Cubit Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 then avoid the issues by not parking in these restrictive parking areas. they've been around for so long, everyone is aware so just avoid them. i've never had any issues with this type of parking because i pay attention to the signs, pay when required and move when required. Ronnie, may i humbly ask you to look at the detail provided. 1. The company does not exist. See companies Act 2006 2. Contravenes Contract Law 3. Contravenes Equalities Act 2010 Contravenes DPA - For a start they ain't registered Obtaining DVLA details illegally etc etc But hey. you wanna pay, then carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goncall Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Someone who thinks the same as me, alleluia. Someone else who actually cares about their stats.Someone who thinks the same as me, alleluia. Someone else who actually cares about their stats. surely its about protecting a customers premises not your stats,i can understand if the customer wants to go keyholder only for a time to save his urn but for it to be forced upon them,do you put in in writing that the customer has to inform thier insurance company of the situation,are the customers aware the insurance co wont payout in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew.brough Posted December 30, 2012 Author Share Posted December 30, 2012 Our stats mean everything to us. In the email the system genrates it does tell them to inform their insurers yes and the consiquences of this. If we don't get on top of false alarms and the police turns us all off, how are we then best protecting our customers? This has already happened with fire, are we going to sit around and do nothing until it happens with the police? Kent police have got that fed up with us, they won't even attend any alarm calls as an immeidate because of false alarms, even a level 1 URN with no strikes against it. If alarm companies in that area had been more proactive like we are, that situation may not have come about. If the customer is that bothered about thier URN, they will take stepts to prevent us having to remove it. This is the message the system sends: Alarm activations are one example of calls received by the police service where an immediate response is requested. The number of false calls significantly outweighs the genuine ones and it has become necessary to introduce measures to prevent false calls being passed to the police. We have today dispatched the police to your premises for an alarm activation caused by user error.We have therefore with immediate effect amended your account so that only keyholders will be called in the event of an alarm activation. We will monitor the situation for the next 30 days and should a 30 day period of no false alarms be received, we shall place your alarm system back into normal service. It is important you inform your insurers of this situation immediately as this may affect your insurance cover. If we can be of any assistance in the meantime please call us on xxx www.securitywarehouse.co.uk/catalog/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goncall Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Our stats mean everything to us. In the email the system genrates it does tell them to inform their insurers yes and the consiquences of this. If we don't get on top of false alarms and the police turns us all off, how are we then best protecting our customers? This has already happened with fire, are we going to sit around and do nothing until it happens with the police? Kent police have got that fed up with us, they won't even attend any alarm calls as an immeidate because of false alarms, even a level 1 URN with no strikes against it. If alarm companies in that area had been more proactive like we are, that situation may not have come about. If the customer is that bothered about thier URN, they will take stepts to prevent us having to remove it. This is the message the system sends: Alarm activations are one example of calls received by the police service where an immediate response is requested. The number of false calls significantly outweighs the genuine ones and it has become necessary to introduce measures to prevent false calls being passed to the police. We have today dispatched the police to your premises for an alarm activation caused by user error. We have therefore with immediate effect amended your account so that only keyholders will be called in the event of an alarm activation. We will monitor the situation for the next 30 days and should a 30 day period of no false alarms be received, we shall place your alarm system back into normal service. It is important you inform your insurers of this situation immediately as this may affect your insurance cover. If we can be of any assistance in the meantime please call us on xxx sorry matt but thats a poor way to run a security business imo,your not giving the customer a choice,you just going in heavy handed and telling them what they can have to save your stats,if you have that many policed fa's you need to look at your systems or change the way it sends confirmed and give the customers the choice(more work more money) i doubt every policed fa is user error,if the nationals done this people would be up and their hind legs about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 surely its about protecting a customers premises not your stats,i can understand if the customer wants to go keyholder only for a time to save his urn but for it to be forced upon them,do you put in in writing that the customer has to inform thier insurance company of the situation,are the customers aware the insurance co wont payout in this situation. Yes we do. I have a recent example. Warehouse numerous false alarms on pretty much the dualtechs in warehouse. Fortunatly this was happening only on a single detector in the 30 minute window. Engineer went out couldnt find anything was reset etc. After this occured twice looked into it in more detail. Engineer suggested they had a rodent problem. Customer refused this. Said it was the system. We replaced half the dt's for client relations. We advised keyholder only, fortunatly client accepted this. I went out found evidence of rodents. Client insisted this was old and they were baiting and nothing was moving. Alarms continued. Client now getting rough with us deniying they have rodents. It started to confirm numerous times. It would of lost its response in a 1 month period. This system was a piano store. Detection DT7550's correctly setup on a dimension. This system was installed in june last year and due to this issue has still not been paid for. In november my belief that they had an environmental issue we fitted a camera to look at a small area. http://youtu.be/C5zcgMec-YY While i agree protecting the clients security is the number 1 concern and not our stats if you like, if we had let them carry on they would now have lost the URN. As it is we didnt pass a single call. 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...
goncall Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Yes we do. I have a recent example. Warehouse numerous false alarms on pretty much the dualtechs in warehouse. Fortunatly this was happening only on a single detector in the 30 minute window. Engineer went out couldnt find anything was reset etc. After this occured twice looked into it in more detail. Engineer suggested they had a rodent problem. Customer refused this. Said it was the system. We replaced half the dt's for client relations. We advised keyholder only, fortunatly client accepted this. I went out found evidence of rodents. Client insisted this was old and they were baiting and nothing was moving. Alarms continued. Client now getting rough with us deniying they have rodents. It started to confirm numerous times. It would of lost its response in a 1 month period. This system was a piano store. Detection DT7550's correctly setup on a dimension. This system was installed in june last year and due to this issue has still not been paid for. In november my belief that they had an environmental issue we fitted a camera to look at a small area. http://youtu.be/C5zcgMec-YY While i agree protecting the clients security is the number 1 concern and not our stats if you like, if we had let them carry on they would now have lost the URN. As it is we didnt pass a single call. i understand that situation james,see it done on exactly the same problems,but your covering yourself by suggesting it and the customer accepting it,no doubt in writing,the other way would leave the alarm co with the bill from the customer when the insurance co refuse to pay,an email isnt the way to send such important changes,it should be done face to face as part of false alarm management and disscused with the customer and signed where needed. the cam is a good idea actually, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew.brough Posted December 30, 2012 Author Share Posted December 30, 2012 Thats the whole point, in practically every police force nationally we have zero false alarms. The customer does have a choice, use your system properly and when it triggers the police will come. Use it incorrectly, they won't. Funny how the customers aren't leaving us for having the policy. If we don't stop these false alarms, the customer will only have one choice, no police response at all but if we go down that route then why do they need us, they can get a speech dialler to a guarding company. I think before slagging off my methods you should look at other countries who used to have a police response and now don't and the effects that has had both on the end users, the centrals and dealers. Sometimes the users need saving from themselves. Maybe you also believe that the police are running a bad operation by imposing a 2/3 call out limit? After all shouldnt they come running whenever demanded, they are public servants after all and it might just be (although as stats have shown for the past 20 years very unlikley) a genuine alarm. i understand that situation james,see it done on exactly the same problems,but your covering yourself by suggesting it and the customer accepting it,no doubt in writing,the other way would leave the alarm co with the bill from the customer when the insurance co refuse to pay,an email isnt the way to send such important changes,it should be done face to face as part of false alarm management and disscused with the customer and signed where needed. Rubbish! Dear Mr Customer can I book an appointment to discuss withdrawl of your police response. Sure come see me in 2 months time by which time he's probably on a level 3 system. Customer have free choice and can move if they don't like it to an installer who will avoid the issue. Thing is though, we didn't loose a single customer last year apart from one we got rid of so I'm not going to change what is currently a winning formula. www.securitywarehouse.co.uk/catalog/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goncall Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 matt youve got zero fa's coz you dont police nowt,fa management is just that,print out fa reports and send engineer if it means so much,im not slagging your ways i just find them a bit harsh mate,thats all.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew.brough Posted December 30, 2012 Author Share Posted December 30, 2012 We do police alarms, and I wish it was a zero fa nationally as I'm sure every ARC / Installer would like to have. Some of the things we do seem harsh, but in other markets police response disappeared because of the age old issue of false alarms. Maybe the visual verification will only be the true route to achieve what we all want, I suppose the issue is cost prohibitation which may go away in time. I've seen a couple of new visual verification products that although not cheap, they are not expensive either. It's a shame that TVX didn't grown when it started, I think the idea of visual verification would have gone a long way to resolve these issues. Before we use sanctions that you feel are harsh, there is a thorough education process prior to handover that indicates what we are trying to achieve which is only getting a response when its required and to ultimatly protect the end user so that they still have the option of a police response rather than it being taken away for good. I think things we do such as upgrading hardware at our cost to assist with this and putting confirmed pas in at our cost is showing somewhat that we are doing this because we care. www.securitywarehouse.co.uk/catalog/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I dont remove urns we just charge more for resets after 3 for the same reason where they are not resposible with the system. I also think FALSE alarm management is more than printing the stats. Its an active process imo. I wouldn't pull a urn as it would leave us wide open in the event of a genuine 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.