Request For Service / More On What's Going On In AZ- August 24, 2013

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

I presented a client with a phone contract (yours) and he had a question regarding notification if he is in need of service. The contract states that requests for service must be in writing; he wants that changed to a phone call. Perhaps we can change it to an email to we can have a written request, or is a verbal request sufficient?

Thanks

Alan S. Itchkow, President

Comprehensive Security Protection, Inc

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

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

Subscribers typically make a phone call to request service, and it's not an issue. It becomes an issue when a subscriber decides to stop paying the RMR contract and claims that service requests were ignored as justification. Under that scenario the Standard Form Contracts require that the request for service be documented by written request. The penalty for failure to service is that the RMR stops until the repairs are made, consistent with the contract service provision of course.

The form of written confirmation need not be a written letter sent by certified mail, Return Receipt Requested. It can be any communication that is verifiable such as fax, email or text.

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

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

I sent this letter to Tucson City Council and Mayor;

Subject: Failure of Tucson Alarm Ordinance.

Here are the facts. The City of Tucson is engaging in fraud of citizens, abuse of Government immunity and extortion of citizens. The alarm ordinance, as presented by the Arizona Alarm Association, was a miserable failure.

I attempted to have the City of Tucson charge alarm companies for dispatching on an unverified alarm. This meant an alarm had to produce two separate alarm zones, be audio, video, or eyewitness verified before an alarm company could dispatch. If an alarm company dispatched on a false single trip alarm, the alarm company would be fined $150 per dispatch. This would have stopped the selling of cheap, low quality alarms that trap citizens into 3 year contracts. The City Council choose instead to increase the crisis, allow alarm companies to continue to sell poor quality alarms, as long as the City could pick the pockets of citizens also.

The City, having cut Police by over 20%, now offers "free" alarm classes to alarm customers. The Officers are paid overtime to teach these classes to customers of private sector alarm companies. This is fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayers resources.

My company and a growing number of other companies have hired Veteran's Security Guards to respond to our customer's alarms, this guaranteeing them a response for $30 per dispatch and no registration fees. TPD charges a subscription fee to receive a Police response, but then uses Government immunity to deny citizens the opportunity to sue the City for negligence for the failure of TPD to perform the service they charge for.

The Tucson Chamber of Commerce supported the alarm permit fees and the fining of citizens, because even though it was a bad policy, it allowed their members in the alarm industry to continue to abuse the system by selling Police response to their alarms.

It is actually not the job of Police to respond to unverified alarms. It is a private sector security guard job. It is illegal for any private sector business to sell a tax payer funded resource, that being Police response. TPD has actually entered private sector security guard industry by charging a subscription service for TPD to compete against private sector guard services. An alarm does not mean a crime has occurred. With the City of Tucson supporting the garbage being sold by national companies, it has now become the norm for alarms to false out with 98% of all alarm calls being false. TPD has an advantage over private sector by abusing Government Immunity from being liable for the service they are charging for. Even though the City is frauding citizens out of money, by knowingly charging for a service they knowingly fail to perform in a reasonable manner, they cannot be sued due to Government Immunity from any liability. This is now become an abuse of power by Government.

The Mayor and City Council are denying equal Police response to all citizens based on ability, or desire to pay. Yes, Police will still respond to an alarm, if you do not register, that it true, but you will be fined $200+ for not paying the subscription fee. This means the poorest of the community are denied the same response as the wealthy who can afford to pay subscription fees and extreme fees for responses, or not being registered. All citizens should be entitled to the same Police and Fire protection, regardless of the ability to pay. I consider this to be a direct attack on the poorest citizens of Tucson by the Council and Mayor.

Consider this, why doesn't TPD offer classes to firearm owners? Uneducated firearm owners are a far greater danger to the public, than uneducated alarm owners are. Police, I would hope, are better trained in firearm use, than alarm technology. If it is justified for Police to pay overtime to officers to teach alarm classes, something they have no background in, then would it not be justified and a bigger benefit to citizens, if TPD taught gun safety classes? Alarm users pay an alarm company an ongoing monitoring fee that should also include proper training from a qualified alarm company. Firearm owners do not subscribe to a service and gun safety should be a higher priority than a person who set off a non-lethal alarm system.

Is the City Council and Mayor promoting firearms over a non-lethal alarm? Government supports the taxation of tobacco, gasoline and alcohol to deter people from purchasing it. Then would the same not be true when Government taxes alarms? With no tax or license required to possess a firearm and a subscription fee and fines for owning an alarm, the Tucson City Council and Mayor are promoting the concept of people going out and buying a firearm to protect their families, instead of purchasing a non-lethal alarm?

TPD continues to extort money from citizens in direct conflict with what the City Ordinance states. By extorting money from citizens, by charging citizens for accidently activating a holdup alarm, a panic alarm, or duress alarm, TPD is knowingly extorting money from citizens. TPD is well aware that the Tucson Alarm Ordinance states citizens may opt out of alarm response except for panic, duress and holdup and that anyone who intentionally activates those mentioned alarms off is subject to a fine. There is no mention of citizens being fined or required to purchase a permit to receive a response to these emergency devises.

Tucson Councilman, Steve Kozachik, stated that he agreed with my finding, but the Tucson Council will never admit they have failed, due to political reasons. In other words, the City Council and Mayor will continue to lead us down the path of failure, rather than fix the problems they created. I am asking the City to admit they failed in the alarm ordinance and correct their mistakes. As a business owner, I am often required to admit my failures to prevent further loss of revenues for my company. I would think a responsible leadership in Government should do the same for the taxpayers.

Channel 4 story: http://www.kvoa.com/news/city-ordinance-underperforms-on-revenue/#_

Thank You,

Roger D. Score, (President & Lobbyist)

Arizona Alarm Dealers Association, Inc.

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

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

Sounds like you need to bring back Wyatt Earp to straighten the place out.

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