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

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

G. Morgan wrote:
> Frank Olson wrote:
>
>> Just Looking wrote:
>>
>>>> Wasn't it you that threw a strop when you claimed a CS
>>>> stopped signals from one of your accounts?
>>> Not exactly. They called up the panel, removed the central station phone
>>> number and the account number and that stopped the monitoring altogether.
>>> They didn't notify anyone and they continued to bill for the account. The
>>> "strop" came when that account had a break in.
>> All of our accounts "test" daily.  We have a procedure in place for when
>> we receive "fail to test" reports from the CS.  Apparently you don't
>> either have such a procedure or receive fail to test reports (or both).
>>  I'd suggest looking for another CS that will provide you with better
>> service (in the latter instance).  If you *are* receiving fail to test
>> reports, then I'd suggest it's time to amend your service procedures.
>> This will avoid future embarrassment on your part.
>>
>> Now...  We just performed a test of a fire alarm system which happened
>> to be monitored by another alarm company.  They failed to receive *any*
>> signals.  No troubles, alarms or supervisories.  When I spoke with the
>> operator I asked if they were receiving a daily or monthly test signal.
>>  He said "yes, we are receiving a daily test signal".  I asked him
>> specifically if those test signals were generated by the system or if
>> someone at the station was manually entering them (some CS software will
>> allow you to do this).  He sounded quite "miffed" when he responded:
>> "These are signals generated by the communicator".  I called him back
>> about ten minutes later to suggest he dispatch a technician to the site.
>>  Apparently the phone lines had been disconnected and the panel hadn't
>> been able to communicate since the second week of September, 2007 (I got
>> that information from a copy of the Telus work order which was left on
>> the site).  I would love to have been there the day the customer phoned
>> the monitoring company to complain about being billed for a service they
>> clearly hadn't been providing for over half a year.
>
>
> When you got there you should have known immediately the panel wasn't
> communicating then.  Wasn't there a Line1 & Line2 trouble and a FTC trouble?
> If so, why did you attempt to send signals?

The "can" holding the equipment is "blank".  There's no keypad.  There
are two jacks but one doesn't even have a connection to the telephone
block.  We were there performing a test on the fire alarm system after
an upgrade (they added two pull stations and a bell).  I know damn well
the "communicator" isn't ULC listed for fire monitoring.  It can only be
described as a "trunk slammer" install, but the company involved is one
of the biggest ULC listed stations in town (turned out to be an old DSC
1500 with no keypad attached).  I wasn't there to "test" the
communicator, but since the panel is "stickered" as being monitored we
had to call the station to inform them that we would be sending signals
(as the fire alarm needed to be tested).  Oh...  and by the way, if we
find a non compliant communicator on a system we're verifying, the
system is red flagged regardless.  The fact that they were obviously NOT
receiving signals was just the "icing" on the cake.