Re: ADT Security system

[mleuck <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 12:23:09 AM UTC-5, Jim wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 4:03:39 PM UTC-4, E DAWSON wrote:
> > I started out in the business working for ADT. I trained for 2 days ins=
tead=20
> > of 2 weeks, mostly because I came from a construction background among =
other=20
> > things, and did not need for anyone to tell me how to physically instal=
l the=20
> > system. It was a no-brainer for me. I was given programming for the DSC=
=20
> > systems.
> > After 1 week of installations, I was made installation manager because =
I had=20
> > backgrounds of management.This was an independant dealer that I worked =
for.
> >=20
> > Even though ADT is run by the sales department as a whole, I ran the=20
> > location and made the Sales manager abide by my directions. I simply to=
ld=20
> > him that the customers were not buying his salesmanship, they were buyi=
ng a=20
> > security system. And I made sure that they were installed very well. I=
=20
> > detest having to go back on anything.
> >=20
> > ADT is not a security company, they are simply a Monitoring Revenue Com=
pany.=20
> > I find that the security companies who do a great job, are usually smal=
ler=20
> > with someone at the top that insists on top notch work. As soon as comp=
anies=20
> > get large, it becomes extremely harder to ensure quality work.
> >=20
> > After all, a security company is only as good as its worst installer...=
and=20
> > if they do not perform precautionary job quality inspections from time =
to=20
> > time, they have no idea how bad 'that installer' is.
> >=20
> > ADT just got purchased by Apollo, one of the world's largest  private e=
quity=20
> > groups. They only manage about $170 billion at this time! They are also=
 the=20
> > ones who just purchased Protection 1 and ASG last year. They will be=20
> > combining ADT and Protection 1. Unless someone at the top of the new co=
mpany=20
> > decides to actually be a security company, all those customers who did =
not=20
> > think thru their purchase and fell for the stupid commercials or telco=
=20
> > calls, will always be there by the millions as potential customer takeo=
vers=20
> > waiting to be picked from the fire. After their initial 3-year contract=
 is=20
> > over, most want to leave ADT really bad anyway.
>=20
> The company that REALLY grabs me by the short hairs is Vivint. And I do b=
elieve they were able to get away with what they did is because of the prec=
edents that were set by Protection 1 Brinks and ADT. They just put a little=
 twist to it and played a game of brinksmanship, seeing how close they coul=
d come to practicing illegal and unethical sales tactics before they were s=
eriously prosecuted. They did a fabulous job of publicizing how they would =
pay back the people who were the most outspoken complainers and ignoring al=
l those they had scammed who weren't so adamant =20
>=20
> Vivint started out as APX and then Apex with the Mormon sales kids being =
transported to various parts of the country doing door knocking. That was a=
ll well and good except it gradually turned into them lying to end users, a=
nd stealing accounts from area alarm companies. End users were put in the p=
osition of having signed two monitoring contracts. Accounts were switched w=
ithout the end users even realizing they had been scammed. They were told t=
hat their alarm company was out of business and they were the new alarm com=
pany or they would see the name of the end users alarm company on the lawn =
sign, and say they were from that alarm company just there to upgrade the a=
larm system. That went on for a few years. To me, it was simply an insidiou=
s ingenious plan to gain hundreds of thousands of accounts any way they cou=
ld and just before it became to huge a problem to handle they apologized, p=
aid some fines, ( one of them $6,000,000.00) began donating money to variou=
s charities, cuddled up to the good-ol-boys at the then NBFAA, changed thei=
r corporate name and were bought a couple of times to avoid their terrible =
reputation, all the while riding the wave of recurring revenue. And now the=
y're one of the biggest in the industry.=20
>=20
> What a disgusting legacy,  yet now ..... all the trade papers and magazin=
es laud them for how progressive and successful and great a company they ar=
e. Totally ignoring that they got where they are through deceit unethical s=
elling practices and lying through their teeth. However it is a perfect exa=
mple of what can be accomplished if you can walk the thin line between crim=
inality and legality. Every time I see their advertising or news articles a=
bout them I get this feeling like you would get if you had to use a  porta =
potty that hadn't  been cleaned out for 6 months. Slimey!!!!!
>=20
> Below are just a few of the hundreds of scams they got caught at and no o=
ne knows how many they didn't.. There are numerous complaints on line about=
 APX, Apex and Vivint. It's just a continuous story of breaking the law jus=
t long enough just before or until they get caught. In the meantime they've=
 accumulated thousands of accounts.=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> In 2009, the company paid the state of Arkansas $65,850 to settle allegat=
ions of improper licensing of employees, including alarm installers. The co=
mpany paid an additional $125,000 to the state over alleged violations of s=
tate law in 2010.
> In 2010, Vivint settled with the state of Oregon for $60,000 over alleged=
 aggressive sales tactics used by its agents. The company also agreed to ch=
ange some of its sales tactics.
> In 2011, Vivint settled with Contra Costa County, California for $425,000=
 in a neither admit nor deny pleading, and agreed to conform its contracts =
to California law and refrain from certain sales practices.
> In 2012, Vivint settled with the Wisconsin Attorney General's office in a=
n agreement to refund up to $148,000 to consumers who were misled about the=
ir ability to cancel and about false alarm charges. Vivint also canceled $4=
50,000 in consumer debt.
> In 2013, the company settled for $55,000 with the Kansas Attorney General=
, which accused sales agents of using deceptive practices while going door-=
to-door offering to install or replace home security systems. The agents al=
so allegedly failed to advise the consumers of their rights under the Kansa=
s Consumer Protection Act and did not disclose all costs associated with sw=
itching alarm system providers.
> The Ohio Attorney General settled with Vivint in 2013 following complaint=
s alleging deceptive sales practices and the company's refusal to honor can=
cellation notices. Vivint agreed to comply with Ohio consumer laws and paid=
 $50,000 in fines. Also in 2013, Vivint agreed to an assurance of voluntary=
 compliance in Nebraska. The company promised not to make any misrepresenta=
tions while engaging in sales. The company also donated $50,000 to two char=
ities in Lancaster County, Nebraska
> As of 2014, two federal class-action lawsuits were filed against Vivint f=
or alleged violations of the TCPA. In June 2014, Vivint agreed to a propose=
d settlement in Benzion which included a=20
> $6 million settlement fund.

As someone who once did inspections of about 100 Vivint accounts I agree wi=
th you 100% on this