An ethical conundrum... Opinions welcome!

I wouldn't monitor it without the 24hr test signals. If a customer said the extra cost was too much I would be happy to walk away, let someone else deal with them, because they will also probably think maintenance and inspection costs are unnecessary too.

As for the monitoring fees, I think the original alarm company should just be happy the place didn't burn to the ground and they didn't get sued for everything they had. In reality though, if the system was disconnected by a third party and they were never notified, the alarm company is probably entitled to the money. Interesting that the system wasn't checked in that entire time, of course test signals would have showed the problem right away (define irony). The whole thing sounds shady, your obviously right, the installing company only cares about RMR. I've noticed a lot of high volume companies don't use timer tests on residential systems, usually because they want to cut down on service since they don't have anyone local.

Ethics v RMR...hmmmm. You will find RMR wins everytime. Our government collects taxes from the sale of Alcohol & Tobacco. Is it ethical? No. Not when they can also collect sales tax from other items they banned as illegal drugs. You can't morally or ethically pick and choose which drugs you can sell, just because it lines the pockets of many politicians. I say make it all legal, collect sale tax from it all, and stop wasting 20+ billion a year on law enforcement & court costs. We truly are a nation of hypocrates.

Jim Rojas

RHC: IMO, they are lucky they didn't get sued. What sort of company would monitor a life saving system without daily tests. The fact they didn't factor in the price of daily test signals into their monitoring rate tells you a lot about this company. There is far too much of this kind of unprofessional crap in our industry. Sure the customer shares some responsibility in this but ultimately it's the alarmco who has a responsibility to ensure the systems they monitor are working. I think any Canadian court would find them negiligent in their duty....

This sort of thing makes me wonder about another situation hereabouts that likely is also going on. Recently, the telephone company switched to 10 digit dialing with much fanfare and lots of time for alarmco's to get their act together. However, there are literally thousands of ancient panels out there that are totally incapable of 10 digit dialing. One of the large nationals (who shall remain nameless), I know for a fact, didn't switch out these old clunkers, and likely didn't even approach their clients for fear of the cost of switching costing them the account. How do I know ? Because I've switched many of their systems out, and the clients tell me they were never approached about the problem.

So there are thousands of these old panels not transmitting to the station properly, and the customer and the station don't know it, simply because the company in question doesn't use any kind of test signal. But you can bet the RMR is still rolling in though....

Yah gotta wonder.....

Mandating state licensing did not cure this problem did it? I haven't look at a fire alarm inspection form in many years...is it even listed there?

Jim Rojas

The building owners/management are going to choose the least costly route. Only what the insurance company or fire department requires and nothing more. They are in business to make a profit.

The alarm company and monitoring company are not going to give away services for free. They are in business to make a profit.

Seems to me the building owner should have the minimum system installed and perform minimum required service/testing on that system. And have the paperwork to prove they did this. Then they can say they did what was required.

And I think the alarm company should have documentation that they installed and tested what the customer wanted. And offer additional testing services. If the customer refuses these services, it should be well documented. Same with the monitoring company.

Then the burden would be with the insurance company and fire department.

The insurance companies can take care of themselves, however fire departments are not known to be meccas of highly intelligent types...

So if an alarm company sees an unsafe situation which could cause loss of life due to an alarm not functioning properly, I think it would be the "right thing to do", to educate the fire department as to these defects in the local codes and help them change them, so safe systems are required. i.e. Make it a requirement that fire systems for high-rises must be tested daily or have a monitored line.

Then the building owners would do this because it would be a minimum requirement. (And if they want something less than that, refuse to do business with them.)

And if you correspond with the fire department asking that this be made a requirement, be sure to do this in writing and save your documentation. Then you can say you tried to get the building owner to do the right thing, you tried to get the fire department to do the right thing, but no one listened!

Jim. You're way to young to be an "old curmudgeon". :-)

whats the big deal. Just chapter and verse the owner, local AHJ and state AHJ. Then sit back and watch the finger pointing. Then when all that settles down, go to the owner with your proposal.

Then like has been said, make sure EVERYTHING is in writing... RTS

C.Y.O.A. (the rule of life in the americas)

I don't think they are entitled to any monitoring fees, and may need to issue a refund.

Unless exempted from the AHJ, they were never doing any (legal) monitoring IMO without the test signals programmed.

(NFPA 72, 1999)

5-5.3.2.1.10 Each DACT shall automatically initiate and com- plete a test signal transmission sequence to its associated DACR at least once every 24 hours. A successful signal trans- mission sequence of any other type within the same 24-hour period shall fulfill the requirement to verify the integrity of the reporting system, provided signal processing is automated so that 24-hour delinquencies are individually acknowledged by supervising station personnel.

5-2.6.1.5.2* Any test signal not received by the central station shall be investigated immediately and action shall be taken to reestablish system integrity.

Frank do I presume correctly that commercial fire alarms are "required" to have daily reporting in your area? Are there not inspections by AHJ's? Are there not mandates that commercial fire alarms comply with certain codes? If so, how does a client and or an alarm company decide not to abide by them and not be complicit in having/owning/operating or installing a non compliant/illegal alarm system?

If you feel you must install a new system in this location I'd suggest that you cross all your "T's" and dot all your "I's" and make sure you've got all your money up front. Your main concern, I would think, is that you might be letting your self in for some kind of legal involvement if the first alarm company insists on collecting the balance of their contract after the building owner has signed your contract and/or while your installation is underway, with you only partially paid. You could be waiting a long time to get paid .... for your partial installation, if ever, and in addition, have to defend yourself as party to a lawsuit ta-boot.

I know you'd hate to walk away from what sounds like a lucrative job but ...... from your brief description of both the owner and the other alarm company .... it sounds kinda shakey to me.

It's a fire system Jim, focus like a laser beam.....

The customer was told to test the system and apparently didn't and some electrician removed the communicators yet it's the monitoring station's fault?

Yea right

First, I'm not worried about not being paid. There's a generous progress payment schedule that's being very strictly monitored by both the client's bank and his new partner. He's not going to get to play any games with us.

It's not a matter of my feeling they need a new system. They're under order to install it. As for the old alarm company, they're welcome to come and collect their junk anytime they want. I lost all sympathy with them when I discovered they even stooped to offering this kind of "non-service". As far as I'm concerned this amounted to nothing more than a "money-grab". The owner may just as well have burned the $22.00 a month for all the good it did him.

Ummm, Yea right, WHAT????

ok ok...I lost myself there for a minute... :)

Jim Rojas

Ummm Yea right it's nonsense someone does not use timer tests to prevent service calls.

RHC: More likely they don't use test signals to cut down the number of signals going in to their massive stations. Millions of accounts equals millions of test signals, which in turn equals a lot more hardware to handle them. And if they can fall back on that manufacturer published doctrine..."test systems weekly" as an excuse not to do the right thing...why not ?

To their way of corporate thinking, this might well make sense..... who knows what's in their minds !!! It would be interesting to know if the worst of the bunch...Alarmforce.... program in test signals...anyone know ?

Nonsense, really? That's funny

My introduction to the alarm industry was when I subbed for a local authorized dealer from one of these "high volume companies". He was too lazy to make his own sales so he worked off the leads they sent. Most of these leads were overflow from the larger cities surrounding us. SO instead of installing in our own town he would drive an hour or two to do these installs. The way the program was set up he basically got a check for the three years monitoring once the paperwork was complete. It was considered a "disaster" if he actually had to drive back and service one of these accounts, because for most contracts he could only charge a fixed charge of $25 or $35. The panels we used came with the company "defaults", which included a monthly timer test, which he always disabled. It didn't cost him a dime to have the timer test, he knew it just increased the chance that he might have to service the system. He would rather have a customer think there system worked when it didn't than get a dreaded service request fax and have to drive 2 hours for $25.

I recently took over 3 systems that had originally been installed by ADP and then taken over by a company that does mainly takeovers. The owner had switched to them about a year prior to this. He hadn't been able to get them to come fix a broken contact, no surprise since they were located over 3 hours away. When I reprogrammed the first panel I quickly realized it wouldn't send signals. It turned out none of the three locations would, because he had switched to digital cable phone only a month or so after the takeover. This company was able to collect for over a year on 3 non-working systems. If they had programmed test signals the problem would have showed itself and they would have had to service the systems or lose the accounts. I know the central station they use, monthly test signals are free.

I'm sure that in many cases, maybe most cases, the lack of test signals is directly related to trying to cut down on the amount of signals at the CS, but in some cases it's simply a way to cut down on service and hold onto accounts a little longer

So no, it's not nonsense

Ok .... that's a good thing.

Alright! ..... that's great.

That may all be true but, If the owner has a contract with the old alarm company, what's stopping them from accelerating the contract to obtain the balance due? Whether they were right or wrong, they can still attempt to enforce the contract and the owner will have to afford the defense fees, if to obtain only the fact that they were negligent (and probably not grossly negligent). Rather than do that, ( again, regardless of who is right or wrong) At that point the owner can just tell you to forget the monitoring and they'll just continue the monitoring contract with the old alarm company or ..... worse, the owner signs your contract, for what ever your term is and then he finds out the old alarm company wont let him out of their contract. Now he's obligated to two contracts both of which are enforceable. What do you do? Back down or take him to court if he decides to go with the other alarm companys monitoring? Either way you lose.

Maybe this is something you should bring out into the negotiations now, just so there's no surprise. If you're going to potentially miss out on the monitoring, you may want to rethink your installation costs. ( However, admittedly, I don't know how your price your jobs)

I'm not in it for the RMR on this job. We got excellent pricing on the parts so the margins are great, and I'm working with an installation crew that's second to none. There are 10 apartments on each floor and everything has to be run in surface wiremould. We're finishing one floor of suites a day (that includes mounting devices).