Comment:

*********

Hi Ken,

RE: Verification Technologies and Procedures under contract.

    Your answer in the August 14, 2010 Newsletter highlighted a very important issue.

     "....The monitoring contract provides that if the central station receives a signal it will dispatch unless it does not believe an alarm condition exists....".

    If there is a one sentence explanation for unnecessary police response, a/k/a/ false alarm problem, this is it.  It obligates the monitoring source to use the local police to complete their monitoring process with an onsite inspection. "...it will dispatch unless it does not believe an alarm condition exists.  As we all know, the traditional monitoring process is just a process-of-elimination. The last step in that process is an onsite inspection.  The contract obligates the monitoring source to make that decision and fortunately the excellent contract protects the alarm industry from liability with either decision.  If you don't dispatch you are safe, if you do dispatch you are safe.  Some monitoring sources solve their false alarm issues by not dispatching on anything, except biometric verification.   Other monitoring sources dispatch on everything that has unknown cause, which is nearly all.

    Many monitoring sources still believe they have greater liability if they do not dispatch.

    Ken, will you please address the issue about liability for NOT dispatching?

Thanks Again;

Lee Jones

Support Services Group

**********

Response:

********

    There are plenty of reported cases where alarm dealers and their central stations have been sued for no response or delayed response.   Properly drafted alarm contracts will generally insulate the alarm dealer and central station from damages.  "Contracting away liability even for your own negligence" is a necessary component in a properly worded alarm contract because, as you can well imagine, the response time a central station has to dispatch can be very subjective.  Of course, industry standards may be considered, but we can all envision a scenario where an injured party could claim that 30 seconds made a difference.  That doesn't mean a central station should adopt as a matter of policy or course to dispatch on all alarms, since such activity could run the risk of subscriber resentment, as well as contributing to the police departments' non-response or low priority response policies.

    On the flip side, a decision not to dispatch, which is perhaps worse than simply failing to dispatch for other reasons [like distraction], certainly has it's risks; the operator better be in a well documented position to justify the non-dispatch decision if it turns out there was a real alarm condition.  As an example, on a thunderstorm night with a tremendous increase in alarm activity there may be justification not to dispatch, but make sure that decision is documented by the central station.  Precedent has established that a reasoned decision not to dispatch is hard to challenge so long as the alarm contract provides the protection it is designed to provide. 

    Bottom line, central stations should have written policies regarding response options and then train the operators.  Periodic meetings to discuss operator issues and experiences will go a long way in continuing the operator training process and addressing challenges to a central station's procedures and how it's operators decided to respond to a particular alarm signal.

***************

Another comment on false alarms

***********

    Kudos my friend Ken on your 'Excellence and Professionalism' within your great newsletter. It is always the first thing I read with every day's e-mails. Thank you ever so much!

    As we collective owners of Alarm Companies and Providers of Security...we should be concerned about false alarms and police department reaction in these present days wherein the police are hurting for funding during tough economical times. It probably will get worse before getting better. And having been a cop for 16 years and in this biz for 32 years, I don't see the police/alarm provider relationship ever getting better because the fact is (whether police/fire/or any outside organization) they are mostly REACTIONARY and looking to pass restrictive laws vs co-operational dialogue to really understand and resolve problems. Get?  They basically don't really care much on what you think...only keeping their departments functioning smoothly and you (the alarm guy) are a burr under their saddle) Get used to it and go on with life! :)

    Police used to welcome help from citizens and groups trying to reduce crime. They didn't mind checking buildings by driving down alleys with their lights out at 2:00am to try and find the pried doors and broken windows of possible burglary activity just to protect their business districts they were assigned to.   We (in the Flintstone Days) used to drive up and down residential neighborhoods day/and night time just to provide a 'peace of mind' and a 'high presence profile' to the bad guy but oh...how times have changed.

    Cops are not 'user friendly' when it comes to what we are trying to do in our biz. Most departments are stretched thin (not by burglary and murder) but by trying to write tickets for revenue generation and covering all the stupid laws (like stopping kids from skateboarding or riding motorcyles in dirt lots, yada, yada) and all the restricting laws that their city councils pass just to appear like they are doing a great job...yet not understanding the first principles of providing real service to their constituents.

    Sorry for the long epistly (cut out anything you like) but the bottom line is 'We are too overly concerned when it comes to what the police departments are doing'.  We need to explain to our client how valuable a security system is...even when the police may...MAY...occasionally write a ticket for a false alarm.

    Yes, its way out of hand and we may have to pay a fine now and then. But if your company is getting fined too frequently or your customers are being cited too often...just who is really to blame?  For sure not the cops!

    With the excellent equipment produced today that eliminates a great many false alarms by design...their remain mainly 2 reasons for problems. 

Either the system is not properly designed or installed, or

the customer hasn't been thoroughly instructed on the use.

    If your systems are falseing...and you can't correct them by good repairs, and better instruction then the squeelling I am hearing have to do with a misplaced profit/Vs good Installation/Service attitude.

    Wah/wah/wah...we sound like a bunch of cry babies...You can't get good installations, and give good service (that prevent false alarm problems down to a manageable amount) and yet sell 'Free Security', Cutup your fellow alarm companies in your area by using cheap/unethical 'take-over' methods.

    Get it? You can't 'Eat your cake...and have it too'. If you are a quality operation...you are less likely to be whining about fines and fees.

Now concerning 'Police deciding not to respond to alarms'...remember...'and this too will pass' when they get hit with a multi-million dollar law suit when a dispatcher gets a notification from a monitoring facility and they fail to respond and someone is raped or killed...believe me the legal profession will get it set straight. Remember the 'Pendulum has to swing far-left before it swings to the right'! Calm down...give it time...I guarannnnteeee you will be rewarded.

    If you were pro-active with the cops on the beat (have coffee with the guys at the local Dunkin Donuts...join the community service clubs and chamber of commerce where you will rub elbows with the police chief, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and beat cops. Do you go and your staff go to your local church and are involved in attending city council meeting or do you just spend all your time trying to figure out how to cut the throat of your competition?

    Put a few of these ideas up on your bulletin board...get your ideas out among the locals and 'cease & desist' any bad business practise...and if this doesn't work for you...if I've pissed you off...get out of the biz cuz you just don't get it.

Every time an ADT buys out a Brinks/Broadview yada, yada I throw a celebration cuz in 32 years I've seen 'em come and I've seen 'em go. The corporate guys don't really know 'LOSS PREVENTION'. They know profit so they do the cheap...build up accounts...then can't produce a LONG-TERM QUALITY PRODUCT because they sold on the 'Short' but they make money on the 'Sell-out' then move quickly on to the next hot idea for profit taking. I call 'em 'Miners' like the gold miners of the 1800's, few find the gold because they don't really like the digging. They want the nuggets only...and then complain when hard work is involved or the burro dies due to lack of nurturing!

    Well I'm done,,,got it all off my chest. If the shoe fits...sorry but maybe one or two of you need to hear it. Quit complaining about the weather...DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT...GIVE OF YOURSELF...TREAT YOUR FELLOW COMPETITION WITH RESPECT...QUIT CUTTING THROATS WITH CHEAP IMMORAL TAKE-OVERS...ooops I use the word moral...sorry!

Ron Moore

www.scanalertsecurity

ronmoore.scanalert@earthlink.net

(complain to me if you want...but any fellow travelers who feel the same will be even more welcome) LOL!

************

Thanks for participating Ron.

***************

comments on false alarms / fines / ECV

*************

              In Birmingham Alabama the police false alarm enforcement ordinance is more towards repairing systems and reducing false alarms by maintaining a properly functioning alarm system than to just create revenue.  This approach has helped to reduce false alarms or to weed out the systems that are orphaned or the owner is not willing to have them repaired.  Failure to follow the ordinance will result in a monetary penalty, loss of dispatch, but it can be prevented easily.

             This ordinance was reached jointly by law enforcement and the Alabama Alarm Association.  I hope this example might help others in their development of their policy.

John Elmore

Security By Elmore Inc

*********

KEN:

    Regarding ECV and your contracts:

    ECV is nothing more than the order in which the central station  is directed to respond to signals by the customer and should be covered already.  ECV ADDS ANOTHER LAYER OF VERIFICATION BY ADDING ANOTHER PERSON IN THE PRE DISPATCH CALL LIST))

     " In the event of alarm, the monitoring station will attempt to verify by calling the premises. They will then attempt to verify by calling your designated primary RP. (Responsible Party) If no satisfactory response ((Pass code etc)) Authorities will be dispatched according the following order.................."

    I don't think your contracts are in conflict with this as long as we don't get hung up on the NAME ECV  NO?

Joel Kent

FBN

*********** That's correct and my position

*******

    When General Motors pays for my speeding tickets because I drove my COBALT too fast on a sales call  I will pay the alarm fines for my customers who do not shut off their alarms properly. 

    Seems like the city council wants the alarm company to assume the risk of usage after the sale.....

Joel Kent