Guest rjbsec Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I still say, don't judge the installer unless you know all the facts...... and indeed how do we even know that the engineer code is locked? The panel may only be set for engineer reset and the guy doesn't know the correct procedure for defaulting the panel...... The panel could even be faulty. We could go off into the realms of fantasy and make up all sorts of scenarios that might have existed or how confused or senile the poster may have been - all of which may be true, but on the basis of his fairly clear explanation of the situation, (re-read the post), I stand by my comments and in 99% of cases I say that the engineer code should not be locked and to do it is bad practice. Does that mean a con? Possibly if the installer does it to restrict the free choice of the owner of the system. If the code is going to be locked the owner should be made fully aware of that and the reason for it before he agrees to the installation/maintenance taking place. This is of course quite different to using a standard engineer code and not disclosing that to the owner, who can use another maintainer to default re-programme the system if he so desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rjbsec Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 and the other 1%? if the system was the subject of a current and valid contractural agreement, e.g. a rental agreement. IMO any other reason is unacceptable even if the only cost to the owner is a telephone call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Giles Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 So Tony, have you contacted the installer is the question really!? PG Security Systems Somerset SSAIB Certificate of Merit Installers. www.pgsecurity.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellman Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 The reality of this case is that the topic starter is inexperienced and unable to carry out the task. That is not the security industries fault. Agreed, The customer bought the system "as described" his DIY extensions do not come under the scope of the original purchase agreement. there is no law requiring goods sold to be upgradeable by 3rd parties. So the argument about unfair or anti-competitive business practices is flawed. As I said, above, for the cost of a new pcb, I'd just replace it and be done with, perhaps even take the opportunity to upgrade the panel for a more up to date one with better features Regards Bellman Service Engineer and all round nice bloke ) The views above are mine and NOT those of my employer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rjbsec Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 The reality of this case is that the topic starter is inexperienced and unable to carry out the task. That is not the security industries fault.No amount of experience will get him past the locked engineer code!Agreed, The customer bought the system "as described" his DIY extensions do not come under the scope of the original purchase agreement. there is no law requiring goods sold to be upgradeable by 3rd parties. So the argument about unfair or anti-competitive business practices is flawed. As I said, above, for the cost of a new pcb, I'd just replace it and be done with, perhaps even take the opportunity to upgrade the panel for a more up to date one with better features Regards Bellman It is not whether or not the system is upgradeable that is the issue, it is the fact that the customer, (or his chosen maintainer), is locked out of the system and therefore cannot make any programming changes without calling back the original installer or replacing equipment at the owner's expense. What if the owner wishes to have a new maintainer reduce the belltime to avoid nuisance to neighbours, or extend the entry time due to a secondary door being fitted etc - he is prevented from doing so! There are many reasons why a customer might not want to deal with an original installer, rudeness, general dissatisfaction, expensive, incompetent etc. Even if the original installer is prepared to return and unlock the code foc the customer has been unneccessarily inconvenienced. Unless the fact that the code would be locked was made known and agreed to prior to the installation taking place and/or the system was subject to a rental agreement of some sort, I still contend that this is at least bad practice and at worst unlawful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jb-eye Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Unless the fact that the code would be locked was made known and agreed to prior to the installation taking place and/or the system was subject to a rental agreement of some sort, I still contend that this is at least bad practice and at worst unlawful. From the time I have spent browsing this site it is clear to me that there are many differing views about our industry. Many on here are merely box shifters while others sell just their labour to the highest bidder then we have the employees and the businessmen. Some of you just don Customers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zak Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 "I've been wandering around the site,opening doors & checking out the rooms & found it very interesting.It is a bit late in the day for me to be getting involved in this forum as I am retiring on Fri.14th. after 36 years in the same job but I will have time on my hands to carry on wandering around the site. Regards to all. Tony Heath...." Engineers who do installs generally don't know if a contract is in place or not. We always lock our codes as it is another layer of protection. Customers do stupid things and sometimes adopt strange attitudes, and they sometimes think that rather than pay a justifiable bill one time that they will call another company in to take over, and that the forcibly removed outgoing company will not bother spending the money in court over a small invoice. If the panel can be locked it should be locked IMO. If the system was installed and was never under maintenance then maybe not. If we locked a code and the client needs it changed we would probably do it FOC. If however the system was under contract at some point (and it is not clear in this case that it was not) then the code is unlikely to be unlocked, and I don't see why it should be unlocked for free (unless during a scheduled visit). I have never thought about programming spare zones 24 hour. Now that's an interesting idea..... Zak Tankel - Managing Director - Security First (UK) - www.securityfirst.uk.com Disclaimer: Any comments or opinions expressed by me are my own as a member of the public and not of my employer or Company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rjbsec Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 As I said above I have unlocked locked panels in the passed, so have many others on here. A locked code in itsself is not restrictive - its the experience bit which is the factor here. The fact that user codes and eng codes are separate and have completely separate functions is clear demarcation, and an untrained individual has no right to complain about the features of the engineering sections.This also goes for a "new maintainer", if they dont know what they doing prior to the take over they should not be quoting for the job. We all know the difference between the features of the user and engineer code! Of course it is restrictive, a locked engineer code is always going to incurr the user extra expense and inconvenience in order to allow his new maintainer to fully access the panel. All sorts of "justifications" are being suggested here as to why a locked engineer code is acceptable but as I said earlier, IMO unless the system is tied into some sort of contractural agreement and/or the customer is fully aware of the implications of what is being done it is a bad practice to lock the engineer code. I would also add that this engineer is not a "box-shifter", still has under maintenance some of the very first customers he dealt with and believes that a good working relationship with customers and treating them well does more than any locked code will do for maintaining and growing your business. I know that some of you have different selling deals to me and you work on small install charges and ongoing revenue from tied contracts; your contractural agreements may justify your use of locked codes. However this engineer sells a system and charges a realistic price for the complete job, maintenance and monitoring are then ongoing charges which are paid in advance on a year-by-year basis and have nothing to do with the original price of the system as installed. If my customer wishes to change to a new maintainer, though disappointed, I will wish them well and not cause them grief by locking the code just to make life difficult fro them. For the record, I make a profit, enjoy my foreign holidays, have a good relationship with my customers - but no I don't have a private jet and probably never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rjbsec Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Its no more restrictive than an unlocked eng code to a novice. But considerably more restrictive than an unlocked code to an installer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Can anybody give me a valid reason why on a domestic residence(not high security risk) the alarm installer should 'lock' the engineers code and program the spare zones for 24hr guard............Can anyone defend this action as I have said, on a domestic residence with no service At the end of the day it all worked until YOU messed it up. Whats your problem? I can make it work with out needing other peoples codes but then again I do this for a living. If i take my car to bits then its my problem not the garages to make it work again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.