Installers in Kentucky beware of HB-41

Wrong. Anyone can give free advice. If you offer consulting services for hire, you need a license. Otherwise, every RatShak, Home Depot and Loews employee would be subject to licensing.

Florida still does not require licenses of online or "brick and mortar" stores selling alarm systems. Salesmen working for companies that provide installation and/or monitoring are required to be licensed. Worthy knows this.

... unless the company is not located in Florida.

I'm sure that is on your checklist for pre-qualifying potential DIY'er's.

Now let me get this straight. If you're employed by an alarm company as a salesman, then you have to be licensed. A customer calls to obtain information (or a quotation for an install) and the alarm company dispatches a salesman. The salesman designs a system based on the customer's needs (provides consulting service), but doesn't charge the customer for the service. You could say it's "included" in the price of the equipment the customer agrees to purchase. More often the not, that same consumer is basing a decision on a number of (usually three) onsultations. I don't see your logic. How is what you do any different from what Bob Worthy's company does? The only thing that's different is that you work from home and "sell" over the phone. You still "review" plans, layout and design systems based on the customer's needs (at least that's what you've said). In my view, Florida should be taking a hard look at your activities (particularly in respect of any dealings you might have with Florida residents).

Agreed. They (and you) should be subject to licensing. I don't believe a consumer is the least bit served by individuals that try to sell something that they have no formal training in or direct knowledge of. I also don't think that the security wholesalers in Florida should be dealing with unlicensed individuals (or companies).

It seems to be a matter of interpretation and I certainly wouldn't rely on *anything* _you_ "interpret" as "fact".

We'll see how that plays out in the next few months, eh?

"Robert L Bass" wrote in news:RpjEj.16838$Id3.6416@trnddc07:

Maybe elsewhere, but in mississippi even salesmen have to take a basic level course and get liscensed to sell in the residential market. Granted they don't get tech level classes, but they have to take an approved course before they get liscensed.

you might be right Robert, However I've lived in Kentucky for a very very long time and I do understand how the law makers here think.. they'll find anyway possible to make money and fines and legal suits are there first choice..

Salesmen working for dealers who install, service or monitor alarms may need a license. Salesmen working in a store that only sells products and neither offers installation nor monitoring service are not required to be licensed. As mentioned earlier, if that were not so every RatShak, Loews and HD employee would need a license to sell electrical components, alarm parts, plumbing fixtures, etc.

Kentucky is one of the most beautiful states I've traveled over the years. No doubt you're right about the politicians though. :^)

Fortunately for me, laws in other states have zero impact on me and Florida has chosen not to regulate online sales of alarm parts (this despite misleading information to the contrary posted occasionally by a few members of the IB here).

Clearly it's not on the list of the 10 or 11 companies that hired you in as many years.

Underwriters.

Yep, as in the insurance industry.

You sure it's not undertakers?

Yes I do.....and.....your online store was never the target of the DBPR investigation on you....and....you know this.

You really should comment on Florida State Statute. You continually want to ignore all other parts of the Statute except what you only want to use to your advantage. I will do your homework for you. I said before I wouldn't do that, but I am feeling generous this morning.

Chapter 489 Part II State Statute (revised 6/2007)

Sounds like the out of state monitoring center needs to be licensed in Florida to me. You, however, probably have your own spin to it.

The target was me personally. The shooter was your disgusting pal. They gave their best shot at stopping me from selling online in Florida and they lost. Get over it, moron.

The only part of the licensing law that matters to me is the part that says I don't need a license in Florida because my business is not subject to state licensing.

According to the statute:

"A person shall not have committed the act of monitoring if: (d) The person is not employed in a proprietary monitoring facility, as defined by the National Fire Protection Association pursuant to rule adopted under chapter 633."

There's another thing you invariably fail to mention. During the time when I offered monitoring services I never offered it to or from structures within Florida. The central station my DIY clients used in those years was in Massachussetts and my clients were all located outside the state of Florida. The DBPR agent noted this in his discussion with me. He looked at the facts and determined that there was nothing illegal going on. He recommended dismissing the matter and the AG agreed. Your crooked pal has lied consistently about this, claiming there was a big disagreement but we all know that's not true. Your guy tried to hurt my business and failed. In the process he made a fool of himself by posting a lot of foul, personal insults online where hs superiors could read them.

You ignore the fact that no Florida premises were monitored. You already know this because we had the same discussion several years ago. Posting the same statement now is tantamount to lying.

You're missing the boat (as usual) when you're trying to twist a meaning closer to your ends out of the section of statute you quoted. This has to do with the monitoring of customer owned equipment in a customer owned monitoring centre. It allows companies like "Target", and "Home Depot" (and some Banks) to run a central monitoring facility that receives signals from their own stores/premises. There is NO EXEMPTION for a monitoring facility that accepts payment for services related to receiving communications from YOUR customers or the public. In this instance, the individual employees (and the company) are subject to the licensing requirements set out in the statute. They are exempted from providing criminal background checks and that is all. It is assumed that such checks are being dealt with by the employer in their home state.

Yes, you've repeated "ad nauseum" your claim that you never monitored Florida residents. What you did do for a number of years is *SELL* monitoring services and collect revenue *IN* Florida (an action that is defined in the Statute as requiring an Agent's License). You stopped this activity when they initiated an investigation of your web site. ISTR you also "made yourself scarce" for the days the investigator was "in your neighborhood".

I see you haven't changed at all since I left the NG before. The "U" in this case stands for "Uninformed". They are not an insurance company. Since you put this type of stuff on the NG as info, it shouldn't be look at as gospel by folks that visit here. Maybe you should check the Board of Insurance here in Florida and get back with us on the subject. Third party verification is required in several cities and counties here and some specifically state UL. See if they are licensed as an insurance company. I believe you will find, if you look elsewhere, that they are a not for profit nationally recognized third party testing laboratory. Maybe "NFPNRTPTL" was a tad to long for them.

Not for profit? Really? You mean all those excutives who work full time at UL do it gratis? UL is more about protecting their jobs than anything. Maybe makimng a little on the side too. Ask certain central stations about demands for documented source code and access to proprietary development data and trade secrets in order to certify instead of testing for percentage of reliability and fitness for the intended purpose as they are supposed to. Oh, wait. Maybe there is more to UL than the shiny veneer they try to sell.

LOL. Finally many AHJs are recognizing that UL is not a regulatory body. They are just an arbitrary independent company that sets standards and then sells access to them.

"Robert L Bass" wrote in message news:FDTEj.12$Dv5.10@trnddc02...

If you are going to try and defend your comments by quoting the Statute, why don't you include the whole thing to follow so it is clear Robert? Why didn't you include (a) (b) and (c) to paint the entire picture. You always do that. It doesn't make you look smart. It looks like you are trying to cover up something.

What is the definition of an investigator? Now does that equal a prosecutor. Comments like the above are making yourself look silly.

Your crooked pal has lied

Wrong again. That was me that told you about the disagreement, and I don't care what you believe to be true or not true since you weren't there.

Your guy tried to hurt my business and failed. In the

He had only one superior and that was the Govenor. You don't know much about Board appoinments either I guess.

My, my you are so defensive over this situation. That usually implies, even though you didn't get prosecuted that you were caught. You did, however stop offering monitoring for compensation, didn't you? You know it wasn't the online store that was the target of the complaint because, yes, you are right (are you happy now) that online stores are exempt. It was what additional activities you were doing that you got reported for. You can deny it to this group all you want. The NG did ask you to prove your position by posting the complaint. I must have missed your reply post. As far as your defensive comment in the post above goes, all I did was correct you on the fact that out of state companies need to be licensed so that other folks would not be misled by your comment. I never mentioned your past history with the DBPR so why did you bring it up.As usual you added in an exemption to support your comments but the exemption, if you read it is for "proprietary central stations. Do you know what a proprietary central station is Robert? If so why don't you give us an example of one. And then explain how that equates to being an out of state central station, as you said, does not need to be licensed. Your curve ball didn't curve Robert. I know from the past that some think this stuff is boring but this is a thread about State Statute. "U"nfortunately, in one breath, Robert still thinks he "U"nderstands the Statute and will argue about it at the drop of a hat. One the other hand he says he only knows the part that his online store is exempt. He is right, his store is exempt, as long as online sales is all he is doing. If he is doing anything else, that is defined as needing a license as outlined in the Statute, well that is his decision. I still think that blaming Mugford for filing the complaint against him is as hilarious as him thinking Frank is a counter clerk.

You need a remedial reading course. I didn't say they were an insurance company.

The Board of Insurance is not UL. No one even mentioned them.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Telling that with your post, you really don't know the whole picture. I pointed your lack of knowledge on this before. I wish you would stop responding to licensing threads when the only thing you do know, at your own admittance, is that an online store in exempt. Notice I didn't say that one could hide behind an online store but might still need to be licensed depending on what activities where being conducted. You missed several other Statutes and Rules that apply. If one doesn't know all that applies, how can one comply? Maybe you are in total compliance, maybe your not. If you don't know the other requirements how can you be satisfied that you might not have some exposure. When topics like this come up people that are new to the business or regulatory requirements are new to them (new legislation). It it is a common mistake to run across the first exemption or to interpet the language in their own favor and say, "Well, this doesn't apply to me". Get a legal second opinion before there is trouble. :o]