Re: An ethical conundrum... Opinions welcome!

[nick markowitz <nmarkowitz@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 28, 10:31=A0am, "Doug" <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Frank Olson" <use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messa=
ge
>
> 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. =A0The 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. =A0There are no test
> > signals programmed! =A0The service manager stated to me that test signa=
ls
> > are an additional cost which the customer opted not to send. The compan=
y
> > 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 th=
e
> > corner of the electrical room). =A0The alarm company's invoice supposed=
ly
> > has a reminder to "test your system monthly" and this is all they're
> > relying on! =A0The customer started refusing the invoices within three
> > months of the panel's disconnection. =A0Granted, he didn't send the com=
pany
> > a proper notice. =A0The company suspended service on both accounts last=
 year
> > (November). =A0Are they entitled to two years billing or just one? =A0S=
hould
> > any professional alarm dealer even offer to monitor a fire alarm system
> > without a daily test signal? =A0I shudder to think of the possible liab=
ility
> > issues involved.
>
> I'm not sure what the ethical conundrum is, it appears that both the alar=
m
> 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 witho=
ut
> 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 properl=
y
> 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 o=
n
> what in all likelihood is a code required timer test (I don't know the
> requirements in Canada).
>
> Doug

I just hit that situation where a radio shack burg panel was being
used as a fire alarm  in an apartment building I showed the company
what was wrong  with building he bought and he immediately authorized
it being replaced with proper stuff
he did not want the liability and neither did I.
If they did not want to change it they would have been dropped like a
hot potato and AHJ notified. end of story.