Re: Can anyone help me?

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Nick Markowitz" <nick-markowitz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2hFPg.7261$W13.3085@xxxxxxxxxxx
> The central  I use spent a fortune to get UL because they monitor fire

They couldn't meet NFPA 72 for "central station service" without being UL,
FM or some other nationally recognized testing agency.

> mainly they monitor many small banks and the banks them selves demanded
it.

Anyone using a central outside of their own control should demand some sort
of third party certification or placarding.

> Even in a proprietary location I would think UL

or FM or any other nationally recognized testing agency

 >is appropriate

Awfully expensive to include a logo and be ruled by a private third party
company, that is not required by code unless it is deemed necessary to have
"central station service". Not to say that acceptable central station
standards should not be implimented and exercised.

> I could see insurance
> carriers refusing to pay when UL is not included > in the game plan

If the insurance company did not require it when they wrote the coverage and
it is not required in the adopted code, then they would pay.

> and as
> querky as the courts are any more its just plain  > crazy not to be.

UL is not the company that they once where. As a testing laboratory, they
are failing to keep up and as for their certification program, it is a joke.
At their own admittance, they are only doing 10% of their required
inspections.  In reality, through investigation, they are only doing about
2-3% of their inspections. In some cases they are years behind and I know of
areas that have never been inspected.Where does that leave the certified
company if they should end up in a court case and their certificates are out
of date?

> As far as municipalitys who monitor and are not UL
> many have stopped doing it becuse of the liability which varies from area
to
> area.
> In Greensburg Pa They are no longer going to monitor the master boxes
becuse
> of costs to maintain every thing and where they monitor is not UL which is
> one thing that worries them.

Sounds to me like it is more of a budget issue than a liability concern.
Municipalities are pretty much exempt from most lawsuits, especially the
frivolous ones. It is hard to sue a government. If something were to end up
in court and with UL's record of late, they might hurt them more than help
them. Again, implementing the acceptable central station standards and
following them, whether it is the type of building, the software, the
equipment, the amount of people per shift or the recording keeping, should
be normal operating procedure. Do muni's, the banking institutions, etc.
really need  private third party intervention? The national code doesn't
seem to think so for proprietary signaling systems.
>
>