Orphan ADT system
Milt Wishard
terms of the monitoring agreement, I terminated the agreement.
Now I have this alarm hardware in my house and have two questions:
Do I own this hardware and can I get a manual to re-program the system for
my personal use.
Mark Leuck
Milt Wishard <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:7sec9a$hu6$1...@winter.news.rcn.net...
and no you will not get a manual from ADT to reprogram it
RobAZ1
>Do I own this hardware
Probably not. Most (92% accordinf to ADT) are company leased equipment. You
probably will get a call from ADT requesting return of the equipment. If you
sell your home you are responsible for advising the new owners that the
security system is leased.
>and can I get a manual to re-program the
>system for my personal use.
Those manualas are available but not from ADT. Remember that in many older (1+
years) ADT systems, the communication is proprietary so later you may not be
able to have it monitored by others and you may not be able to program it to
dial your pager without sending the system into some communication problem
mode.
Rob-
Jacob Ashbury
the green board or the chips on it to indicate who really made the system.
What does the keypad look like?
You might be able to get manual or at least the PDF if it is a system that
has a counter part. Let us know.
Milt Wishard <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:7sec9a$hu6$1...@winter.news.rcn.net...
> I had an ADT system installed a couple of years ago and after fulfilling
the
> terms of the monitoring agreement, I terminated the agreement.
>
> Now I have this alarm hardware in my house and have two questions:
>
> Do I own this hardware and can I get a manual to re-program the system for
> my personal use.
>
>
Jimc8154
That will tell you if you own it and what you have.
RichHrng
replace the control as the ADT control can only communicate with the ADT
reciever. Any alarm provider can replace the control for you. Many probably
will at no cost if you have the system monitored by them.
Jacob Ashbury
really be an ADT unit. Dealers install many times the units that ADT
corporate does. Most customers do not know there is a difference.
If ADT is stenciled on the unit and the largest green board chip says ADT
then it is still only a 'probable' lock out.
RichHrng <rich...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990924101511...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
Evan Eggers
I'm just an average homeowner--not a security professional--but my
experience may be of interest to you. I've moved into two houses, both of
which had ADT systems installed already. In both cases I jettisoned ADT like
last week's trash (more on why later).
In case one the hardware was actually Ademco Vista (don't know the model); I
was told that at the time of the system's installation (1991 or so?) ADT
didn't have decent wireless stuff so they used Ademco's. It was absolutely
no problem to find a local monitoring company who could take it over.
In the most recent case--where I moved in earlier this month--the house had
a proprietary ADT Safewatch Plus system. In this case I removed ADT's panel,
installed a new Ademco Vista 20se myself (bought it from a very helpful
fellow I found on the Internet), hooked it up to the sensors ADT had so
already installed, and I'm happy as a clam (all for about $300).
So why did ADT go in my dust heap, and twice no less? Their monitoring
contract. One of my responsibilities at my office is contract review, and I
had never seen contracts as onerous as the one ADT demands you sign for
monitoring. Let me point out in advance that ADT had been paid for these
systems by the houses' prior owners way past the end of the original 3-year
commitment, so the hardware was certainly paid for by the point I came along
and bought the homes.
Anyway, the monitoring contract says, and I do quote directly: "Title to the
equipment shall remain in ADT. ADT may, with or without written notice to
the Customer, remove, disable, and/or abandon in whole or in part, the
equipment, upon termination of the Central Station Signal Receiving and
Notification Service, of Direct Connection Service, the Limited Warranty, or
the Extended Limited Warranty, whichever is later, without obligation to
repair or redecorate any portion of the Customer's premises upon any such
removal, and that the removal, disablement and/or abandonment of such
equipment shall not be held to constitute a waiver of the right of ADT to
collect any charges which have been accrued or may be accrued hereunder."
So REGARDLESS of whether or not ADT installed the original system and
REGARDLESS of whether it was paid for it in full up front (as I happen to
know the first system was, meaning that ADT had no need to make its money
back w/ monitoring over several years), they grant themselves ownership to
the system and if you decide to no longer use ADT monitoring they reserve
the right to break into your home, rip out the installation, wreck your
house, kick the dog, and owe you nothing. Now to be fair, ADT assured me
that they had never done this. So I asked them simply to remove this part of
the contract. They would not. For me it was a matter of principle and I told
them, "Hasta la vista, baby."
To all the other alarm companies out there, I would take this paragraph and
give it to all your salespeople to show to prospects to tell them why they
don't want to use ADT, in spite of their excellent brand recognition. Let me
also state explicitly that I am NOT advocating violating contract terms. If
an alarm company installs a system below cost they deserve to get a
multi-year monitoring commitment to make their money back. If the homeowner
reneges on the deal then the alarm company should have remedies, like
cutting off monitoring and monetary damages. But I cannot imagine any
situation where a paragraph like the one above is called for.
Milt, to get back to the point of your original posting, if you post more
information about what the system keypad and control panel look like (for
example, if it says "Vista" on it you're golden) then the experts in the
forum can probably tell you what kind of hardware you have. If it's not ADT
proprietary, then you can find someone else to monitor easily. On the other
hand if it's proprietary ADT stuff (that can't be monitored by anyone else),
you can probably replace the panel with one of your choosing without much
hassle or cost, and then you can do whatever you want. As I explained, I
experienced both cases and an easy solution presented itself for both cases.
Theoretically, if you signed an agreement with a paragraph like the one
above, though, you could be at risk. But is ADT really going to show up at
your door one day? Doubt it.
Anyway, hope my little diatribe was at least of entertainment value to you,
and good luck!
Evan
Milt Wishard
If you have further info, Please fire away.
Jacob Ashbury
'very helpful fellow.' That's a real high mark-up.
>. . . . In this case I removed ADT's panel,
Evan Eggers
I should have pointed out I bought several other items as well for that
$300. The Vista
20se panel was $113 and the 6139 keypad was $106. After checking three
places I figured they were fair prices.
Evan
Jacob Ashbury <ch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7shn6b$rmv$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
> If you paid 'about $300' for a Vista 20 and 6139 keypad I'll bet you found
a
> 'very helpful fellow.' That's a real high mark-up.
> >. . . . In this case I removed ADT's panel,
RobAZ1
>I was told that at the time of the system's
>installation (1991 or so?) ADT didn't have
>decent wireless stuff so they used
>Ademco's.
FYI, ADT does not manufacture any equipment of their own. They use
commercially available equipment under private label. This is very common
practice within the industry. You will see many nationals and locals who have
their name placed on the equipment versus the manufactures name. From time to
time, some companies may have the manufacture modify the internal components to
meet the alarmco''s needs but otherwise it's the same. So it's not that ADT
didn't have any good wireless, they never had their own wireless. They choose
Ademco as their vendor.
>So REGARDLESS of whether or not ADT
>installed the original system and
>REGARDLESS of whether it was paid for
>it in full up front (as I happen to
>know the first system was, meaning that
>ADT had no need to make its money
>back w/ monitoring over several years),
It's not always easy to understand what the cost of the equipment is and if it
was or wasn't paid for up front. If a consumer purchases additional equipment
the installation cost would reflect that. However if the customer took the
standard residential package for $99, it doesn't matter how much they paid in
additional equipment, the basic package is still owned by ADT.
>they grant themselves ownership to
>the system and if you decide to no longer
>use ADT monitoring they reserve the right
>to break into your home, rip out the
>installation, wreck your house, kick the
>dog, and owe you nothing.
I find it offensive whenever someone makes such a statement based simply on the
wording of a contract. The contract gives them the right to retreive their
equipment, that's all. Your reading and (although in jest) description of what
they can do shows a general bias attitude people have towards a company that
has their legal ducks in a row. If you read a standard automobile leasing or
rental contract, you will see similar wording, YET we never think about bashing
them.
>Now to be fair, ADT assured me that they
>had never done this. So I asked them
>simply to remove this part of the contract.
>They would not. For me it was a matter of
>principle and I told them, "Hasta la vista,
>baby."
And why should they remove it? It's a perfectly legal and acceptable statement.
In some way I'm sure they were equally happy to say "Hasta la viesta baby" to
you as well. There is no compelling reason to expect a corporation, company,
or individual to give up their rights simply because they don't practice it.
>To all the other alarm companies out
>there, I would take this paragraph and
>give it to all your salespeople to show to
>prospects to tell them why they
>don't want to use ADT,
If that's the only reason you can find not to use a particular company, your
priorities are screwd up. I can put you in touch with a security company that
will install a security system that will protect your entire house as well as
detect an intruder as they attempt to penetrate your house. Additionally that
system is easy to program yourself and is designed for a DIY'er. They won't
even require a monitoring contract so I can assure you that they WON'T have
that offensive statement in Their agreement. If that's what bothers you and is
the key to choosing a company, you really should check out the LOXXOMATIC.
>in spite of their excellent brand
>recognition.
ADT is not a brand. They are the seller. In other words, ADT is like Walmart.
Although you can find items with the Walmart name on it, it probably was
manufactured by the same company that manufactured the nonWallmart item next to
it on the shelf.
>Let me also state explicitly that I am NOT
>advocating violating contract terms. If
>an alarm company installs a system
>below cost they deserve to get a
>multi-year monitoring commitment to
>make their money back. If the
>homeowner reneges on the deal then the
>alarm company should have remedies,
>like cutting off monitoring and monetary
>damages. But I cannot imagine any
>situation where a paragraph like the one
>above is called for.
If you rent or lkease anything I suggest you read the contract and you'll see
similar wording. I hatre to tell you what the cab;le company's contract says
about retreiving the rented cable box.
>Theoretically, if you signed an agreement
>with a paragraph like the one above,
>though, you could be at risk. But is ADT
>really going to show up at your door one
>day? Doubt it.
If you doubt that they will enforce that provision, Why make such a big deal
over something so small? Not only do I doubt ADT will ever do it, I know they
won't as you think because most states have requirements for the access and
removal of leased equipment and ADT, like all other alarmco's, abide by those
rules.
As I said hundreds of times in many other threads, and can someone PLEASE give
me an answer:
WHY do consumers have no problems accepting business practices by everyother
industry except when it comes to alarmcos?
Rob-
Thomas Gerchak
sign a monitoring contract that says ADT owns the equipment when in the
first example it was an outright sale, and the second example he
installed his own panel.
Hey Evan, didn't I see you on LA law. You were the tough, smart lawyer?
;-)
Respectfully,
thomas
RobAZ1
>I think Evan's point was more along the
>lines of why does ADT make him sign a
>monitoring contract that says ADT owns
>the equipment when in the first example it
>was an outright sale,
Usually, contracts for outright sales delete any mention of ownership. Often
consumers don't fully understand that prices are not a reflection of ownership.
I know several people who spent over $1,000 on their system but still leased
the basic package.
>and the second example he installed his
>own panel.
My mistake, I thought he installed his own panel after giving them the boot.
Rob-
Thomas Gerchak
Respectfully,
thomas
RobAZ1 wrote:
>
> >From: Thomas Gerchak
>
> >I think Evan's point was more along the
> >lines of why does ADT make him sign a
> >monitoring contract that says ADT owns
> >the equipment when in the first example it
> >was an outright sale,
>
> Usually, contracts for outright sales delete any mention of ownership. Often
> consumers don't fully understand that prices are not a reflection of ownership.
> I know several people who spent over $1,000 on their system but still leased
> the basic package.
>
> >and the second example he installed his
> >own panel.
>
Irv Fisher
I didn't reread his initial post but my understanding was that they
were using a monitoring agreement that included a reference to removal
of equipment. Perhaps ADT uses a single monitoring agreement that
includes references to equipment removal or he wasn't aware that there
is a monitoring agreement that doesn't refer to removal of equipment
or ADT uses a single agreement for everything.
It's pretty obvious that if you provide your own system or purchase it
outright, the monitoring agreement should not provide any rights to
the provider to remove any equipment. Or maybe this is included to
give the provider more clout to enforce the agreement?
I think the gentleman was being fair when he said he doubted that ADT
or any other national company would enter a private house and remove
equipment attached to a wall. We all know the economic implications
of this don't generally warrant recovery in a residential
installation. Very few of us pursue these contract very far beyond
standard collection methods. The $200 to $300 just isn't worth it in
most cases. If we've done our credit checks properly, this isn't
likely to happen or when it does, the client simply doesn't have the $
to pay us.
You know what the difference is here???? If it was a small company
like mine and Evan asked me to remove a clause like this, I would use
my common sense and authority to strike it out. The only clause I
will not yield to is my liability clause. That's because my insurer
will just smile if there's a claim on that account. I can understand
how a company like ADT's, as a matter of policy, not allow anything of
substance to be altered on a contract.
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 07:08:20 GMT, Thomas Gerchak
<tger...@netzero.net> wrote:
>He may have. If you're still around can you clear this up, Evan?
>
>Respectfully,
>thomas
>
>RobAZ1 wrote:
>>
>> >From: Thomas Gerchak
>>
>> >I think Evan's point was more along the
>> >lines of why does ADT make him sign a
>> >monitoring contract that says ADT owns
>> >the equipment when in the first example it
>> >was an outright sale,
>>
>> Usually, contracts for outright sales delete any mention of ownership. Often
>> consumers don't fully understand that prices are not a reflection of ownership.
>> I know several people who spent over $1,000 on their system but still leased
>> the basic package.
>>
>> >and the second example he installed his
>> >own panel.
>>
Jacob Ashbury
loss (water-line ruptured). I went over, he asked me to read his insurance
policy! I did and gave it back- he wanted to know who he should sue- I told
him I didn't know but I'd be glad to give him a bid for the repair work (he
did not find that amusing).
Irv Fisher <ifi...@apialarm.com> wrote in message
news:cC7wN27Vhn0uFF...@4ax.com...
> I was presenting to a customer several years ago who turned out to be
> an attorney. Before even reading my contract he asked me who he
> should sue if there was a loss. I told him to sue ADT. Then I gave
> him the name of an acquaintance of mine at ADT and left.
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:09:27 GMT, "Robert L Bass" <alar...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There is of course the other side of this coin. I have a typical alarm
> >monitoring contract which I use. In it are all the usual limitation of
> >liability and indemnification clauses, etc. One time several years ago I
> >was in the process of signing the paperwork with a client. The gentleman
> >sold software to court reporters. He was all set to sign. His wife was
a
> >bright, young attorney, fresh out of law school it seems. She took out a
> >ball point pen and a ruler and began lining out every clause that
protected
> >my firm. Then she signed it and handed it back to me.
> >
> >I explained that, although I can be flexible about some things, the LOL
and
> >such were necessary clauses. She said, "That is unacceptable." I said,
OK,
> >and began closing up my brief case. As I rose from my chair, the
gentleman
> >asked what I was doing. I said I was leaving. He asked me to wait.
They
> >went into an adjoining room, had it out and then returned. I produced
> >another contract form, filled it in and we all signed it.
> >
> >Side note: They proved to be extremely difficult clients.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Robert L Bass
> >
> >==========================>
> >Bass Home Electronics
> >The Online DIY Alarm Store
> >http://www.BassHome.com
> >ICQ: 34679978
> >80 Bentwood Road
> >West Hartford, CT 06107
> >860-561-9542 voice
> >860-561-5210 fax
> >==========================>
> >
> >Thomas Gerchak wrote in message <37F00D3...@netzero.net>...
> >>I would say that your willingness to bend a bit gives you a slight
> >>advantage. To strike a line from the contract obviously not doing
> >>anything for you, but offensive to the customer to no end. Most small
> >>and some medium companies will actually attempt to accommodate the
> >>customer.
> >>
> >>When you start getting into the corporate giants, obviously this may
> >>require more red tape than it's worth as a contract. I know I
> >>shouldn't.. I can't help it..
> >>
> >>"Resistance is futile. You will become one with the Borg collective.
> >>All contracts will be unaltered. You will comply!"
> >>
> >>Geez. I shouldn't have told such a scary story before bed. (Looking
> >>around.) I think I'll sleep with the light on tonight. :-0
> >>
> >>Respectfully,
> >>thomas
> >>> >thomas
> >>> >
> >>> >RobAZ1 wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >From: Thomas Gerchak
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >I think Evan's point was more along the
> >>> >> >lines of why does ADT make him sign a
> >>> >> >monitoring contract that says ADT owns
> >>> >> >the equipment when in the first example it
> >>> >> >was an outright sale,
> >>> >>
ownership.
> >Often
> >>> >> consumers don't fully understand that prices are not a reflection
of
> >ownership.
> >>> >> I know several people who spent over $1,000 on their system but
still
> >leased
> >>> >> the basic package.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >own panel.
> >>> >>
Thomas Gerchak
Respectfully,
thomas
> >Respectfully,
> >thomas
> >
> >RobAZ1 wrote:
> >>
> >> >From: Thomas Gerchak
> >>
> >> >I think Evan's point was more along the
> >> >lines of why does ADT make him sign a
> >> >monitoring contract that says ADT owns
> >> >the equipment when in the first example it
> >> >was an outright sale,
> >>
> >> Usually, contracts for outright sales delete any mention of ownership. Often
> >> consumers don't fully understand that prices are not a reflection of ownership.
> >> I know several people who spent over $1,000 on their system but still leased
> >> the basic package.
> >>
> >> >and the second example he installed his
> >> >own panel.
> >>
Robert L Bass
Regards,
Robert L Bass
>> >Respectfully,
>> >thomas
>> >
>> >RobAZ1 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >From: Thomas Gerchak
>> >>
>> >> >I think Evan's point was more along the
>> >> >lines of why does ADT make him sign a
>> >> >monitoring contract that says ADT owns
>> >> >the equipment when in the first example it
>> >> >was an outright sale,
>> >>
>> >> Usually, contracts for outright sales delete any mention of ownership.
Often
>> >> consumers don't fully understand that prices are not a reflection of
ownership.
>> >> I know several people who spent over $1,000 on their system but still
leased
>> >> the basic package.
>> >>
>> >> >and the second example he installed his
>> >> >own panel.
>> >>
Thomas Gerchak
they brought a contract that stated they could pull the equipment. Even
if it was not their property.
Your contract doesn't normally say this. I assume correctly your
contract is fair. From what I gather from this guy Evan, his contract
relinquished him from ownership of his own panel. It wouldn't surprise
me if the Bor, em, company sent the wrong type of contract with a
salesperson of the collective.
Respectfully,
thomas
> >> >Respectfully,
> >> >thomas
> >> >
> >> >RobAZ1 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >From: Thomas Gerchak
> >> >>
> >> >> >I think Evan's point was more along the
> >> >> >lines of why does ADT make him sign a
> >> >> >monitoring contract that says ADT owns
> >> >> >the equipment when in the first example it
> >> >> >was an outright sale,
> >> >>
> >> >> Usually, contracts for outright sales delete any mention of ownership.
> Often
> >> >> consumers don't fully understand that prices are not a reflection of
> ownership.
> >> >> I know several people who spent over $1,000 on their system but still
> leased
> >> >> the basic package.
> >> >>
> >> >> >and the second example he installed his
> >> >> >own panel.
> >> >>
Irv Fisher
an attorney. Before even reading my contract he asked me who he
should sue if there was a loss. I told him to sue ADT. Then I gave
him the name of an acquaintance of mine at ADT and left.
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:09:27 GMT, "Robert L Bass" <alar...@home.com>
wrote:
>>> >Respectfully,
>>> >thomas
>>> >
>>> >RobAZ1 wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >From: Thomas Gerchak
>>> >>
>>> >> >I think Evan's point was more along the
>>> >> >lines of why does ADT make him sign a
>>> >> >monitoring contract that says ADT owns
>>> >> >the equipment when in the first example it
>>> >> >was an outright sale,
>>> >>
>>> >> Usually, contracts for outright sales delete any mention of ownership.
>Often
>>> >> consumers don't fully understand that prices are not a reflection of
>ownership.
>>> >> I know several people who spent over $1,000 on their system but still
>leased
>>> >> the basic package.
>>> >>
>>> >> >and the second example he installed his
>>> >> >own panel.
>>> >>
Robert L Bass
thread. I missed that part. Horrible!
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==========================>
Bass Home Electronics
The Online DIY Alarm Store
http://www.BassHome.com
ICQ: 34679978
80 Bentwood Road
West Hartford, CT 06107
860-561-9542 voice
860-561-5210 fax
==========================>
Thomas Gerchak wrote in message <37F026E5...@netzero.net>...
Evan Eggers
Hello again everybody; thanks for the posts. I had forgotten after awhile
away from newsgroups how many strongly-held opinions there are (including my
own, of course)! Since psychiatrists say it's healthy to get those emotions
out and not keep them bottled up, we all must be a very healthy bunch!
I'll try to answer some of the questions directed at me in the several
posts.
In both cases I bought and moved into a house that already had a panel
installed (by ADT). I went to ADT just to sign up for monitoring.
As to the system ownership issue. In neither case did the prior homeowners
advise me that I had any obligations to ADT, let alone that ADT owned the
equipment. Obviously nothing was stated in the purchase and sale agreement,
and the seller's statements did say that the security system was included.
*If* ADT owned the equipment under a prior agreement with the prior
homeowners, their gripe should be with the previous homeowners and not me;
from my perspective, I just bought the house (and its fixtures). In all my
conversations with ADT they never suggested to me that they owned the
equipment, and when I told them that due to their contractual intransigence
I would switch to Plan B (use someone else for monitoring) they told me that
was my option.
So legally speaking I felt I clearly owned these systems. But what about
*ethically*--did the prior homeowners own these systems outright? As I
mentioned, to the best of my knowledge the Ademco wireless system in the
first house was paid for in full up front by the previous homeowners
(paperwork inside the control panel given to me by the new monitoring
company said so), and in the case of the second house I don't know for sure
(although the system *is* very old; ADT told me that most upgrades would
require a new panel).
As I said I'm not a lawyer, but my perspective was that signing the ADT
monitoring agreement (they apparently DO use the same agreement for "just
monitoring" as for new installs, since I saw these same clauses twice, six
years apart) granted them ownership of something that was mine and give them
a right to "break and enter" as I described earlier.
In each case I asked ADT simply to remove the "ownership" and "breaking and
entering" clause that I've already mentioned gets my knickers in a twist (I
didn't ask them to change anything else, like their liability protections).
In each case they declined to change anything. I imagine their local
branches have their hands tied on making changes (and I will say that in the
second case the local ADT rep tried hard to improve things for me but in the
end wasn't able to). So in case one I simply chose someone else for
monitoring, and in case two I replaced their panel with the Vista and
obviously chose someone else for monitoring.
I also want to clarify what I felt was unreasonable about the ADT contract.
It's not the liability protection or the indemnification clauses, which I
understand are completely necessary. No business can reasonably be expected
to expose itself to a potential multi-million-dollar liability when the
compensation received is only a few hundred dollars annually in monitoring
fees. What I found unreasonable was: a) ADT granting themselves ownership of
something that was mine, and b) ADT granting themselves the right,
*literally*, to break into my home, remove their equipment, with no
obligation to repair any damage done, IF I CHOOSE TO STOP USING THEM FOR
MONITORING. ADT said they had never actually done this, so I couldn't
understand why they wouldn't remove the offending clauses, and elected to
express my displeasure by taking my wallet elsewhere. In the same way that
the monitoring company's liability exposure needs to be balanced against the
amount of money they receive in compensation, the remedies available to the
monitoring company need to be proportionate to their financial exposure, and
I think a reasonable person would conclude that the remedies in the ADT
monitoring agreement are over the top.
I didn't ask ADT to do anything that I wouldn't have done for a customer of
mine in terms of making reasonable changes to a contract.
Now, if ADT had sent over Seven of Nine to work out a deal with me, things
might have gone better! ;-)
Evan
Robert L Bass <alar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:yTWH3.1927$Af7....@news.rdc1.ct.home.com...
Robert L Bass <alar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:yTWH3.1927$Af7....@news.rdc1.ct.home.com...
Thomas Gerchak
seem flexible enough in your request.
Care to stick around in the NG to be, 'Evan, the tough, smart, contract
peruser!' ? We get some call for advice and another brain in the fire
will, uhh, make the marshmallows better? Seriously, what is your take
on a customer owned panel that has been locked out? I would like your
feedback on this.
Your comment about seven of nine? I am happy there is another Star Trek
fan among us. Or are you just a fan of her, eh, efficiency? Me, too.
Respectfully,
thomas
Andy Bowman
Snip
> One time several years ago I
>was in the process of signing the paperwork with a client. The gentleman
>sold software to court reporters. He was all set to sign. His wife was a
>bright, young attorney, fresh out of law school it seems. She took out a
>ball point pen and a ruler and began lining out every clause that protected
>my firm. Then she signed it and handed it back to me.
Wow. We did a system for a prominent local attorney earlier this year, and I
was expecting something of this nature (although not that extreme) when it
came time to sign the agreement. To my surprise he didn't even read it, other
than the handwritten areas (term and price). He signed and muttered something
to the effect of, if there's a problem we'll battle it out in court, as if the
terms of the signed agreement could easily be overturned in court. Always
posible I suppose, but I expected him to at least read through it. He's been a
good customer though so far.
Andy
Irv Fisher
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:47:18 GMT, albo...@iquest.net (Andy Bowman)
wrote:
Robert L Bass
ever asked to amend the monitoring agreement. With the exception of that
one young lady, the same is true of nearly every other client we have. But
very once in a while a real hum-dinger comes along. You learn to take the
good with the bad, I guess.
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==========================>
Bass Home Electronics
The Online DIY Alarm Store
http://www.BassHome.com
ICQ: 34679978
80 Bentwood Road
West Hartford, CT 06107
860-561-9542 voice
860-561-5210 fax
==========================>
Andy Bowman wrote in message ...
Mike Ackerman
contracts they say they own the equipment. If the contract is with the previous
owner and you purchase the home you are not obligated to their contract. The
financial liability for the system reverts to the previous owner unless you
signed a written assignment and assumption agreement at closing. ADT nor any
alarm co has the right to invade your home and remove equipment. They just
leave it there as it isn't worth the time to pay someone to remove a used system
They can however go after the owner if he is still under contract. The first
thing I find out from a prospective alarm owner is if they are currently under
contract. ADT conract says 3 years but it also automatically renews for two
year periods unless notified in writing within 30 days of the last month of the
contract. Another fact is that ADT is a franchise. There is corporate ADT and
many jobbers who use ADT all have different terms. Even SEARS is now an
authorized ADT dealer. I have been taking over ADT systems for 4 years for
Slomin's. We replace the keypads and control panel and if the former systems
components are sound we tie them in. Believe me ADT doesn't come out to get
their stuff. We add an extra piece of equipment as well at no charge as in a
monitored smoke detector, another motion (pir), etc. You do own the equipment,
it is not on lend or lease. You pay the monitoring for a 5 year agreement and
thats it. If you sell the house you can transfer the agreement and owe nothing
or if the people don't want it monitored which would be plain foolish you owe
$395.00 but you reap the capital improvement on the house for the system and
work it into your selling price. Then we install a new system in your new home
and you start all over again Sound reasonable? It's made me a good living for
4 years. Hope I've helped... Mike Ackerman at 1800ALARMME ext 43740
ALARMIN
writes:
>Subject: Re: Orphan ADT system
>From: Mike Ackerman <mike...@ptd.net>
>Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 15:09:19 GMT
Sounds pretty good huh?
Well bless my soul! All this from the same company who was not allowed to
join the Long Island Alarm association because of it's high pressure and
misleading tactics.
Lets see now if I can remember...... hmmm, Don't you offer a "free" alarm
system too? Don't you do those quickie installations where the wires run up the
wall and the motion detectors and keypads are put where ever it's closests to
the control panel? The company that doesn't know what an RJ31X jack or a ground
wire is? Isn't this the same company that'll give away a "free" system, lock a
customer into a long term contract and charge the customer $95.00 to $150.00
per extra opening? Or install one audio glass break detector in the bedroom
hallway for $200.00 and tell the homeowner that it will detect glass breaking
throughout the house? Also, doesn't your monitoring contract say that the
amount is X amount of dollars for the term of the agreement but that " you" can
raise it if you want to? Isn't Slomins the same company that will call up my
clients and when told that they already have an alarm, are asked how much they
pay a month and then they are offered monitoring at $5.00 less then "what ever
they are paying now?"
Yeah ..... thats right ..... it's ADT..... no no ..... it's Slomins ......
Oh ....... whats the difference?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Remove the Zapp from my address to E-Mail
Ejad ..Jim
................................................................
RobAZ1
>If the contract is with the previous owner
>and you purchase the home you are not
>obligated to their contract.
Actually, that all depends on where you live. A few states have taken the
position that a leased item in a home remains the property of the lease holder
regardless of any sale.
>ADT nor any alarm co has the right to
>invade your home and remove equipment.
Invade, NO. But they do have the right to removal by obtainning a court order.
>They just leave it there as it isn't worth
>the time to pay someone to remove a
>used system
Sometimes they see removal od the system to get even with a problem customer or
if the system is under 4 years old they do it for balancing their asset sheets.
It's better to "retrieve" a few years old system versus writting it off.
>ADT conract says 3 years but it also
>automatically renews for two year periods
>unless notified in writing within 30 days of
>the last month of the contract.
Most ADT contracts renew for only 1 year after completion of contract.
>Another fact is that ADT is a franchise.
Actually, they are a alarm company that "brokers" their name and monitoring.
Franchise is something else.
>You pay the monitoring for a 5 year
>agreement and thats it.
FIVE YEARS!!!!!! Sorry, but that is way too long for any consumer. I always
recommend a maximum of 3 years and only if you trust the company. Five years
is just too long.
>If you sell the house you can transfer the
>agreement and owe nothing or if the
>people don't want it monitored which
>would be plain foolish you owe $395.00
>but you reap the capital improvement on
>the house for the system and work it into
>your selling price. Then we install a new
>system in your new home and you start
>all over again Sound reasonable?
No it doesn't sound reasonable! If you're requiring them to sign a new FIVE
YEAR agreement, what's the $395 charge for? Are they held to the end of term
clause plus $350 if they move out of your serviving area? Gee i knew New York
liked to do things on a grand scale but FIVE YEARS????? That's too grand for
my taste.
Rob-
RichHrng
tried modification- Statement on contract such as " ADT has the right to remove
any ADT owned equipment installed under this agreement. All customer owned
equipment at this location remains the property of the customer"........
Thomas Gerchak
did state his objections quite clearly, and wouldn't it have been the
ADT rep's responsibility to amend the contract as you have stated? Not
the homeowners?
My bet would be that if you were the one calling on him to sign, he
would have had no problem. You could have pushed the red tape out of
the way.
As it stands, and twice, ADT lost the monitoring due to the inability to
accept modifications of the contract. Perhaps the rep's did not know
how to modify a contract?
I don't know how difficult it would be with the inner workings of ADT,
but my locally owned company can do this in a snap. We haven't had to,
but our standard contract doesn't state that we have the right to remove
security equipment we don't own, either.
Respectfully,
thomas
RobAZ1
>Perhaps the rep's did not know
>how to modify a contract?
In most cases it's not possible to delete items from a contract, whereas it's
easy to add. You're correct that they should have made some provisions. One
thing I have noticed in many contracts regarding ownership is that the
contracts often state that this provision does not apply if the customer
already owns the equipment. Maybe the reps need to spend more time
understanding what their contracts say versus how to get a customer to sign on
the dotted line.
I know two nationals that have two contracts. One for new cyustomers and one
for takeovers. The takeover contract eleminates the ownership clause and is
replaced by a no addition, adds, deletions, or programing changes while being
monitored without notification. This should be the way things are done or
better yet, if only one contract is used, have the ability to check-off various
areas.
Rob-