Suggestion for box where alarm monitoring failovers from landline to cell phone - when landline is cut.

He may be right. Following are a few quotes from other folks about Slomins. Decide for yourself.

"june262004 Member since 5/05

6821 total posts Name: Kristin Re: Security Systems... We have Protection One. No complaints. We signed with Slomins and cancelled cause they failed to mention the 5 year Lein they put on your house"

"Diana1215 Member since 10/05

3170 total posts Name: Diana Re: Security Systems... I had a Slomins guy come to give us a quote on an Alarm System....I was soooooo turned off on the salesman I couldn't wait for him to get out of my house..."

The above are from:

"Slomins Alarm Systems

Senior Scam DVD DVD helps seniors avoid telemarketing scams. Order now!

"Wayne of New Castle DE (07/06/06) I disconnected my landline phone in May 2005. We were not aware that this would stop the signal from going to the monitoring center. In November 2005, the alarm went off twice due to a bad wind storm. We were then informed that the system was searching for a landline. So we thought our home was being monitored but it was not. Slomin's never contacted us to tell us there was a problem and that they were not receiving a signal from our home. So I called Verizon and installed a new landline phone service. Slomin's then told me that the system was still not working and that I needed to pay for a service call of $79.00 per hour to have the service fixed. I then asked to be disconnected from the security system and they told me to do it in writing. Which I did in December 2005. Then they sent me a bill for $1257.25 for a disconnection fee. I told them they could come get the equipment from my home but they never came to get it. So now they are suing me for the money which I feel they are the ones that broke the contract first by not contacting me when they were not receiving a signal. Slomin is suing me and I can't afford to pay for something especially when I am receiving nothing in return."

This came from:

"Another favorite word among marketers is "free," even when it's not entirely accurate, reader Leo Powelstock of Oradell points out. Powelstock, a former president of the Better Business Bureau for Bergen, Passaic and Rockland Counties was alarmed by a recent newspaper ad for The Slomin's Shield in which key information "is conspicuous by its absence." "How much does our advanced home security system cost you?" the ad asks in large, boldface type. "It's FREE!" it answers itself, in even larger type. But it's not free. The small type near the bottom of the ad tells consumers that a five-year monitoring agreement is required. And what does that cost? It doesn't say, so I called the toll-free number. The customer service rep said she wasn't sure - her job appeared to be to gather information to arrange a call from the company's sales rep - but, after checking with a supervisor, came up with $25.45 per month if you sign a five-year agreement. Do the math, and you find the "free" system will cost $1,527." From:

This one resulted in a lawsuit: "[I] Implied Warranty Of Merchantability: U.C.C. § 2-314U.C.C. § 2-314 provides consumers with an implied warranty of merchantability for products and has arisen in consumer lawsuits involving alarm and monitoring systems [ Cirillo v. Slomin's Inc. [286]"

Decide for yourself.

How would you like me to dig through Usenet archives to see what folks think about YOUR company?

That's just a hypothetical question, Shit-For-Brains, I'm gonna do it anyway.

accurate, reader Leo Powelstock of Oradell points out.

Passaic and Rockland Counties was alarmed by a recent

by its absence."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, bAss is quoting BBB officials!

Let's have a look at what they say about you:

Think about it for a minute

Doug

yup good observation..did they had a way of contacting the OP, next,if there is no tel line the system can say he cant communicate,not all alarm company use timer test,and we don't know if they did reach someone that told them that the OP did cancel its phone line..and that is was normal that they were not receiving timer test..

be careful too,in most case cancel the line that connects to the alarm usually remove any liability to the alarm company....(for the OP check in your contract...

"Doug" a écrit dans le message de news: VZ3%g.6038$gM1.3285@fed1read12...

An installer, yes, a license holder may be another question. As Dezi would say, "you have some splain'n to do Lucy", in front of the ECLB prior to even getting the test application approved. With Mugford on the board that Q&A process would be a riot. Than you would have to pass the test. How long has it been since you were in the field?

you or anyone else.

Nope. You're absolutely wrong, Worthless. The law is quite clear. Try reading it sometime and then try not deliberately misquoting it.

Applicants don't have to go before the ECLB to obtain the license.

No problem. When I took the CT exam, about 1/4 of the applicants walked out in the first 20 minutes. They gave us something like 2 hours to finish. I was done in less than 40 minutes. Passed on the first try with better than a 95%.

I'm still in the field. I just don't go out to install anymore. But that's the point. I'm not interested in installing anymore. I wouldn't want the pay cut.

No reply? Heh, heh, heh.

His reply had nothing to do with me, stupid. If you want the truth we exchange email on a semi-regular basis (the last one was yesterday). Believe it or not, your name has never been mentioned.

"Applicants don't have to go before the ECLB to obtain the license".

You're wrong again, Mr. BAss..........

Norm Mugford

I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?

Its a little late for that and the drugs have nothing to do with it.

Doug

reading it sometime and then try not deliberately

There you go with the insults again. I should have put a smiley face after my post. Then you may have read it with a different outlook. To respond to your defensive reply, I did not misquote anything. My post is still visible here. What was quoted? There was nothing quoted in the answer. I do agree with you that the law is quite clear. I have read the statutes and the rules it in their entirety, as they are updated constantly, more times than I care to count. I totally understand them, as I personally have been involved in writing part of it, at least the bills that have gone into law that the statute is built on. I think you may have read only the parts up to where you think you are clear of the law. I do agree that there are parts of the law that exempt your on line sales of equipment, as long as you only sell the equipment. But there are other statutes and rules that effect licensing. I have had this converstion with you before and ask you to tell me what these were to see if you were actually as knowledgable about the subject as you claim. There was no response from you. It is not necessary to rehash the topic. You don't know what they are and you haven't read them. Admit it. :o]

If you had read "the statutes and rules in their entirety, you would see that all applications must be submitted 45 days prior to the next ECLB Board meeting. Why would that be a requirement? To let the DBPR put all the documentation together, along with their findings, before it goes to the Board. If there are any issues of concern, whether it is work experience, personal history questions, financial or credit history questions ie bankrupcy's, liens etc. that need to be answered, not only does the application package, but the applicant will appear before the board at that next meeting. You have never gone through it, so why do you constantly fight what is reality, other than, it is in your personality to do so? :o]

out in the first 20 minutes. They gave us something like 2

try with better than a 95%.

Never said you weren't a smart guy....a smart bASS maybe, but I don't ever under estimate someones intellegence until I know them. I really don't know your intellectual capability's, especially when you have access to the internet at the touch of your finger. Take the computer away, where you don't have access to everyone elses knowledge, and you may be just another bump on a log, as far as I know.

Well than you need to be very careful. If you are in the field picking (pushing) daiseys than you are good to go, but, if you are in the field inspecting, designing, consulting, etc. than you are stepping into an area that needs licensing. You have left the exempted area of the statute that you have been enjoying. If you are sure the law is quite clear than you should know this. :o]

Jesus Robert, why am I conversing with you when you are on drugs? Your answering your own post. Think about this for a minute. Maybe you should wait on posting anything else until your treatment is over before you make a bASS out of yourself unless you just want to humor us. :o]

That is true and G has help me out on some company issues, which worked out to satisfation by the way, and some other info. that may be in his benefit should he want to persue it. I am sure the emails will continue.

Graham, the poor guy is answering his own post of God's sake. What are we to think about anything he posts right now? Look at what he has been throwing out there. He is sicker than we thought or is it the drugs? He is delirious thinking that no one can converse without talking about him. It is starting to look pretty sad. :o[

I swear, his head is as thick as a brick. :o]

The kind of brick I see being used a lot these days is hollow in the middle... :-)

Decide for yourself.

cause they failed to mention the 5 year Lein they put on

soooooo turned off on the salesman I couldn't wait for him

It appears to me that the referenced websites allow anyone to post anything they pretty well want. Andy Bowman (an online competitor) had a similar experience with some entries in his "guestbook". He back-tracked the orginating IP addresses and found they were *yours*!

You recognize these?

"First guest book entry:

(1) Full Name tester (2) E-Mail Address snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (3) Home Page URL

(4) Home Page Title (5) Date (system)

4/25/02 (6) Time (system) 3:07 AM (7) IP Address (system) 68.56.141.54 (8) Comments test

The second one:

A new post has arrived with he following information:

(1) Full Name Badenov (2) E-Mail Address Nomen Nescio (3) Home Page URL none (4) Home Page Title (5) Date (system)

4/25/02 (6) Time (system) 3:11 AM (7) IP Address (system) 68.56.141.54 (8) Comments Terrible service! Ordered from this store and got a real run around. Overpaid for good and got no service."

2006 Florida Statutes

Robert: What has "disciplinary proceedings" and employment of "alarm system agents" to do with your obtaining licensing as the owner of an alarm company (a contractor)? There are an entirely different set of standards for certification as a contractor. I doubt you would qualify.

============

489.511 Certification; application; examinations; endorsement.--

(1) Any person desiring to be certified as a contractor shall apply to the department in writing to take the certification examination.

(2)(a) A person shall be entitled to take the certification examination for the purpose of determining whether he or she is qualified to engage in contracting throughout the state as a contractor if the person:

1. Is at least 18 years of age;
2. Is of good moral character; and
3. Meets eligibility requirements according to one of the following criteria:

a. Has, within the 6 years immediately preceding the filing of the application, at least 3 years' proven management experience in the trade or education equivalent thereto, or a combination thereof, but not more than one-half of such experience may be educational equivalent;

b. Has, within the 8 years immediately preceding the filing of the application, at least 4 years' experience as a supervisor or contractor in the trade for which he or she is making application;

c. Has, within the 12 years immediately preceding the filing of the application, at least 6 years of comprehensive training, technical education, or supervisory experience associated with an electrical or alarm system contracting business, or at least 6 years of technical experience in electrical or alarm system work with the Armed Forces or a governmental entity;

d. Has, within the 12 years immediately preceding the filing of the application, been licensed for 3 years as a professional engineer who is qualified by education, training, or experience to practice electrical engineering; or

e. Has any combination of qualifications under sub-subparagraphs a.-c. totaling 6 years of experience.

(b) For purposes of this subsection, "supervisor" means a person having the experience gained while having the general duty of overseeing the technical duties of the trade, provided that such experience is gained by a person who is able to perform the technical duties of the trade without supervision.

(c) For purposes of this subsection, at least 40 percent of the work experience for an alarm system contractor I must be in the types of fire alarm systems typically used in a commercial setting.

(3) On or after October 1, 1998, every applicant who is qualified shall be allowed to take the examination three times, notwithstanding the number of times the applicant has previously failed the examination. If an applicant fails the examination three times after October 1, 1998, the board shall require the applicant to complete additional college-level or technical education courses in the areas of deficiency, as determined by the board, as a condition of future eligibility to take the examination. The applicant must also submit a new application that meets all certification requirements at the time of its submission and must pay all appropriate fees.

(4)(a) "Good moral character" means a personal history of honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for laws of this state and nation.

(b) The board may determine that an individual applying for certification is ineligible to take the examination for failure to satisfy the requirement of good moral character only if:

1. There is a substantial connection between the lack of good moral character of the individual and the professional responsibilities of a certified contractor; and
2. The finding by the board of lack of good moral character is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

(c) When an individual is found to be unqualified for examination because of a lack of good moral character, the board shall furnish such individual a statement containing the findings of the board, a complete record of the evidence upon which the determination was based, and a notice of the rights of the individual to a rehearing and appeal.

(5) The board shall, by rule, designate those types of specialty electrical or alarm system contractors who may be certified under this part. The limit of the scope of work and responsibility of a certified specialty contractor shall be established by board rule. A certified specialty contractor category exists as an optional statewide licensing category. Qualification for certification in a specialty category created by rule shall be the same as set forth in paragraph (2)(a). The existence of a specialty category created by rule does not itself create any licensing requirement; however, neither does its optional nature remove any licensure requirement established elsewhere in this part.

(6) The board shall certify as qualified for certification by endorsement any individual applying for certification who:

(a) Meets the requirements for certification as set forth in this section; has passed a national, regional, state, or United States territorial licensing examination that is substantially equivalent to the examination required by this part; and has satisfied the requirements set forth in s. 489.521; or

(b) Holds a valid license to practice electrical or alarm system contracting issued by another state or territory of the United States, if the criteria for issuance of such license was substantially equivalent to the certification criteria that existed in this state at the time the certificate was issued.

(7) Upon the issuance of a certificate, any previously issued registered licenses for the classification in which the certification is issued are rendered void.

===============

Was it the "Good moral character" thing that you based your opinion on? ;-))

Not so much that (although I'm not ruling it out entirely). He's had no recent experience "in the trade" and the further he gets from 1999 (and the last time he might have been able to prove he actually *worked* in it) means his eligibility becomes more questionable. The real truth is that until he actually "goes through the steps" (starts the process to become certified), it all remains in the realm of "speculation" (both on his side and ours), doesn't it?