hpotter Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Must admit a firm giving out their eng code leaves them open to possible future liability. Not suggesting op dodgy, just crossing the i's and dotting the t's for all firms out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roydonaldson Posted May 25, 2009 Author Share Posted May 25, 2009 Just want to be clear, I don't 'play' with my alarm, I pay a professional firm to install and set this up for me. All I have done is to delete what looks like a faulty smoke out of the system. I don't mess around with anything else. my installer is great and I'm sure we'll get it all sorted tomorrow. Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hpotter Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 I'm sure they are & you will be fine. I guess the point we're making is that the eng code protects (pinch of salt) the firm from legal action by your insurers in the event of a break in etc. Your insurers may payout to you, then look for recourse through your installer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RJBsec Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Just want to be clear, I don't 'play' with my alarm, I pay a professional firm to install and set this up for me. All I have done is to delete what looks like a faulty smoke out of the system. I don't mess around with anything else.my installer is great and I'm sure we'll get it all sorted tomorrow. Roy "professional" and "great" are clearly relative terms. You should not be left in a position where you are accessing engineering features - especially just because your installer cannot/will not/doesn't see the need to return over a holiday period. Without completely re-programming the system he cannot possibly be sure that anything has not been compromised by you actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova-Security Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 I am a consulting engineer for Cisco, so am relatively technical. Why did you go for wireless ? www.nova-security.co.uk www.nsiapproved.co.uk No PMs please unless i know you or you are using this board with your proper name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest old-hand Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Just want to be clear, I don't 'play' with my alarm, I pay a professional firm to install and set this up for me. All I have done is to delete what looks like a faulty smoke out of the system. I don't mess around with anything else.my installer is great and I'm sure we'll get it all sorted tomorrow. Roy Professional and giving the end user the engineering code in the same sentence...................... Just made my weekend pmsl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roydonaldson Posted May 25, 2009 Author Share Posted May 25, 2009 Why did you go for wireless ? The choice was between something like a 9651 with a hybrid on it, or go full wireless on the i-on 16. It basically came down to the physical positioning of the detectors required, the quantity of them and the fact that all the existing system was wired to useless positions. The house is 20 years old and has a very shallow sub-floor, so difficult for access. The i-on 16 looked like a good panel and the wireless on it looks very good as well. There were trade-offs on either panel, but in the end we opted for the i-on. I'm sure the other would have been just as good an option. Roy. Professional and giving the end user the engineering code in the same sentence......................Just made my weekend pmsl I think that is a completely an unfair comment. I do not mess around with things I shouldn't, including my alarm system. I deleted a smoke that was faulty out of the config and exited, not hard to do, nor could I break anything in the process... As I said earlier, I am a consulting engineer and understand the implications of what I am doing, ie. I don't play around with my alarm. I think I've said all I need to on the matter. Roy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chorlton Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 don't think it's unfair at all. you understand the liability for fit for purpose and the insurance restrictions in place? you may be a NASA scientist but your not insured, qualified or 1st hand responsible. the clues in the code name as to who should have it, who should use it and you've invalidated al liability for the system and it's components. TBH the fact you've paid for a system and are posting for help over a bank holiday weekend speaks volumes. So much for industry standards such as dedicated 24/7 4hr response enforced by tha NSI & SSAIB when your left to google fix it on a DIY basis. Think I've said enough on the whole matter TBH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest old-hand Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 I think that is a completely an unfair comment. I do not mess around with things I shouldn't, including my alarm system. I deleted a smoke that was faulty out of the config and exited, not hard to do, nor could I break anything in the process... As I said earlier, I am a consulting engineer and understand the implications of what I am doing, ie. I don't play around with my alarm. I think I've said all I need to on the matter. Roy. You have by your own admission played with a system that is apparently signed off as working. Your own words are " the thing is faulty", care to quantify that statement as a consulting engineer? As you obviously consult on these items all the time, as an consulting engineer. ~You state you do not play with things you do not understand, yet have "deleted" a detection device, one that could save your life. You also say you understand the implications of this. I bet if you had a fire( and touch wood you do not) you would be the first to try and sue your company. Personally they deserve it if they gave you the code so you can F@@k up an apparently professional installation. Bottom line is its wrong, so wrong it makes me sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 roy, dont misunderstand us here. It sounds like you have a system installed by a mate, due to the fact that you cant get service, you have the engineer code, and are deleting things yourself, is not something a pro installer should do. The easist and best way to think about it, is to have the ability to reprogram you car ecu, and only change the headligh settings. While your in there you chnage the airbag info etc. YOu didnt realise so dont think it was you, but your car probably wont work as it should in an accident. You get injured etc.... you want to sue the garage who serviced it last and or the manafacturer. If it was a proper pro system then you would have got service over any shutdown period, and they would be removing things not you. Hopefully you see the point. IF you have a DIY system (which you do from what you have said) then doing what your doing is fine. THis is why insurance companies and regulations insist on certain things. securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.