Question:

**********

Ken,

    When we receive written cancel notice from a customer in the middle of an

initial term or renewal term, we bill them for balance of contract in most

circumstances. 

    Can we discontinue monitoring at our central station

immediately if the customer doesn't specify the date they'd like the cancel to

be effective?  Or do we have to continue providing central station monitoring

for the period we have invoiced?  (Or until their balance becomes past due

enough so that we can cancel for that reason.) 

    I am concerned that if they pay (or partial pay) the invoice for balance of contract, they may have the expectation that they are receiving monitoring for that period of time.

Thanks,

Jim in NV

***********

Answer:

********

    Interesting question because I am not sure if you are primarily concerned with a "collection" issue or "liability" issue. 

    Let's discuss collection first.  I've gotten plenty of collection cases only to find out that the subscriber isn't in default yet.  I've counseled my clients to wait until the sub is in default.  There are two variables that I don't know in your scenario.  One, what is the wording of the cancellation notice.  Two, what provisions are in your contract [you didn't mention if you had one of mine]  If the wording is clear that service is to terminate effective immediately or at a specific date, then you are at liberty to terminate your service, monitoring or any other service under contract, at the designated date, even if the subscriber is paid beyond that date.

    If the wording of the cancellation notice is not clear on a termination date, then you can look to the terms of your contract to see if it addresses the issue.  It probably won't go beyond providing that you have the right to terminate service if the sub defaults, with or without notice.

    As a general rule, a party in breach cannot expect performance from the non defaulting party.  Put another way, once your subscriber is in default you are relieved of your performance duty.  You do have to be sure that the sub is in breach before you elect to terminate your performance.  If the wording of the cancallation notice is unclear then you should continue service until you clarify the subscriber's intent.  You may have to do this by telephone or further correspondence. 

    About liability.  You don't want to terminate services if you are not sure that the subscriber no longer expects your service.  Ambiguity on your part only will not be a defense to negligence.  It's safer to make sure your subscriber knows that your service is terminated, even if the contract doesn't require any notice.  A simple letter announcing the termination of service at a time and date certain will remove any expectation by the subscriber. 

    A subscriber who knows that service has been terminated cannot not sit back and wait for a loss.  After a reasonable time the subscriber will be expected to replace the service.  If you have terminated without right, in other words, you are in breach of the contract, the subscriber's damages will be the difference between what it agreed to pay you and the amount it has to pay another alarm company to provide a similar service.  Unless a loss occurs before a subscriber has a reasonable amount of time to get a new alarm company you won't be liable for a loss that the alarm was designed to detect.  [of course you still might get sued].

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

More comments on Residential Fire

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

    John Drucker forgot to mention that the primary power source must be a 2nd floor lighting circuit.

Mike

CSS

NY

***********

Dear Ken;

     I'm writing in reply to John Drucker's email.  Although Mr. Drucker is absolutely correct in quoting the correct part of the code, I have to disagree on several points in the code.  Who in this industry has not gone into a home to give the homeowner an estimate for a burglar/fire alarm, and not found a problematic smoke detector had been removed from the system?  Just because it is part of the "permanent wiring" of the home does not mean that it can't be disconnected.  In modern burg/fire systems, every wireless device is supervised.  The newer devices (newer meaning any wireless smokes manufactured in the past 10-15 years) use the far superior Lithium Ion batteries that last for about five years.  When they go into low battery mode, they send a signal to the control panel, which then transmits same to the central monitoring station.  In fact the new systems are programmed by default at the factory that no fire zone can be bypassed by the homeowner.  When my customers get a low battery signal on their security console, I get an email from the central monitoring station pertaining to that event, and usually a phone call from the customer as well.  You can't even legislate common sense, and cannot make someone maintain a system who cares so little for their family or property.

     I hate to say it, but I honestly feel that much of this code was written by electricians who are looking for job security, which they are placing above Life Safety.  The photo-electric smoke detectors that have become the Fire Alarm Industry standard are so far superior to the piece of crap "contractors specials" that the electricians use, it isn't even funny.  I'm sure Mr. Drucker knows that the vast majority of home fires start with something that smolders for a period of time before going into the fast flaming stages of a fire.  Photo-electric smokes react far quicker to smoke conditions.  I have seen videos of house fires, where the structure has filled with smoke and the ionization detectors had not yet reported an alarm.  Within a few seconds of flame being visible, all of the ionization detectors did trip.  But the photo-electric detectors would have sounded much sooner.  Nothing is 100%.  The ionization detectors are better suited for a fast flaming fire, like say a grease fire.  In that instance they would likely sound before the photo-electric smokes.  Percentagewise, how many houses burn down from other sources compared to grease fires?  And besides, since most victims of house fires are found dead in bed, who would start frying something on the stove and leave it lit and then go to bed?  NO ONE.

     Mr. Drucker's point about the primary standby battery going bad and then not reporting a fire is somewhat correct.  But it too would send a "low system battery" signal to the central monitoring station before going stone dead.  The point I'm trying to make, is that any fire system needs maintenance.  Whether you change the 9 volt batteries in the contractor specials every October, or change the system batteries every 3-5 years, both must be maintained.

     I have saved the best for last.  If as the "code says" that these hard wired "contractor specials" are so superior that the public in general should trust their lives to them, then why is it that in a structure that requires 13 or more smoke detectors, it's OK to use the wireless supervised photo-electric smoke detectors?  I suspect that using more than 12 ionization detectors on one circuit would likely trip the circuit breaker in the event of a fire or smoke condition.  And then, the homeowner would have to rely on the 9V.DC back up batteries to save his or her life.  That doesn't make sense to me.

     The bottom line is this:  When I install a burglary/fire alarm system, I follow the codes.  I install the correct number of devices and install them in the right places as well.  (Again, who in this industry hasn't found where an electrician has installed a smoke detector just inches away from an air duct?  I have seen it more times than I care to count.)  I also do my battery calculations, AND I instruct my customers in what THEY must do to maintain their security system.  At the end of the third year after I do an installation, I send a reminder notice about changing the standby battery.  I also urge my customers to change the batteries in any wireless devices as well.  After an electrician does the job and gets paid, does he even send his customers a Christmas card?  I would have to say the vast majority do not.

Sincerely,

John in NJ

**********

Ken

    Mr. Drucker is probably 100% correct where this applies to New Jersey.

New York Dealers should be aware that we are regulated by the Residential Code of New York -2007 and the Fire Code of New York State-2007.

Wiring Methods are purely NFPA 70 issues,(it depends on what jurisdiction you work in as to what Edition applies!) and Fire System install standards as well as Household Fire Warning ( System based Security- with Smoke Detectors (NOT SMOKE ALARMS!") Are NFPA 72- 2007-10 Standards. NYS does not

accept IBC, IRC or NJ Residential Code as a Standard.

Mike Sokoly

MES Security Systems