Re: An ethical conundrum... Opinions welcome!

["Doug" <not@xxxxxxxx>]

"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EX3Qm.27501$kY2.25826@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> We're hip deep in a major fire alarm system upgrade on two residential
> high-rise towers with an interconnected parkade.  The old fire alarm
> systems are being monitored by a company that obviously cares more for the
> RMR than they do for the safety of their customer.  There are no test
> signals programmed!  The service manager stated to me that test signals
> are an additional cost which the customer opted not to send. The company
> is charging the customer $22.00 a month for "basic" service. The
> communicators haven't been transmitting for over two years (that's when
> the electrician removed them from the wall and placed them neatly in the
> corner of the electrical room).  The alarm company's invoice supposedly
> has a reminder to "test your system monthly" and this is all they're
> relying on!  The customer started refusing the invoices within three
> months of the panel's disconnection.  Granted, he didn't send the company
> a proper notice.  The company suspended service on both accounts last year
> (November).  Are they entitled to two years billing or just one?  Should
> any professional alarm dealer even offer to monitor a fire alarm system
> without a daily test signal?  I shudder to think of the possible liability
> issues involved.

I'm not sure what the ethical conundrum is, it appears that both the alarm
company and the customer are guilty to some degree.

Just tell the customer what is required by code, tell them how much you
charge for that service and let them worry about how much they owe the
previous company, because the customer doesn't appear to be an innocent
victim here, it looks as if they have knowingly cut corners to save money.

The alarm company shouldn't offer an option to monitor a fire alarm without
the timer test.
The customer has a responsibility to know what is required and shouldn't
have even considered that option.

Since the communicators have apparently been disconnected for two years,
that means that in all probability the alarm systems haven't been properly
tested in at least two years, unless the customer has a contract to have
those tests performed then the customer has neglected its duty to its
tenants.

It seems to me that the customer has got what it deserved, sub standard
service because they chose to save a few dollars a month by missing out on
what in all likelihood is a code required timer test (I don't know the
requirements in Canada).


Doug