Re: Changes to Canadian monitoring contract law

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ok, I'll take that as a "no", you haven't heard anything specific. The
source of this information was in a position to know about such things
in Alberta, and it seems they are seriously looking at it. However,
you are quite correct; those who are likely to be seen as an abuser
under any new legislation would likely just adjust their approach to
negate things. And since it does affect contract law, I hope they
REALLY think this one through.

If they use as little common sense as they took vis a vis the long gun
registry, we will all be in SERIOUS trouble...

RHC

On Aug 31, 12:30 am, Frank Olson <Use-the-email-
li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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"?).