Oxo Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Hazy memory of a "Brummie" company done for service timers coming on a day/week after warranty and when leaving court, interviewed and said sorry got to go, Have 3 more systems to fit today? Was he with anyone? Or was it just trading standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cubit Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Can anyone provide valid reasons for the the Inspectorates? Not seen or heard one yet. Last conversation i had with NSI put them on a par with Landmark - money grabbers offering nothing more than puff and weasle words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Regarding meeting with interested parties this does happen. The insurers are represented by the risc authority, meet with bsia, police, risc etc. Re fines etc. This cannot be published due to the agreement that is in place between the firm and the inspectorate. They do kick and fine etc but cannot publish this info. I have asked if it could be 'leaked' but alas no. I agree that the inspectorates seem to do very little about the bad companies maybe we should have a 10 point plan made here Biggest problem us is if one got strict then the rough ones would leave and join the other. The differences in perception and checks etc should also be highlighted between the various levels. I would also like to see audit info published 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...
Joe Harris Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 "Biggest problem us is if one got strict then the rough ones would leave and join the other." Sp very true  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotmod Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Regarding meeting with interested parties this does happen. The insurers are represented by the risc authority, meet with bsia, police, risc etc. Re fines etc. This cannot be published due to the agreement that is in place between the firm and the inspectorate. They do kick and fine etc but cannot publish this info. I have asked if it could be 'leaked' but alas no. This pretty much sums up my feelings on these con artists. If you break the rules we may fine and kick you out. But dont worry about it we can't tell anyone that you were **** enough to get kicked out. But don't worry, there's another inspectorate who will gladly take your money and not do much about mispractise either. It surely can't just be me that sees this in black and white and think, that looks suspect? Ah the smoke and snake oil in the security. Bloody riddled with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 scotmod i dont agree. The 2 tier system has caused more issues than it solved (if any) imo. I have had a few discussions on this subject with my inspectorate to put some framework in place to prevent jumping ship whilst under investigation or kicked, i know the nsi do kick people id assume the ssaib do also. I do think there is work to be done but this will cost money. Someone will have to pay for it somehow. Which will end with a price hike ultimatly for the end user. Unfortunatly the losses from flood and fire are far more important to the insurers than burglary. Basically the industry has lowered the losses for this. We still have plenty of progress we could make on false alarms, consistant system design and adequate protection. Ive been trying to propose a standard layout for specifications. We have adopted this process oursleves with good feedback from insurers but there is a lot of resistance from the industry (for obvious reasons). Basically i think that every room should be in the spec and then either listed as 'no detection', 'secondary protection' or primary protection. That way when sell on price firm a cut all the detection out of the job its obvious to the interested parties. The amount of times i see sdp's from my so called peers that have half the detection of my own. Another big problem imo is risk assesment. Most of the industry seem to follow the 'grade 2 that will do' approach. Granted i can see that grade 2 is usually a cheaper solution than 3 and the client decides. All we can do is advise. I have in the past Risk assesed at grade 3 (twice now grade 4) but installed a lower grade either at client request or because g4 isnt possible. 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...
jb-eye Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Basically i think that every room should be in the spec and then either listed as 'no detection', 'secondary protection' or primary protection. That way when sell on price firm a cut all the detection out of the job its obvious to the interested parties. The amount of times i see sdp's from my so called peers that have half the detection of my own. Another big problem imo is risk assesment. Most of the industry seem to follow the 'grade 2 that will do' approach. Granted i can see that grade 2 is usually a cheaper solution than 3 and the client decides. All we can do is advise. I have in the past Risk assesed at grade 3 (twice now grade 4) but installed a lower grade either at client request or because g4 isnt possible OH! JW how true and how guilty we are.An opening line from an e-mail i sent out tonight "Ben has sent me your correspondence and we discussed the matter at length. The only way he sees anyone getting even close to his price is to". Another your to exspensive. Only last week we fitted IMO an under protected system and the customer asked for cuts we couldnt offer. There is a level we just wont go to, and of course you already know we list all rooms in our SDP even the non protected. Customers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotmod Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 James, I agree on most of your points. I'll put up a full reply later fom the pc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fozzies Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Another big problem imo is risk assesment. Most of the industry seem to follow the 'grade 2 that will do' approach. Imo, the logical solution is that the insurance companies spec the grade, instead of leaving a grey area prime for exploitation. Not gonna happen i know, but they are the ones with the information needed to make these judgements accurately, not us. Seems to me its all about fudging the issue to avoid a payout when possible, as opposed to nipping the issue in the bud by speccing the correct system for the risk. Agreed, a graded system will not necesarily prevent anything, but if the insurance industry decreed what the grade was, and had input on the requirements to meet that grade( tigers, etc), based upon what works in similar situations, then that would surely impact severly upon crime in protected premises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 we should have application guides. ie grade 2 trap protection only say grade 3 confirm on entry through ground floor windows/door trap elsewhere. Needs to be more prescriptive. Like fire L3 means escape routes and rooms off escape routes. Nice and clear. Grade 3 is only an equipment specification not a system one. Adrian you will know more on this, wasnt there a -6 that had this as informative that we opted out of? 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.