Re: question about burglar alarm dispute (San Francisco Bay Area)

["alarman" <nospam@xxxxxxxx>]

Doug wrote:
> "Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:47e1244f$0$16657$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> I have a complaint. Who decided that was a good installation of an
>> outdoor camera? This is a joke, right? Am I seeing things or is the
>> drip loop actually above the camera? And why on earth would one post
>> that picture to a
>> web site for "Commercial Security Solutions" when that would be a
>> very poor
>> even for a residential installation? Is that really the best they
>> have?
>
>> As for this guy's complaint about the toll charges?
>> Toss in the fact that they used a toll number instead of an 800
>> number for the central station phone number. Then setting a
>> residential test timer for
>> daytime testing?
>> And let's be honest here folks, most modern central stations would
>> have had
>> caller ID for that many signals and put the account on run away. The
>> on call
>> tech would have been getting a page about every 15 minutes to take
>> care of the problem. This company doesn't deserve any benefit of the
>> doubt in my opinion. Pay this man NOW! These guys level of service
>> for this account was
>> way below substandard as I see it.
>>
>>
>
> You're seeing things, the drip loop is below the camera, its still
> not a great installation in my opinion since I would prefer either
> liquid tight flex or a mount that passes the cable through without
> there being any exposed cable.
>
> Putting the account on run away won't stop the panel making a toll
> call to the CS, and since it wasn't calling a toll free number its
> possible or even likely that the caller ID was blocked as many
> residence's block caller ID, so what's the alarm company to do? block all
> unidentified incoming calls from their receivers? Wasn't it
> you that threw a strop when you claimed a CS stopped signals from one
> of your accounts?
> A timer test mid afternoon is probably not a good idea on a
> residential account, and on the face of it the alarm company should
> have flagged a no timer test if the customer contracted for a weekly
> timer test, but since it eventually came in it may have just flagged
> it as late. I'd be disappointed if it was one of my accounts and we
> didn't flag it but we really don't know the circumstances.
>
> Who knows what caused the problem, the customer may have added
> something to their phone service such as DSL, the alarm panel may
> have simply developed a fault or the CS may have done something to
> cause the problem.
>
> Doug

threw a strop?

--
js

He who laughs last.......thinks the slowest