Re: DCS Power 832

["Casual Observer" <no_junk_mail;@nowhere.com>]

I didn't breach the purchase or monitoring contract - the system was already
installed in the house when I bought the house - the alarm came with the
house - I own the house and the alarm system.  The monitoring contract I
signed was a month to month deal - I cancelled it with a month's notice, so
they didn't get screwed there.

Here's the rest of the story - I made a couple of calls to their service
number after unsuccesfully trying to get an installer code and get into
programming mode - the gal that answered the phone kept talking about their
proprietary work and the secret code - I finally talked with a supervisor
who said, no, they just went with the defaults and didn't use any secret
code - so I went back and tried a few of the defaults and bingo!  I'll do
the rest of the research and figure out how to get it set to local mode.

I think if the homeowner owns the alarm system, he\she should be able to do
whatever he\she wants to do with it.  I think as a part of the contract
agreement, if the homeowner legally terminates the monitoring contract, then
the monitoring company should be required to put the system back to where it
was before the contract was initiated.  If they hold the homeowner ransom by
using a secret code or something like that, then it's time for a registered
letter to the company, and perhaps a suit in small claims court.

Wanted to thank all of you guys for the help.  I have a new level of respect
for the capabilities and complexities of the alarm systems - and people that
understand them.


"Crash Gordon" <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:459c9c9f$0$502$815e3792@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> How do you know he didn't breach the purchase or monitoring contract? Or
> owe
> the alarmco money?
> I'm not saying he does, but what if he did? Why should they unlock a panel
> for a deadbeat? Would your utility company turn your power back on if you
> didn't pay the bill, just because you own the house?
>
>
>
> "tourman" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1167885998.541999.46890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | alarman wrote:
> | > tourman" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:1167879343.493188.284360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > > You are absolutely right on the money.
> | >
> | > No, he's not.
> |
> | RHC: Yes he is ! Dead on the money !
> | >
> | > >Here is the case that happens SO
> | > > often and which I constantly get shit over on the newsgroup because
> I
> | > > complain about it. This is no way for any professional company to
> act,
> | > > and many people in the industry seem to not only turn a blind eye to
> | > > it, but insist these things don't happen very often. Or they'll come
> | > > back implying you are not being straight about this. This is the
> sort
> | > > of self serving industry crap that the buying public so often have
> to
> | > > put up with. No damn wonder so many people take a jaundiced view of
> | > > those selling monitoring services !!
> | >
> | > <sigh>
> |
> | RHC: Well, I'm sorry that you find that so bothersome, but start
> | looking at things more from the customers point of view for a change.
> | You know damn well this sort of thing goes on all the time. And instead
> | of starting on about how the poor company is being cheated out of
> | revenue etc etc etc...ask yourself how the hell you would feel if you
> | were getting screwed over like this. Seems to depend upon who's foot
> | the shoe is on....
> | >
> | > This is a service, expected by the new homeowner to be performed by
> the
> | > alarmco, which is not owed to the new homeowner. The homeowner's
> attitude is
> | > that the alarmco owes this to him because he now owns the system. If
> the
> | > homeowner wants the alarmco to reset the code, which was changed by
> the
> | > alarmco for all the good reasons published here before, the alarmco
> has
> a
> | > right to charge for that service if they so desire. The fact that the
> new
> | > homeowner wants to use the system locally, and can't because he didn't
> get
> | > the system defaulted by the seller, does not obligate the alarmco to
> perform
> | > service for free of charge. BTW, I certainly would not connect to, and
> | > reprogram someones alarm panel unless they were under contract with me
> and I
> | > had some protection from liability. Also, I do not accept your premise
> that
> | > this makes me a shady dealer, or somehow unscrupulous. These new
> homeowners
> | > need to understand that if they move into a home with an existing
> alarm
> | > system, that it is NOT the responsibility of the alarmco to hold their
> hand
> | > for free.
> |
> | RHC: Jesus H Christ, who the hell said anything about doing it for
> | free. On the other hand, I don't think they should stick it to him
> | either ! Don't you guys ever read and think, rather than jumping all
> | over the first point that may not be thoroughly brought out !  Nothing
> | you say above changes the fact that it is HIS fucking property ! And
> | the previous alarmco won't give him access to HIS alarm panel (or at
> | least so it seems at the moment). The cost of the service to do so is
> | NOT at issue here. And no one (least of all me) is saying squat about
> | implying you are somewhat less than honourable. How in Gods name can
> | you ever come to the conclusion that I am implying you are shady or
> | whatever. Jesus, Jack ! Is our industry so anal that they can't or
> | won't look at some of the practices that reflect badly on all of us
> | rather than just assuming the worst every time about every customer.
> | Lord knows, there ARE enough real idiot customers out there that we all
> | have to put up with. But this guy is simply outlining a problem we all
> | know happens all too often. And I repeat..it is NOT about whether this
> | guy will pay for professional services, its about the fact that the
> | company so far hasn't done what they should have done when the panel
> | was disconnected from the first homeowner...put it back to a point
> | where it can be used by them later again, or someone else that the
> | homeowner chooses! It's his property pure and simple !!
> | >
> | > The homeowner may either do research and default/reprogram the system
> | > himself, or pay a professional to perform the service.
> |
> | RHC:Absolutely right !! And that's what he said he has done, and
> | approached the alarmco about it. And so far it seems they won't do
> | anything for him unless he signs a bloody monitoring contract with
> | them. What fucking planet were all you guys born on. That's fucking
> | extortion no matter how you colour it !!!!!!
> | >
> | > If you buy a house with a lock on the garage door,  and no key is
> available
> | > to the new owner, you should not expect the locksmith who installed
> the
> lock
> | > for the original owner to unlock the lock at no charge. You said that
> "All
> | > the previous company needs to do is dial in and change the installer
> code
> | > back to factory - nothing more." is pure bullshit. How likely is it
> that
> the
> | > homeowner is prepared for this? Is the alarm still connected to the
> phone
> | > line? Is it powered up? Is little teen-age daughter using the line
> now?
> How
> | > long shall my tech wait until you're ready for us to dial in? Is the
> alarm
> | > still connected to the same phone line? Or has the phone company, or
> worse,
> | > the "handy" homeowner reconfigured the phone wiring? Should the
> alarmco
> send
> | > a tech out to correct the problem? At no charge, I suppose? Even if
> the
> line
> | > is still connected, it still takes some time and effort for a skilled
> person
> | > at the alarmco to access the file, reprogram a new phone number into
> the
> d/l
> | > computer, call the premises and reprogram the code. And then of
> course,
> any
> | > other problem the new "customer" has with the system becomes the
> alarmco's
> | > problem. Right?
> |
> | RHC: No, all problems are clearly the homeowners problems, but give me
> | a break ! No one is saying these problems don't exist.You and I run
> | into them all the time doing takeovers !!  And no one in this thread is
> | saying that the new homeowner won't have to take into account these
> | sorts of situations and pay to have them rectified. If it's like it is
> | up here, the telephone company may have royally screwed things up. And
> | so far he is not saying that he is unwilling to pay for professional
> | services (other than monitoring through the previous company). Why do
> | you automatically read the worst into everything this guy is saying. It
> | will be interesting to see what he comes back with after he calls the
> | company tomorrow.
> | >
> | > So give me a break with your "keeping you from legitimate use of YOUR
> | > property" bullshit, will ya?
> | > js
> |
> | RHC: No, you give me a break from all your faulty assumptions about
> | what this guy is asking for. Frankly, I hope he does get a professional
> | to service his alarm, but it likely won't be from the previous company
> | who seems only too willing to pass this guy over because he doesn't
> | want them to monitor it.. That's his fucking choice ! He owns the God
> | damn panel. If he wants a professional to set it up, he will have to
> | pay the price. No one has said any different.
> |
> | Jesus H Christ ! I hope you fuzzy thinkers never sit on a jury judging
> | me for some unproven wrong doing. If so, I'm dead meat before I
> | start.....
> |
> | RHC
> |
>
>