Re: Changes to Canadian monitoring contract law

[Frank Olson <Use-the-email-links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

tourman wrote:
> Is anyone aware of any Canadian provinces where long term monitoring
> contracts can be cancelled immediately by the client provided the
> contract is for service only, and does not cover paying down any
> equipment costs in the rate ?
>
> I was talking to someone from Alberta yesterday who said this exists
> in at least one other province, and is being considered for
> introduction there in Alberta. As I understood it, this would prevent
> alarmco's from holding clients  to a long term contract if they wished
> to cancel early provided  the contract did not involve any equipment
> equity paydown.
> So I guess this would mean that those who ordered a "free system"
> would be held to the contract and forced to pay out the rest of the
> term, since there is equipment paydown involved. But someone else who
> did a takeover, where the client owned the system outright, the client
> wouldn't be forced to comply with the terms of a three year contract
> for example, and could cancel immediately (since this involved only
> service in a broad term). Presumably, after the free system was paid
> for, it might go monthly since there would be no reason to hit the
> client with another long term contract (or at least a knowledgeable
> client who knew the law could refuse to pay up if he decided to leave
> that alarmco for any reason, contract or no contract)
>
> Frank, do you know of any such contract limitations existing currently
> in Canada? It sounds like some provincial government is trying to even
> things up a bit....
>
> RHC
>


A number of provinces have looked at enhancing consumer protection and
the companies aggressively marketing the so-called "free systems" are
but one of the reasons.  If there are going to be any applicable
exemptions regarding "equipment buy-down", I think that would amount to
nothing more than a "smoke and mirror" show when the companies doing
this kind of marketing "adjust" their strategy.  It won't apply to lease
contracts (and the majority of large commercial systems are leased) or
"rental" agreements (like AlarmFarce).  In the first instance, the
"lease" term can be extended (if the client opts for "included
maintenance").  In the second, the equipment remains the property of the
company (Brinks, AlarmFarce, Sonitrol).  As far as I'm concerned, the
whole thing (consumer protection legislation) should be a Federal issue
and we both know where that can lead if it's mismanaged or mishandled
(do I have to remind you about "gun control"?).