Subscriber Discussion

Stop Ordinance Forcing Alarm Companies To Pay Falsealarm Fees And Fines

DC
Dwayne Cormier
Oct 17, 2017

On July 18, 2017, the City of Sandy Springs, a suburb of metro Atlanta, passed an ordinance that will force alarm companies to pay false alarm fees and fines, regardless of reason and without establishing culpability. The ordinance is effective as of Sept. 1, 2017.

Not sure how many here also are part of a security company that has monitoring contracts. But I still am shaking my head at how this even got passed to place all burden on the security company. With so many things outside of the providers hands this is absolutely ridiculous.

I have the short version if anyone interested in seeing it

JH
John Honovich
Oct 17, 2017
IPVM
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #1
Oct 18, 2017

Alarm association membership struggles to get the average dealer involved.  This is one of the fights the ESA typically wins because they have argued it so many times.  

PS
Paul Shah
Oct 18, 2017

Why is it so hard to get the average dealers involved?

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #1
Oct 18, 2017

Time is money and small dealers have no time.  They figure he big guys will manage this for them.   Then it turns out they have the Mayor or Councilmen/women for customers and friends. 

When there isn’t an obvious attack in their business, it’s. It important.  When something like licensing changes, tax changes or permits happen....then the involvement starts. 

At least that’s been my experience. 

(1)
(1)
JH
Jay Hobdy
Oct 18, 2017
IPVMU Certified

Here is my take.

 

I am in this area and recently joined ESA, which included membership to GELSSA (The State Association). I have received a couple emails from GELSSA regarding the issue but no instructions or request to take any action. No request to attend a council meeting, nothing. A few days ago at a local alarm.com event, an attendee was passing out a flyer. He was saying we need your help for the Sandy Springs issue. I looked at the flyer, no mention of the Sandy Springs event, it was either for a golf event or a quarterly meeting. But nothing on the Sandy Springs issue.

 

I contacted GELSSA to get a list of counties and cities, along with their ordinances on fines, permits, etc. I expected my local association to know the regulations of the counties they cover. But they didn't.

 

Yes I am a small dealer, and yes time is money. Help me help myself. Tell me what to do. Tell us as a group what to do.

 

 

 

 

(1)
Avatar
Mark Jones
Oct 19, 2017

This is a news to me.  It really is a false narrative.  The statistics do not warrant this type of ordinance.  User error is far and away the single largest issue with false alarms, according to any data you wish you site.  I don't live in that area, but if I did, I simply would stop offering monitoring service to those customers and I would tell them why when they ask.  When/if enough customers complain the City will change it's position.  An integrator will not change the City's mind on this.  

I have seen with my own eyes, using CCTV, that burglars will create an alarm, hear the siren and leave.  When LEO shows up, with no apparent cause, they will mark it false alarm.  I have even had it at my own home. Law enforcement knows this, but they will never admit it. Without video verification it is nearly impossible to prove.  

Verified alarm response is one answer to most of these issues, but it definitely will add cost to the end user, the end user by the way, who statistically is at the root of the problem.  Another answer is to buy your alarm and have it programmed for local alarm only, with no Central Station dispatch.  At least you will have something.  The larger companies of course do not want to participate in a "buy only" program because it eliminates the reoccurring revenue gravy train.  Local alarm companies should be able to compete more effectively. 

(3)
PS
Paul Shah
Oct 19, 2017

Why hasn't Verified Alarm response become more common? Is it more of a technical or cost hurdle? 

Avatar
Mark Jones
Oct 19, 2017

Both really.  There is an amazing number of alarms in the field that still use copper phone lines.  The number is staggering really.  Copper, of course, does not lend itself to video verification.  Add to that some CS platforms work better with certain cameras than others.  Alarm dealers already see that with phones and apps.  If you have a phone line based alarm panel, your app integration is very limited.  Network or cellular transmission opens the door to tremendous potential. The same can be said for true home integration, but that is a story for another day.

The interface cards, cell charges, cloud storage and other options obviously contribute to a cost the consumer is not willing to pay.  

It is in a way similar to vehicle safety.  Auto manufacturers can make a car that is incredibly safe, but most consumers cannot justify (in their minds) spending that much money.  By making that cost/reward decision they are defacto assuming some risk.

Personal Injury attorneys and juries don't agree.

Just my opinion.

(2)
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #1
Oct 19, 2017

Just to expand on Marks analogy, there were alarm systems that reported to a central station before there were telephones.   Imagine trying to mandate all cars, regardless of age, had to be updated to have seat belts and air bags if driven on roads.

SimplySafe reports one of the lowest false alarm dispatch rates from what I have heard.  All equipment is relatively new and they interface with the customer who decides if a dispatch is necessary.

Tesla has a very low rate of accidents with passengers not wearing seatbelts, compared to a 1950’s Chevrolet and that fact will never change!

(1)
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #2
Oct 19, 2017

I would make sure that my alarm contracts specify that any false alarm fines levied against the alarm company by that jurisdiction are the responsibility of the subscriber and that the alarm company reserves the right to collect these fines from the subscriber. A separate form that goes further into this matter with a subscriber might be wise so the subscriber clearly understands, is aware, acknowledges and agrees to reimburse the alarm company.  Most false alarms are a result of 'user error.'

Usually, these types of laws are short lived, and seem to originate in the mind of the city officials who've not bothered to do actual research, or do not want to spend the money or effort to structure a false alarm program that addresses the biggest problem, user error.  It will take a short time before the city gets push back and challenges to the law from alarm companies and consumers who are indirectly impacted because alarm companies are avoiding their region.

I see this law changing to something else with the near future.

 

(1)
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #2
Oct 19, 2017

Just to clarify, check with an attorney who is knowledgeable in contract law to make sure your contracts will address this particular circumstance. 

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #1
Oct 19, 2017

Reach out to the ESA false alarm committee.  The statistics actually prove the alarm responses are a complete waste of police resources, in face value.   As stated, they almost never catch someone so anything not ending with an arrrest is false.  The industry presents alternate statistics.

When you go through the whole process most areas end up mandating audio or video verification before dispatch, with some exceptions for panic alarms. 

As for local alarms, this type of ordinance has ended up with companies being fined for local alarms caked in by neighbors, with police reading the sign in the yard to determine who to bill.  The alarm company receives a bill from a home who stole or was given a yard sign by a friend.

This fight is about 30 years old. 

(1)
LJ
Lee Jones
Oct 19, 2017
Support Services Group

The new Sandy Springs ordinance is a very hot topic among local, regional, national forums of every kind. However,…. nothing new here….! We believe the real problem is “non-disclosure” by self-serving Alarm Associations in survival mode. The new ordinance might have some crumbly language, but the content is Not new. Examples, time and court tested (more upon request): Seattle SR-Subsidy Recovery over a decade (Caller monitoring source pay for false alarms): San Francisco customer permit fee collection by monitoring source, over decade; VR-Verified Response near decade Detroit; State legislation banning private monitoring firms from calling the police first, call customer first, Florida, Texas, Georgia; De facto VR (low or no priority nuisance response to monitored alarms) over 50% (estimated) of monitored alarm customers are in a jurisdiction wherein the AHJ still provide limited alarm response. Giving high visibility to this city at this time, with misleading scary information, is a powerful tool for raising survival funding. Thousands of association members across the country deserve more. Associations are pushing municipalities toward a review by a state Attorney General, for deceptive business practices. The big loser will be the market value of RMR. Remember ADT is planning $15B public offering at year end 2018.

 

(1)
New discussion

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

Newest discussions