As someone who co-ordinates a Support Helpline, this issue crops up on a number of occassions. I would therefore love to hear from any number of installers that have an opinion on this matter.

There are regular instances where an installer (required to programme or commission a system) is being asked to get the system to operate in a way that is "identical to the last system", or "easier to understand". Some of the methods used unfortunately result either in reduced security, or risk failing to comply to local (or National) standards. When the changes are queried at our Helpline the answer given is often "the customer wants it to do that . . . so it has to".

Do you guys (lets face it - the real workers in this industry) have a formed opinion on whether installation companies need to be firmer with customers? Are we letting the demands of non-industry people (end users) cloud installation guidelines or standards? Do you have set guidelines for engineers that attend sites, on how to handle customers that "known everything they need to know about security - and just want the system right"?

I think the systems must meet the new requirements, otherwise who will get blamed when the insurance company says "This system doesnt conform to current standards", then its us who will have to explain ourselves. So therefore whether my customers want this, that or the other... unless they put in writting that they want the system configured differently to current standards, then they get what they are given.... I aint gonna put my behind on the line!

Dale

I guess a balance has to be struck between the customer and the system limitations. The customer pays for the system at the end of the day so whatever they ask, has to be taken on board.

I've seldom met a customer who would sacrifice security just to make a system easier to use or operate similar to their last system. The customer always has to be made aware of any implications that may arise from such changes to a system. If the customer persists with wanting the system changed to suit them at the expense of security and no amount of advice can sway them, it's a damn good idea to get a signature on a statement of the customers requirements. As of yet, I haven't had to do this so I know I'm doing my job correctly.

I believe that our industry is unique in the sense of the responsibility laid upon us installers by the customer. the installer isn't just there to fit an alarm. He's there to reassure the customer that he/she is in safe hands. To strike up a relationship of trust.

I have noticed over the years that theres more and more engineers who do as the customer says without pointing out the pros and cons of such changes. They don't seem to have the heart to politely inform the customer about any implications of any changes.

Saying that though. Theres quite a lot of alarms that give the customer the ability to manually omit various detectors willy nilly. Besides the odd landing or bedroom detector, no alarm should be installed where a customer has to omit a detector. Alternative protection should be in place to accomodate the possibility and this should be done whilst agreeing the specification with the customer.

Tony

Its a good topic this one.

Difficult line to tread, but in all of the Alarm Companies I have worked for including the present, the client on paying in full, owns the system.

For us registered Companies SSAIB & NSI, we would upon completion issue a certificate of compliance, therefore we would have to meet certain standards, regardless of the client liking it or not. The same applies with a takeover, whereby if the install is not up to standard, we would have to remedy that or not take on the job.

On survey, most non serious (time wasting) clients will assume that a couple of PIR's will do and that the Police will come running on a "Bells Only" install. You can usually tell if your onto a looser when the first thing they say on arrival is "all I want is a basic system that makes a noise" "Don't worry, my neighbour will call the Police" banghead

However, There is an interesting topic in this same section (general security queries) on page 2, I was reading about access rights with an Alarm Company programming the same universal Manager Code into all of its systems regardless of it being monitored or bells only. That's very worrying and as a client, I'd be very unhappy if my Alarm Company could unset my own (owned) system without my knowledge or gain remote access.

DD243 has also caused problems in this respect, as I'm finding many clients who do not like having a fob to set / unset. Group sets often cause problems too and then there's the client that does not take the correct action on an accidental activation to consider too, as well as being able to omit zones etc.

We do try and keep it simple though and do not take on clients who don't want to comply with the rules.

Fobs are here to stay by the looks of it. DD243 in my opinion has created many more problems than it solves. the customer losing his fob and the alarm being compromised by someone finding the fob. you can't just find a code can you lol. Well, not unless the customer writes it on a piece of paper and drops it by the front door as he/she is leaving. I can understand the police having concerns about false alarms but for the alarm industry being dictated to by the police surely cannot be right. I'm new to these forums so I'm sure all this has been debated before so i won't go on.

Except for this. We've fitted stacks of systems with Optex SQ40 and SQ60 detectors that were created to give true confirmed alarms. A single detector with 2 seperate piro's wired to 2 seperate zones. These detectors are now deemed to be outside of DD243. optex's case being that the rules were changed again after the initial emergence of DD243.

It does look like the Pyronix 'Volumatic/Pir' detectors are going to have to be inastalled where the SQ range are fitted. Aparrently, both covering detectors have to be different technologies to comply with the regs.

Tony

I dont see how you can answer yes to the first 2 options, quite simply the system must conform to the relevant standards regardless! REALISTICALLY EVEN IF ITS YOUR MATES HOUSE! (He wont be your mate when he gets screwed and the system wasnt installed to the relevant standards, compensation culture etc)

From that point onwards then you can start giving the customer anything he wants, provided it fits within the regulations.

Should the client wish to compromise the system within the regulations, again if thats what the client wants....client shall have .....provided they sign the sheet to say.......blah blah, AT CLIENTS REQUEST!

Installers have to comply with the guidelines regardless of what the customer wants..So if that means they have to have an alarm that doesnt exactly work the way they want it, then they`ll just have to get used to the new way.

Tony

I beleive it is only the NSI that deem the Optex detectors outside of DD243. If you have been reading the industry press (security installer magazine I believe) this has been debated long and hard. Whether it is right or not is another matter.

Andy