Re: Monitoring Rates

["Crash Gordon" <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm only diplomatic if I knew the last company :-)

--
**Crash Gordon**






"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MKWwj.6102$w94.3010@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| Crash Gordon wrote:
| > Here's what we would do:
| >
| > Inform the client that we "may" be interested in monitoring/servicing
their
| > account based upon our inspection of the system. That there is a $xx.xx
p/hr
| > to inspect the system and that a portion of the fee may be waived if we
| > decide to do business with them (or vice versa).
| >
| > If they agree then we inspect the system and give them a proposal to
bring
| > the system up to our standards if need be - most of the time this is no
big
| > deal.
| >
| > Once in a while we the system is such crap that we walk away from it.
| >
| > Once we are engaged in monitoring the system we DO NOT ALLOW ANY
| > modification to the system either physically or programming by the
client.
| > If we should part ways...then we return the system programmatically to
allow
| > the client to fuck it up any way they please.
|
|
| Sounds about right.  One thing I would add.  The "standards" includes
| things like end-of-line supervision relays for four wire smokes.  You
| have no idea how many installations I've see where these have not been
| installed (either from pure laziness or lack of knowledge - you pick).
| In most instances, take-overs are a nightmare because once you find one
| thing "wonky", invariably another will become obvious as well.  Trying
| to explain to the client (diplomatically) that the last alarm company's
| installers were "idiots" is pretty difficult.  Often times the client
| has chosen the installing company.  "I'm afraid you were stupid, Mr.
| Customer, in choosing these idiots to install your alarm."