ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

The beauty of a new job is that you get to meet a whole load of new people. You also get to hear a different set of opinions and a whole new raft of problems. From the writer's point of view it means I get some different angles on things, and it is one of those new angles that got me thinking.

During the last month I have been out and about visiting various police forces collecting their views on the industry and a few problems have cropped up. So, on behalf of the various police forces, here are some of their problems.

Problem One occurred when one company bought out another. The company being sold cancelled their URNs and the buying company was supposed to re-apply for them but never did. The police officer in charge of alarm liaison in that area was very concerned because the customers were now without response. He could have taken the attitude that it is 'none of my business', and if the company was so daft as to let their customers' police response lapse then it was their fault.

I had to admire the attitude of the officer concerned, he could see what had happened and was left in a sort of limbo about the job. Did the systems need new URNs or had the new alarm company decided to take the response to a private manned guarding company? He couldn't re-instate the response without the proper applications so he called the alarm company and asked them outright. "Yes", they said. "We need them re-instating, we will re-apply for the URNs. Thanks for telling us". Several weeks later the applications still hadn't arrived so he rang them again. The same conversation took place ... and still no applications.

Watch your reputation
The situation for the end users is now critical. They have no police response and, by default, they probably have no insurance either. The big question is: Have they still got the ten minute bell delay applied? If there is a break-in and some substantial losses incurred (and with no bells for ten minutes and no police turning up, the losses are quite likely to be substantial) what will the insurance company do?

Refuse to pay out of course.

  That leaves the customer with only one option – sue the alarm company. If that were to occur and the story hit the local papers the reputation of that company is shot to pieces. I have to ask, is it worth it, just for the sake of a little bit of better organisation around the office? ... Because I am convinced that that is all the problem is.

Even worse was a problem that came to my attention from a different source. Here it wasn't a company being bought out, it was a non-recognised installer who managed to take over a bunch of half a dozen systems from another company. All the systems were on a communicator of one sort or another and, of course, being a non-recognised company he couldn't get the police response. So he just told the customer they were still on response. This company then set about trying to find another alarm company daft enough to get the URNs for them by the back door – without any luck because all the local companies got their heads together and warned one another.

Companies that are prepared to tell lies and cheat their own customers and take unbelievably silly risks are not wanted in our industry

Liars not wanted
All the recognised companies and the crime prevention departments have to be vigilant against that sort of backhanded trick. Companies that are prepared to tell lies and cheat their own customers and take unbelievably silly risks like that are not wanted in our industry. It's bad enough when these things happen through poor management or just plain blunders but to do it deliberately is beyond the pale.

Another variation on the same theme is the fact that a lot of recognised companies are not informing the police when a system is lost or taken out. They inform the ARC because they are paying for a service and they want the bills to stop but that is all. One police force is currently writing to all the installing companies on their patch and asking them to confirm which systems are still up and running and which no longer exist. The episode has been an eye-opener. Perhaps only two thirds of the companies have bothered to write back with a list and, out of that lot, there has been a considerable number of systems to remove from the URN list. So, come on lads, can we play the game and let the police know as well as the ARC when you cancel response on a system. Expensive mistake Just a final note on that little problem. If the installers in that area don't reply and keep the URN list up to date they may find that the police remove all that company's URNs thinking that the company no longer exists ... then they will have to re-apply for them all – at £30 each! – and that is after they have risked their customer's insurance on stock and property not to mention the goodwill and reputation of their own company.

Whilst we are on the subject of the £30 admin fee charged by the police, another little problem has cropped up, and that is what the installers are telling the customers to get the £30 out of them. Some installers are saying to the customer: "Oh yes, and I need a cheque from you to pay for your police response". The force in question freely admits that the installers probably don't realise what they're saying, but it needs sorting out ASAP.

Let's get it straight. The fee is for the administration. It helps to pay the extra wages for the secretary to type in all your details into the computer. It is NOT to pay for police response. That comes free of charge as part of the public service offered by the police. Look at it logically: If we are to take wages and running costs into the equation what response do you think you would get for 30 quid? Let me tell you ... You would get one visit from one copper, on foot, anywhere within a half mile radius of the nearest police canteen. Well, what do you offer for £30?

Out in the cold
The police are worried that the customer is getting the wrong impression and then later on, if the system should be taken off response, the customers may start demanding their money back because they are no longer getting the service they think they have paid for. Worse still is if they decide to try and sue the police for failing to fulfil their contractual obligations then the brown stuff hits the fan. If any of the installers are found to be telling the wrong story deliberately then the police will take a very dim view and possibly stop issuing URNs to them.

There is a way round this that I have suggested before: If the police were to require every installer to re-apply for every system every year with proof that the system has been serviced in accordance with the ACPO policy (like a copy of signed service sheets or a copy of the contract) then the police would have no unused URNs on their computers, and a lot more revenue. I am sure that the police don't want to do that because, according to my reckoning, the £30 will not cover the extra admin involved. But if we (the installers) don't play the game then it is an option they can look at.

My final request is ... Come on lads, we are keen to offer police response as a part of our way of earning our living so let's play the game and keep them duly informed, AND give the public the right story about the £30.

Keep the police duly informed … AND give the public the right story about the £30 URN charge

Washday blues
On another legal topic, 'Syd the printer' (of Select Business Forms) has discovered yet another disconcerting little story. It concerns a man who bought a washing machine at one of the well-known retail outlets. At the time of purchase he was offered the usual five-year insurance package and decided against it. Two years later the machine broke down and he asked for it to be repaired. He was told that the machine was only guaranteed for one year because he did not take out the insurance package. He was then informed of the call-out fees and the scale of charges and he nearly fell over backwards.

After some thought he took the case to the Trading Standards Office and they decreed that if the manufacturers could offer a five-year package then the machine was designed to last five years. After that it was reasonable to say it was worn out by fair wear and tear – throw it away and buy another. In their view the machine in question had not fulfiled the customer's expectations and he was entitled to have the machine repaired or replaced without cost.

In the case of the alarm industry we have both manufacturers and alarm companies offering ten year guarantees on parts and systems respectively (provided the customer takes out the maintenance or extended guarantee) so where does that leave us? Perhaps it is a question that deserves a lot of thought!

Panel beater
My wife has been fixing things again – this time the car. As usual it started with a complaint to me that she could not wind the window down on her car more than two inches. So on Sunday morning I removed the door panel and all the handles etc and investigated the problem. The car is now ten years old and getting past it. In this case it was the metal bar that supports the bottom of the glass. Damp had got into the padding and it had caused the bar to swell out to the point where the it was catching on the door handle.

I put it all back together and told my wife it would mean a trip to the scrap yard for a replacement door because I could not see a way to get the glass out to replace it.

Later that day she announced that she had fixed the window.

"How?" I asked.