January 27, 2012
*************
***************
Question re PERS License
**************
I have a question for your online forum. We are looking to provide install support for PERS systems and was woundering what states require an alarm tech/contractors license to install, setup or service these.
Jeffrey Lascar,
***************
Answer
**************
PERS is not always included in traditional alarm license statutes; in other words, states that require a license to install alarms, CCTV and accsss control, may not require a license for personal emergency response or medical alert equipment and monitoring services. PERS licensing is however required in various jurisdictions, and that of course is going to be an evolving matter as new laws get enacted in the future. PERS is a particularly troubling issue for licensing because the PERS system and monitoring services can be conducted nationwide with equipment mailed to subscribers with plug and play instructions, and then monitoring provided, usually by a wholesale alarm monitoring center that has the necessary nationwide licensing in place.
I don't know the jurisdictions that require PERS licenses but you can start your search on our website at https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/alarmlicreqstate.htm
or you can call Jennifer Kirschenbaum, Esq., 516 747 6700 x 302 who heads our alarm licensing department to engage us to assist you with licensing needs.
**************
Question re CCTV removal issues
**************
Greetings, Ken
I recently had a customer who wished to remove a security camera from a hotel swimming pool area. As in many hotels, there is no lifeguard and it is posted to swim at your own risk, no lifeguard on duty, etc. The hotel manager claimed that having a security camera and TV monitor to where the pool could be viewed by the hotel attendant implied a liability on the hotels' part that if someone drowned, they would be liable since they have an active camera monitor set-up capable of viewing the area. My thoughts would be quite the opposite from this, since cameras could conclude that an accident in this scenario could be proven by video to be carelessness on the part of the victim, such as an unattended child, etc. Secondly, having a pool is an attractive nuisance, and to me, just posting signs does not release your liability as a property owner. Cameras or not, you are liable. Finally, even if they did have a lifeguard on duty, there is no guarantee as such that an accident will not happen. I did some Google searches looking for similar cases, but could not find any where having cameras at a pool implied a liability to actuallywatch them. Moreover, if this implied liability of having a live camera system constituted an increase or decrease of risk (as in insurance claims & premiums) then why does this question not come up more often? I'd be interested to hear what you think of this situation.
Best Regards,
JJ Koehler
FSS Inc.
Iowa
*************
Answer
*************
I agree with you. CCTV alone should not increase the property owner's liability. Someone more, like signs that boast of increased security as a result of the CCTV would be necessary. The signs would have to create a reasonable expectation of increased security.
Most CCTV is designed for property protection, not personal protection, and most CCTV is not lived monitored. Am I wrong?
Cameras at a pool can certainly have signs that they are unattended. I don't think that's necessary since there will be signs that the pool has no lifeguards, is unattended, and swim at your own risk, etc.
*************
Question re getting started with contracts
**************
Ken
Out of the Sales. Monitoring and Contracts which do you with with be the most important to start with? I am a relatively new business and I need to be smart with my money. I would like to save to purchase all three in the near future. Thank you.
Adam
************
Answer
************
The contracts you need depend on the services you intend to provide. I am tempted to say that you would typically start with alarm installations, which means you need a Sales Contract. But, you might be starting with take over monitoring, so you need a Monitoring Contract, or with servicing alarms, in which event you need a Service Contract.
Seems like you're on your way to at least one smart move, getting the Standard Form Contracts. You'll find lots of different contracts described on our web site order form because alarm companies provides lots of different services and different contracts are needed for those services.
Your contracts are your most important asset. They protect you from subscriber claims, they enforce your bargain with your subscriber and they build the equity in your business. Best of luck in your new business. My office is here for you when you need legal assistance or just some advice.
*************
Florida - no license - no contract
*************
The state law says the following regarding contracts. It has nothing to do with FASA or BASA certification of employees:
Roy Pollack
section 489.532 Contracts performed by unlicensed contractors unenforceable.--As a matter of public policy, contracts entered into on or after October 1, 1990, and performed in full or in part by any contractor who fails to obtain or maintain his or her license in accordance with this part shall be unenforceable in law, and the court in its discretion may extend this provision to equitable remedies
**********
Ken,
In answer to Mr. Anonymous "D's question about whether a contract, in Florida, is null and void if it is entered into through an individual that is not BASA certified in the State of Florida. The statute says that a contract is unenforceable if it is entered into by an unlicensed contractor. This is found in F.S. 489.532. I have said before that statutes are a tangled web and can be aurgued in both directions to anyone's favor. I am not an attorney but I believe some, if not all of this, is pretty clear in the Statute.The first question and something that is very common place in this industry is whether the sales person was an employee, paid by W2, or being paid by a 1099. If the later, then there is no doubt that the contract is in question unless the sales person him or herself is a licensed contractor. People being paid by a 1099 are contractors by classification and need a license. If this person that is being paid under a 1099 and the mother company gives or gets them a BASA card, which is meant for truely classified employees, the contract is still in question and now the mother company's license holder is in more hot water because they are deceiving the clients as well as the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. There could be an argument that the mother company is licensed and that not having someone BASA certified should only be a disciplinary action through the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board with a maximum fine of $500 but should not make the contract unenforceable since the company does in fact have a license. A mentality that they will just pay the fine and move on. After all $500 dollars is cheaper than jumping through all the hoops every time a salesperson comes and goes. However, through the whole statute, the term BASA or FASA "certified" is used. The BASA certification requirement is not meant to be a contractors license but it is termed a certification. If one reads the statute further, they will find that in F.S.489.505(24) "licensure" means "any" type of certification or registration provided for in this part. Wouldn't want to try to defend the fact that it was sold by a person and/or company that didn't follow the law if something goes wrong. Sounds to me like there may be some contracts out there that carry some pretty heavy liability because someone didn't want to follow the rules. Personally, I feel sorry for those who are funding these type of deals or buying accounts that were sold by folks that didn't comply with State law. I will pass on those, thank you.
Bob Worthy CPP
President
Secur Technologies, Inc.