Re: False alarms

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

Al, this is a huge issue with likely as many variation of answers as their
are regulating cities. I certainly don't know the best solution; I can only
describe what we do here in Ottawa which doesn't "solve"anything really, but
does put the accountability where it belongs...on the party causing the
false alarm (end user directly, alarm company indirectly). Perhaps over
time, that will help somewhat....

Every false alarm is a $75 ticket issued by the responding officer to the
end user. A lot of companies will pay the ticket if the problem is caused by
the equipment or wiring. Those who won't quickly "lose" in comparison to
other competitors who treat their clients in a more responsible fashion.
User caused false alarms are paid by the user. As such, either way the city
is "paid" for the misuse of its officers, although they still have the
ongoing problem of having to respond and waste their time, but at least it
compensates the city.

In purchasing systems, most residential clients hereabouts are concerned
about false alarm costs, and reputable alarmco's do what they reasonably can
to ensure it doesn't happen....quality installs, quality dual tech motions,
cancel codes, thorough training including a detailed explanation of what
happens when the alarm trips, thorough calling of the customer call list
before dispatching, two week "trial" on all motions when pets are
present,etc. Commercial is another ballgame, and somewhat more difficult to
handle due to a variety of reasons we all know, including lack of ongoing
training of users.

IMO, fining the alarmco puts an unfair cost on companies who then have to
act as judge and jury on who is accountable, and then collect the costs (or
not as the case may be). It puts them in an unfair "confrontational"
situation with their clients. It won't have any affect on the large mass
marketers who can afford to swallow the costs and who will likely see this
as just another internal cost of doing business, with little outward change
affecting the quality of the end users installation (nor can the end user
often collect from them....) It might help by putting pressure on some of
the bad outfits (who we all know and love), but many of them are here today,
gone tomorrow anyway, leaving their messes for others to clean up during
"takeovers"....

Video verification would seem to offer some hope but this is far too
expensive for residential use. Two way voice is only used by outfits like
Alarmforce who market it as if it were ultimate answer to everything, but it
offers nothing over a conventional phone call (great marketing ploy
however...)

A big danger to the industry of failing to control the false alarm rate is
slow, shoddy response by police authorities, which can drastically affect
losses during a real break and enter, and strikes at the heart of the
reasoning of having the alarm monitored to start with. Perhaps third party
response will become the answer prior to police dispatch, although judging
from the small size of local response companies, they have a long way to
grow to have enough cars on the road to reach the home in any reasonable
period of time (chicken and egg scenario.....)

Irv Fisher swears that the Toronto approach helps greatly; however, I know
little about it, and he doesn't seem to be around anymore, but that is one
other way to do it that all parties seem to find agreeable....

My 2 cents worth....

R.H.Campbell
Home Security Metal Products
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
www.homemetal.com


"Al Colombo" <securitymission@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144844835.460648.184610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I think if they fine alarm firms it's a big mistake.  First of all, of
> the 32 years I've been in the security industry, during which I spent
> 16 or 17 active years in the field, I found that many of my clients did
> not wish to contract with us to do routine, yearly maintenance.
> Secondly, I've found that almost all of the false alarms that the firms
> I was associated with were user initiated, and most of my clients were
> commercial.
>
> The question is, how will fining the alarm firm solve anything
> substantial?  The only thing it's going to do for reputable alarm firms
> is cost them lots of money.  If fining the end users who case most of
> these false trips has failed to solve the problem, how is fining alarm
> firms going to do that?  If fining the very people responsible for the
> operation and maintenance of these problematic systems hasn't solve the
> problem, how is fining alarm firms who are not there with the user?
>
> In my opinion, the solution is to require the end user to pull a fire
> alarm permit that requires a maintenance contract between the end user
> and alarm company.  Now, when the municipality records a given number
> of false alarms from a specific account, they need to investigate the
> issue to find out if the problem is the end user's desire not to pay
> the alarm firm to do necessary service or the alarm firm itself because
> their techs cannot solve the problem.  They need to legislate the right
> to bill the alarm firm direct under the above conditions, not the alarm
> firm out of the gate.
>
> Most of the time most firms will place that one zone or device on test
> until they solve the problem while allowing the remainder of the system
> to remain active.  At least this is what I use to do back in the 70s,
> 80s, and more recently bewteen 2001 and 2004 when I was managing an
> alarm firm in Ohio.
>
> The only control the alarm firm will have if the local authority fines
> the alarm company is to end their recurring revenue quicker than if the
> end user is fined.  I think it's a bad deal for dealers, end users, and
> the local authorities.
>
> Comments?
>
> Al
>
> ---
> http://www.FireNetOnline.com
>