> > > the alarm manufacturer you dont need high end camera and crystal clear video
> > > to realise if there is a break in or not...or if the Johnson forgot to put
> > > the cat in the basement before leaving for the day.. <
> >
> > That is one of the ways but how many customers are going to pay for
> > cameras in each living area, and who is going to pay the increased
> > monitoring rate? This would eliminate a vast majority of the market.
> > Joe Blow couldn't afford that, and how many that could are going to let
> > us start ripping up walls to install cameras?
>
> Video is ok for commercial, but I can just see you trying to convince
> that cute Mrs Gonzales with the nice body and great pair of t....s that
> you've got to put a camera in her house ..... "honest Mrs Gonzales, the
> camera only comes on when there's an alarm ..... honest ..... really
> really .... no lie .... " With those innocent eyes of yours glued
> directly on her t.....s
>
>
> >
> > So again, if imposing a fine on the customer doesn't work, which it
> > doesn't, and if you disagree with fining the installing company, then
> > what would be your answer to reducing false alarms OUTSIDE of slowing
> > down the response time?
> > Two way voice is nice, but not everyone is going to pay for it, and not
> > every central offers real two way.
> > These solutions being employed now are not as affective as they should
> > be. When we have a 99% false alarm rate that means we are right only 1%
> > of the time.
> > If I wanted to be wrong all of the time I'd stay home and listen to my
> > wife, but I am in an industry that I love, and I HATE the fact we are
> > nowhere near as efficient as we should be.
> > We can scream, yell, and trade insults, but at the end of the day the
> > numbers are still there.
> >
>
> If you want to talk to someone who convinced ME of what to do about the
> false signals rate, you should try to get in touch with Irv Fischer up,
> I think in Montreal. If you think that suggesting that installation
> companys is going to cause you to be blasted to hell ...... wait till
> you hear what they do up there. At first I thought ..... what a stupid
> thing to do ...... but the more he explained how it was working and the
> control that he had over the false alarm rate, the more I thought
> they'd found the best solution ....... for now, at any rate.
>
> Their solution? ....... fine the Central stations. Who better to keep
> statistics and control alarm installers and end users all in one place.
> It's the focal point of everything that happens in the alarm
> installation trade. There are a lot fewer central stations that have to
> "come together" to decide on what's going to be allowed and what isn't.
> They can dictate to alarm installers what the requirements are and they
> can pass along fines to the installing companys who in turn have to
> justify why an alarm occurs to their clients and if they choose, they
> can pass it on to their clients if it's the clients fault. The main
> thing about this process is that as long as the Centrals decide what
> the standards are ..... the installation companys don't have any choice
> on what's going to happen, because of the colaboration between
> centrals, which would be more likely to happen than between alarm
> installation companys. I've forgotten what Irv's company name is but
> I'm sure someone here will remember. In all of the discussions I've
> heard about cutting down on false signals, their solution had
> statistics to back up what they had done and were doing,  which the
> authorities couldn't argue with. Irv had every number down to a "T" and
> could cite you statistics for an hour on the improvement of the false
> alarm rate. Took a revamping of the "outlook" on what a central
> stations "job" is, but after that hurdle was crossed among the Centrals
> in an area, it sounded like a good solution. If I remember right, they
> didn't have any choice because it was the authorities who decided it
> was going to be that way. After the initial screaming and kicking by
> the Centrals, a few years later, ...... most everyone was happy with
> how it was working.
>
> I'd think it would be almost impossible to get the Centrals here in any
> area of the US to come together to agree with this process. I once
> brought it up at an association meeting, and not only the Central
> station owners voiced their "strong objections" even the alarm
> installing companys thought that it wouldn't work ...... crazy idea,
> etc.