Re: ADT Security system

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

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 inste=
ad=20
> of 2 weeks, mostly because I came from a construction background among ot=
her=20
> things, and did not need for anyone to tell me how to physically install =
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 fo=
r.
>=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 told=
=20
> him that the customers were not buying his salesmanship, they were buying=
 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 Compa=
ny.=20
> I find that the security companies who do a great job, are usually smalle=
r=20
> with someone at the top that insists on top notch work. As soon as compan=
ies=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...an=
d=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 equ=
ity=20
> groups. They only manage about $170 billion at this time! They are also t=
he=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 comp=
any=20
> decides to actually be a security company, all those customers who did no=
t=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 takeove=
rs=20
> waiting to be picked from the fire. After their initial 3-year contract i=
s=20
> over, most want to leave ADT really bad anyway.

The company that REALLY grabs me by the short hairs is Vivint. And I do bel=
ieve they were able to get away with what they did is because of the preced=
ents that were set by Protection 1 Brinks and ADT. They just put a little t=
wist to it and played a game of brinksmanship, seeing how close they could =
come to practicing illegal and unethical sales tactics before they were ser=
iously prosecuted. They did a fabulous job of publicizing how they would pa=
y back the people who were the most outspoken complainers and ignoring all =
those they had scammed who weren't so adamant =20

Vivint started out as APX and then Apex with the Mormon sales kids being tr=
ansported to various parts of the country doing door knocking. That was all=
 well and good except it gradually turned into them lying to end users, and=
 stealing accounts from area alarm companies. End users were put in the pos=
ition of having signed two monitoring contracts. Accounts were switched wit=
hout the end users even realizing they had been scammed. They were told tha=
t their alarm company was out of business and they were the new alarm compa=
ny or they would see the name of the end users alarm company on the lawn si=
gn, and say they were from that alarm company just there to upgrade the ala=
rm system. That went on for a few years. To me, it was simply an insidious =
ingenious plan to gain hundreds of thousands of accounts any way they could=
 and just before it became to huge a problem to handle they apologized, pai=
d some fines, ( one of them $6,000,000.00) began donating money to various =
charities, cuddled up to the good-ol-boys at the then NBFAA, changed their =
corporate name and were bought a couple of times to avoid their terrible re=
putation, all the while riding the wave of recurring revenue. And now they'=
re one of the biggest in the industry.=20

What a disgusting legacy,  yet now ..... all the trade papers and magazines=
 laud them for how progressive and successful and great a company they are.=
 Totally ignoring that they got where they are through deceit unethical sel=
ling practices and lying through their teeth. However it is a perfect examp=
le of what can be accomplished if you can walk the thin line between crimin=
ality and legality. Every time I see their advertising or news articles abo=
ut them I get this feeling like you would get if you had to use a  porta po=
tty that hadn't  been cleaned out for 6 months. Slimey!!!!!

Below are just a few of the hundreds of scams they got caught at and no one=
 knows how many they didn't.. There are numerous complaints on line about A=
PX, Apex and Vivint. It's just a continuous story of breaking the law just =
long enough just before or until they get caught. In the meantime they've a=
ccumulated 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 allegatio=
ns of improper licensing of employees, including alarm installers. The comp=
any paid an additional $125,000 to the state over alleged violations of sta=
te law in 2010.
In 2010, Vivint settled with the state of Oregon for $60,000 over alleged a=
ggressive sales tactics used by its agents. The company also agreed to chan=
ge some of its sales tactics.
In 2011, Vivint settled with Contra Costa County, California for $425,000 i=
n 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 an =
agreement to refund up to $148,000 to consumers who were misled about their=
 ability to cancel and about false alarm charges. Vivint also canceled $450=
,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 also=
 allegedly failed to advise the consumers of their rights under the Kansas =
Consumer Protection Act and did not disclose all costs associated with swit=
ching alarm system providers.
The Ohio Attorney General settled with Vivint in 2013 following complaints =
alleging deceptive sales practices and the company's refusal to honor cance=
llation 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 c=
ompliance in Nebraska. The company promised not to make any misrepresentati=
ons while engaging in sales. The company also donated $50,000 to two charit=
ies in Lancaster County, Nebraska
As of 2014, two federal class-action lawsuits were filed against Vivint for=
 alleged violations of the TCPA. In June 2014, Vivint agreed to a proposed =
settlement in Benzion which included a=20
$6 million settlement fund.