Subscriber Discussion

Sandy Springs GA To Fine Alarm Companies Directly For False Alarms

Avatar
Ari Erenthal
Jul 24, 2017

From Sandy Springs, GA, a suburb of Atlanta with a population of 100,000 people:

Under the new ordinance, the fines get stricter (though the fines still range from a warning to $500, the warnings stop after the first offense), alarm companies must be registered with the city, state law is enforced regarding enhanced verification, additional verification requirements are set for video-monitored burglar alarms and the alarm companies can be fined for noncompliance. The new ordinance would also outlaw single-action non-recessed buttons on panic and holdup alarms and include a five-year amortization period for compliance.

I can see some companies getting fined out of existence if laws like this become more common. 

Thoughts? 

MM
Michael Miller
Jul 24, 2017

Sounds like business is going to be good for video-monitoring companies.

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #1
Jul 24, 2017

I see a reason for alarm companies to join and attend association meetings.   

Avatar
Kevin Bennett
Jul 24, 2017

Huntsville, AL has had an alarm ordinance in effect for many years.  Fines go up to $100 per occurrence for repeat offenders. 

At one time, the city even offered "alarm classes" for repeat offenders - don't know if they still do, though.  Sort of like driving school for getting out of a traffic fine, but for false alarms. 

The ordinance (a summary):  City of Huntsville Alarm Ordinance Summary

U
Undisclosed #2
Jul 25, 2017

Sandy Springs got it right with “SR-Subsidy Recovery”. Based on the experience of monitoring companies in other cities with SR, like Seattle, monitoring companies will not “get fined out of business”. All stakeholders will win, including customers. SR simply modernizes the public/private relationship (false alarm issues); and it is already street tested and court tested. Even the IACP/ International Association of Chiefs of Police lists SR and VR (Verified Response) as management tools for managing the public/private relationship. Because….

All calls for police response to private alarm systems are called by licensed monitoring firms, not called by the customer alarm site. Nearly all those calls for help are considered “nuisance calls” from deterrent systems, not qualified for emergency police response. Emergency response generally requires witness (key word) to a 911 type emergency, not response to unknown motion sensors that are false/unnecessary over 98% of the calls (8-18% of police budgets). Licensed monitoring firms control the entire matter.... they know the basic 911 rules and protocol, but historically choose to “bend the rules”. Knowing nearly all calls are unnecessary, under SR, monitoring firms simply do not call for help (historically over 50% reduction quickly). They simply accept the nuisance standards for delayed or no response. But if they want/need emergency response for any reason, they call, they get, they pay the service fee if false. It becomes a matter of disclosure to their customers, and it modernizes the business model for all parties.  The industry standard Model Ordinance is outdated and trending out, whereas SR and VR are trending in.

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions