installer code for dsc 832
Mark G.
system.
the prior monitoring company refuses to give me the installer code, and the
sytem is locked and cant be reset. they want to either monitor the system
or charge me to reset the installer code so that it can be used.
the alarm is owned by me, with no residual contracts in place. i guess this
is there way to force me to use them to monitor the system. ($27/month paid
quarterly in advance, with a one year contract - dont know if this is
reasonable or not at this point).
i cant use the alarm without the code.
should i just pay them, or is there a way to reset this box (or crack the
code).
or do i just try a few codes each day until i stumble on the right one.
thanks.
mark
A.J.
living.
"Mark G." <ma...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:et2dnRs5bJw...@comcast.com...
Frank Olson
Did the previous owner have any commitments to the monitoirng company that
weren't taken care of prior to the close of the sale? The fact that you
purchased this house and now possess title to it and anything attached to it
tells me you have certain rights when it comes to the alarm equipment. I'm
assuming the alarm system was included in the sale.
If that's the case, you should contact the previous owner and have *him*
arrange to pay for the alarm company to come out and default the installer
code. I believe you'd be perfectly within your rights to demand this. If
he refuses, then I'd suggest you spend the money for the service call to get
the alarm company to do it and try and recover that money from the previous
owner after the fact. You can send the board to a number of different
companies (like http://www.tech-man.com) who will both "unlock" it and
default it back to factory settings. This means that when you re-install
it, you'll have to reprogram it to function as a local system (which means
you'll need the installer programming manual which is also available through
Jim Rojas).
It's the previous owner's responsibility to ensure that everything in the
house meets your expectations. If you expected the alarm system to be fully
functional (and in your control), then *he's* obligated to give you that.
Mark G.
just remember those words when someone puts a gun to YOUR head and demands
your money, even when they dont deserve it.
"A.J." <a...@shaw.com> wrote in message
news:kMvob.234646$pl3.106166@pd7tw3no...
Mark G.
the previous owner did not have any commitment to the monitoring company;
that was confirmed prior to purchase. and the alarm was included in the
sale (they showed me the receipts for when they paid for it originally.
there were no rental agreements etc, just the monitoring service which was
cancellable)
the last owners DID pay the company to reset everything; but the company
just reset the master code so i could change my access codes etc, anddid not
change the installer code. i didnt know this until after we moved in (i
wasnt familiar enough with this brand system to know the difference at the
time; i changed a few codes and declared victory)
and since i am not the one who contracted the alarm company, their position
is that they dont owe me anything. their only obligation is to the prior
owners, and they are long gone.
i have all the manuals (downloaded from the net - thanks), and did the
programming on my last two alarm systems on previous property so this isnt
really a mystery.
btw, im a lawyer and know my rights, but this isnt enough money to go after
anyone. in my humble opinion, however, this is extortion by the alarm
company.
i guess i will likely just go ahead and pay him, but i wont like it.
thanks for the comments.
one last question; is there any harm if i try to "guess" the installer code?
the panel doesnt lock out or anything after multiple attempts, does it?
mark
"Frank Olson" <Use-the-e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
news:ENvob.234421$6C4.109929@pd7tw1no...
Jim Rojas
Jim Rojas
(813) 886-7850
"Mark G." <ma...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:et2dnRs5bJw...@comcast.com...
fly in the ointment
> system.
> the prior monitoring company refuses to give me the installer code, and
the
> sytem is locked and cant be reset. they want to either monitor the system
> or charge me to reset the installer code so that it can be used.
>
> the alarm is owned by me, with no residual contracts in place. i guess
this
> is there way to force me to use them to monitor the system. ($27/month
paid
> quarterly in advance, with a one year contract - dont know if this is
> reasonable or not at this point).
>
> i cant use the alarm without the code.
>
> should i just pay them, or is there a way to reset this box (or crack the
> code).
to unlock it. If they won't, send them a certified letter stating that you
own the system, you don't want their service, and to please unlock the
panel. Give them 30 days, and then sue for the maximum in small claims. In
the meantime, there are people here who can unlock the board for a small
fee, or you can buy a new one for around $50.
Keep us posted.
js
fly in the ointment
This company has no right to hold him hostage.
js
fly in the ointment
Frank Olson wrote
> Did the previous owner have any commitments to the monitoirng company that
> weren't taken care of prior to the close of the sale? The fact that you
> purchased this house and now possess title to it and anything attached to
it
> tells me you have certain rights when it comes to the alarm equipment.
I'm
> assuming the alarm system was included in the sale.
>
> If that's the case, you should contact the previous owner and have *him*
> arrange to pay for the alarm company to come out and default the installer
> code. I believe you'd be perfectly within your rights to demand this. If
> he refuses, then I'd suggest you spend the money for the service call to
get
> the alarm company to do it and
ker-snip
Bad advice. This alarmco has already proven to be unscrupulous. They are
out no matter what.
js
Frank Olson
*8 and whatever combination of four digits you want to try. The panel will
continue to give you a "long beep" every time it's wrong. There's no
provision for "locking the keypad" after a certain number of attemps (on the
installer code). There is on the master code, but I'm not certain that
they've activated that feature. Once you get *into* system programming you
should be able to verify whether-or-not it's been activated.
As for the company practising "extortion"... Let me tell you what *we*
would have done in a similar circumstance. The panel's installer code would
have been defaulted to the factory one and the master code as well. That
would have cost the owner *nothing* if we were able to do it over the phone
(it's called a remote download). If the phone's had been disconnected it
would have meant an on site service call to do the same thing. It would
have cost the owner (or you) $65.00 (that's CDN $ by the way). On the
"visit" we would have made sure you understood how to operate the system,
and left you with an instruction manual and a brochure advertising our
incredible monitoring rate ($15.00 per month, or $150.00 per year). If you
had elected to go with monitoring we would have reduced the service call
amount to $45.00 and given you a credit for three months free service (when
you sign an annual contract).
For security reasons, only the original home owner could have requested the
default by downloading (after he provided his ID and password). If you had
called up after the fact, we would insist on a site visit to verify your
identity and right to access the equipment. That would still have cost you
what I've outlined above. I'm sure that as a Lawyer you can understand and
appreciate the reason for all this.
--
Frank E. Olson
Free listings for qualified industry professionals.
Alarm system information and FAQ's at
http://www.yoursecuritysource.com
Frank Olson
news:szwob.38187$Rd4.19117@fed1read07...
>
> ker-snip
>
> Bad advice. This alarmco has already proven to be unscrupulous. They are
> out no matter what.
I agree that the alarm company could have handled this better. Obviously
their "actions" in this regard would cause me to have serious doubts about
using their services in the future as well. The OP has limited options in
this particular respect and they've been outlined already. I don't know how
you've justified categorizing my advice as "bad" but IMO, the "buzzing" of a
"fly in the ointment" doesn't amount to much after you close the lid and
suffocate the sucker... :-)
Jackcsg
outright with the sale of the house. Take them to small claims court, and
sue them for the entire cost of the systems replacement, if they refuse to
reset the control to factory defaults. I have been there, done that, and
never quite made it to court. Seems they had a change in heart.
Jack
"Mark G." <ma...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:xpGdnYYe8tu...@comcast.com...
AlarmReview
>the previous owner did not have any
>commitment to the monitoring company;
>that was confirmed prior to purchase.
>and the alarm was included in the sale
>(they showed me the receipts for when
>they paid for it originally. there were no
>rental agreements
Mark, the unfortunate reality is, it's the previous owner who you legally must
go after. They sold you a home with a security system that wasn't functional.
The issues of what the previous homeowner did or didn't do with the alarmco is
immaterial. Once they included the alarm in the sale of the home AND they led
you to believe that you would have full access to the programming, they were
the one's who didn't deliver on the promises in the sale of the house.
> i didnt know this until after we moved in
>(i wasnt familiar enough with this brand
>system to know the difference at the
>time; i changed a few codes and declared
>victory)
Didn't your home inspector check or contracted to inspect the system? That
should have include the access to the system.
>and since i am not the one who
>contracted the alarm company, their
>position is that they dont owe me
>anything. their only obligation is to the
>prior owners, and they are long gone.
Yes, and No. Since they and only they know the codes, they are obligated to
provide that to you. However, they can charge you for a regular service call.
After all, you are not their client and the alarmco is not an indentured
servant to that system. Now a word of caution, since you now have alternatives
(unlocking services) to using the alarmco, you would be a bit hard pressed to
get a court to force them to provide you service.
>btw, im a lawyer and know my rights,
If you e-mail me, I would be happy to refer you to an attorney who has
successfully (currently 100%) defended alarmcos from these types of claims. It
appears to be based on the failure of the previous homeowner to turn over the
premise in the condition they promised.
>in my humble opinion, however, this is
>extortion by the alarm company.
If you purchased a home and the garage door had a security code to change
transmitters, but that code wasn't provided to you by the home owners, are you
saying that if the company that installed it wanted to charge you a fee to come
out and reset the code, that it's extortion?
If you purchased a used car and the seller didn't provide you with the key to
the glove box and the dealer wanted to charge you $75 to unlock the glove box,
that it's extortion?
If you purchased a used TV and the previous owner didn't provide you the code
for the V-Chip access and the selling company wanted to charge you to come out
and reset the V-chip that it's extortion?
If you bought a business and the previous owner's attorney want's to charge you
a fee for copies of an old contract between the the previous owner and a
customer, that's considered extortion?
Please.....
Rob-
Security Review Group
The Security Review Group provides private independent security consulting and
is not affiliated with any selling, installing, servicing, or monitoring
company.
AlarmReview
>If you own the system, they need
>to unlock it.
I own my car, does that mean the auto dealer is obligated to unlock the car for
free if I don't have the keys? Remember, the alarmco never said they won't do
it, they said they will need to charge a service call fee. Unless the new owner
can prove that the seller paid to have the system fully unlocked and with full
access, they really have nothing against the alarmco, only the seller.
Frank and I have exchanged thoughts on how consumers can ask for the wrong
thing by using the wrong terminology. What if the seller asked the alarmco to
"Provide the master code so the new owner can enter their own codes" (That's a
far cry from asking for the full programming codes,) and if the alarmco did
that, they did what they were asked and paid to do!
>In the meantime, there are people here
>who can unlock the board for a small fee,
>or you can buy a new one for around $50.
So you pay to have the board unlocked, or you pay to have a new board
installed, or you pay the original alarmco to do it.
AlarmReview
>From: "Mark G."
>or charge me to reset the installer code
>so that it can be used.
The alarmco never refused the service, they simply are charging a service call
fee for the service.
Rob-
thesatguy
"Mark G." <ma...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:et2dnRs5bJw...@comcast.com...
fly in the ointment
Frank Olson wrote
> I agree that the alarm company could have handled this better. Obviously
> their "actions" in this regard would cause me to have serious doubts about
> using their services in the future as well. The OP has limited options in
> this particular respect and they've been outlined already.
Limited options? Not unless the subject alarm company is the only one in
town.
> I don't know how
> you've justified categorizing my advice as "bad" but
snip
Easy. You said in part:
" I'd suggest you spend the money for the service call to get
the alarm company to do it and try and recover that money from the previous
owner after the fact."
What the alarm company in this case did is unethical. Advising the OP to
pay them anything is, IMO, bad advice.
> the "buzzing" of a
> "fly in the ointment" doesn't amount to much after you close the lid and
> suffocate the sucker... :-)
Cute, but you ain't closing no lid.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
js
>
>
fly in the ointment
AlarmReview wrote
> >From: "fly in the ointment"
>
> >If you own the system, they need
> >to unlock it.
>
> I own my car, does that mean the auto dealer is obligated to unlock the
car for
> free if I don't have the keys?
Would you buy a locked car without keys? If your analogy was correct with
respect to the OP's dilemma, you'd have purchased a car with a lock on the
hood.
>Remember, the alarmco never said they won't do
> it, they said they will need to charge a service call fee.
Yes, however the panel could be downloaded.
>Unless the new owner
> can prove that the seller paid to have the system fully unlocked and with
full
> access, they really have nothing against the alarmco, only the seller.
Perhaps. But according to the OP, "the last owners DID pay the company to
reset everything"
IIRC, the OP stated that the alarm system was unencumbered. Why was it
locked if the customer owned it? Since this is unethical, the alarmco needs
to remove the lock.
> Frank and I have exchanged thoughts on how consumers can ask for the wrong
> thing by using the wrong terminology. What if the seller asked the
alarmco to
> "Provide the master code so the new owner can enter their own codes"
(That's a
> far cry from asking for the full programming codes,) and if the alarmco
did
> that, they did what they were asked and paid to do!
True. The fact still remains that the alarmco has no business locking the
unencumbered panel. If they did it to forestall a takeover until they
could make their own offer, OK. But in this case, the alarmco is behaving
unethically. As always, just my opinion.
> >In the meantime, there are people here
> >who can unlock the board for a small fee,
> >or you can buy a new one for around $50.
>
> So you pay to have the board unlocked, or you pay to have a new board
> installed, or you pay the original alarmco to do it.
And get the alarmco to pay for it. One way or another.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
js
Robert L. Bass
> company is the only one in town.
Correct. The OP can and should go elsewhere.
>> I don't know how
>> you've justified categorizing my advice as "bad" but
>
> Easy. You said in part:
>
> " I'd suggest you spend the money for the service call to get
> the alarm company to do it and try and recover that money from the
previous
> owner after the fact."
>
> What the alarm company in this case did is unethical. Advising the OP to
> pay them anything is, IMO, bad advice.
Correct. They have no right to keep the panel locked since it has been
documented that the seller owned it. Demanding payment to unlock it is
unethical and IMO borders on being criminal.
It was indeed bad advice to suggest paying them anything.
>> the "buzzing" of a "fly in the ointment" doesn't
>> amount to much after you close the lid and
> > suffocate the sucker... :-)
>
> Cute, but you ain't closing no lid.
>
> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Heh, heh, heh. :^)
Regards,
Robert
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
941-232-0791 Wireless
Nextel Private ID - 161*21755*1
http://www.bass-home.com
=============================>
petem
Nobody said that the locking of a panel is like owno=ing a part of the
panel...
this option is provided for company that RENT of GIVE (i know it all depends
of the the laws in your state about the nofee thing..bla bla bla) if you
sign for a 5 year contact.....
now the company have a right to lock the board and tell the customer that it
will not unlock it till the full contract is done...
here there is no contract and the company have sold the panel,and they have
no right to it...they do have the rights to make sure no one program the
system in a bad fashion if they are reliable for the moniting of the
system...
and thats done by putting an installer code...NOT by locking the board....
by doing so they keep a "hand" over the system even if they have no reason
for it...
its like if a car dealer would keep a spare key that prevent you to open the
hood of your car to another garage after you bought it in full and the
warranty is finish on it...
or if a computer store would put a password to your bios and wont remove it
after the warranty is done...
and there would be no way to reset the bios to factory default
they have put the lock on the panel and they had no rights to do
so..period...
"Mark G." <ma...@nospam.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:xpGdnYYe8tu...@comcast.com...
petem
"AlarmReview" <alarm...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:20031031150148...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >From: "fly in the ointment"
>
> >If you own the system, they need
> >to unlock it.
>
> I own my car, does that mean the auto dealer is obligated to unlock the
car for
> free if I don't have the keys? Remember, the alarmco never said they
won't do
> it, they said they will need to charge a service call fee. Unless the new
owner
> can prove that the seller paid to have the system fully unlocked and with
full
> access, they really have nothing against the alarmco, only the seller.
no but if the dealer putted a lock bolt on you tire to prevent you from
changing your tire where ever you like because of a contract or a
warranty,and the warranty/contract is finish its there responsability to
remove the lock bolt or to give you the special key to remove it....
petem
with out reason....
the lock on the panel is there for one reason prevent the owner to act as
they want with the board...
what other reason do you see?
the board have allready been defaulted by the owner but the lock prevent him
to do as he please with his alarm system
"AlarmReview" <alarm...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:20031031150858...@mb-m24.aol.com...
Robert L. Bass
> changing your tire where ever you like because of a contract or a
> warranty,and the warranty/contract is finish its there responsability to
> remove the lock bolt or to give you the special key to remove it....
Precisely!
AlarmReview
>no but if the dealer putted a lock bolt on
>you tire to prevent you from changing your
>tire where ever you like because of a
>contract or a warranty,and the
>warranty/contract is finish its there
>responsability to remove the lock bolt or
>to give you the special key to remove it....
No, the person to whom has a responsibility to provide this at no charge is the
seller of the car, not the car dealer. The dealer has every right to be paid
for services rendered. The issue as to if the previous owner paid for this has
nothing to do with the new owner, Any disagreement over what was and was not
provided is between the seller and the dealer, not the new owner and the
dealer. The new owner's claim is against the seller.
If you believe that the alarm dealer has a mandated duty to unlock the panel
for free, you had better provide free inspections of every alarm system you've
every installed, even if they are no longer your customer or even if they are
the tenth owner of that property. Because under your analogy, you are
indentured to them forever. It wouldn't matter that the previous owners
screwed the system up or removed protective devices, it's not their fault, it's
yours. You installed it and by god you better make sure that it's always
functional.
Rob-
AlarmReview
>Would you buy a locked car without
>keys?
Would you buy a car without checking to make sure the keys you were given
unlocks the car?
>If your analogy was correct with respect to
>the OP's dilemma, you'd have purchased
>a car with a lock on the hood.
So the hood is locked. I would ask the seller for the key. If he doesn't have
it I won't buy the car, or I'd find out how much it would cost the dealer to
provide the key and subtract it from the sale price. If the seller gave me a
key and it doesn't work, I can't go to the dealer and ask for a free key
because the seller doesn't have it, I go back to the seller and ask for a free
key that works.
>Yes, however the panel could be
> downloaded.
And the dealer can charge a fee for doing that if they want. Nothing says they
HAVE to do it for free because they have the capabilities of providing that
service. If that's the case, monitoring should be free because you CAN provide
that service.
>Perhaps. But according to the OP, "the
>last owners DID pay the company to
>reset everything"
So what? The new owner didn't pay for that service, it was the previous owner.
>IIRC, the OP stated that the alarm system
>was unencumbered. Why was it locked if
>the customer owned it?
Why did the new owner accept a locked system? Why didn't he demand the house
and it's fixtures be delivered as agreed upon in the sale?
>The fact still remains that the alarmco has
>no business locking the unencumbered
>panel.
That's between the old owner and the alarmco. The new owner purchased the
alarm from the previous owner, not the alarmco. It's the seller who must
deliver.
>And get the alarmco to pay for it.
Get the seller to pay for it.
Rob-
Frank Olson
>
> Frank Olson wrote
> > I agree that the alarm company could have handled this better.
Obviously
> > their "actions" in this regard would cause me to have serious doubts
about
> > using their services in the future as well. The OP has limited options
in
> > this particular respect and they've been outlined already.
>
> Limited options? Not unless the subject alarm company is the only one in
> town.
The panel is locked. His "options" *are* limited. They include:
1. Hiring the original company to come out and default the installer code;
2. Removing the main system board and sending it to Jim Rojas at
http://www.tech-man.com to unlock after which the OP would have to reprogram
the system to function the way he wants;
3. Replace the main system board and program it to function the way he
wants.
Cost for #1: $65.00 CDN is pretty "average" for around Vancouver. Service
rates vary quite a bit in the US, but you're probably looking at $45.00
minimum...
Cost for #2: What does Jim charge to unlock a 5010?? $25.00, $30.00??
Then the cost of the shipping and insurance *both ways*... Let's say...
$40.00 total expenditure...
Cost for #3: Don't know what retail is on a 5010 board... $80.00??
$100.00??
The OP is stuck between a rock and several pebbles... Since we don't
really *know* what actually transpired between the original owner, the OP,
and the alarm company I wouldn't go off and start *condemning* the Dealer
"out of hand"... It does *look* like he's being taken advantage of, but
there's always "two sides to every story"...
And I stand behind what I've said previously, Mr. Fly...
Frank Olson
*in the US*...
--
Frank E. Olson
Free listings for qualified industry professionals.
Alarm system information and FAQ's at
http://www.yoursecuritysource.com
"Frank Olson" <Use-the-e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
news:a_Hob.241209$9l5.13793@pd7tw2no...
fly in the ointment
AlarmReview wrote
> >From: "fly in the ointment"
>
> >Would you buy a locked car without
> >keys?
>
> Would you buy a car without checking to make sure the keys you were given
> unlocks the car?
Sure. I just did, as a matter of fact. I signed the papers, and the dealer
gave me the keys. That they would fit the truck I just bought, I took on
faith.
> >If your analogy was correct with respect to
> >the OP's dilemma, you'd have purchased
> >a car with a lock on the hood.
>
> So the hood is locked. I would ask the seller for the key. If he doesn't
have
> it I won't buy the car, or I'd find out how much it would cost the dealer
to
> provide the key and subtract it from the sale price. If the seller gave
me a
> key and it doesn't work, I can't go to the dealer and ask for a free key
> because the seller doesn't have it, I go back to the seller and ask for a
free
> key that works.
The dealer locked the hood when the previous owner had the car. Before the
sale to the new owner, the previous owner supposedly paid the dealer to
unlock the hood, yet the dealer has not performed. I do see your point,
however. What rubs me is that the hood should not have been locked in the
first place. That was unethical, and the dealer should eat the cost, if any,
of unlocking the panel.
>
> >Yes, however the panel could be
> > downloaded.
>
> And the dealer can charge a fee for doing that if they want.
Sure they can. And I could break a storefront window at midnight, then go
sell the store owner an alarm the next morning.
Nothing says they
> HAVE to do it for free because they have the capabilities of providing
that
> service.
IMO, they are bound ethically to unlock the panel for free.
> If that's the case, monitoring should be free because you CAN provide
> that service.
And alarmcos can lock customer owned panels at will because they can.
> >Perhaps. But according to the OP, "the
> >last owners DID pay the company to
> >reset everything"
>
> So what? The new owner didn't pay for that service, it was the previous
owner.
And the alarmco didn't perform. They need to follow through. I understand
that you think the new owner should hold the old owner responsible. I think
the alarm company needs to do what's right.
>
>
> >IIRC, the OP stated that the alarm system
> >was unencumbered. Why was it locked if
> >the customer owned it?
>
> Why did the new owner accept a locked system? Why didn't he demand the
house
> and it's fixtures be delivered as agreed upon in the sale?
He probably din't know about the locked system till after the sale. This is
not unusual, most home inspection companies do not include the alarm unless
specifically asked, and that is rare.
>
> >The fact still remains that the alarmco has
> >no business locking the unencumbered
> >panel.
>
> That's between the old owner and the alarmco. The new owner purchased the
> alarm from the previous owner, not the alarmco. It's the seller who must
> deliver.
Maybe, but the alam company in this case is making a mistake. They
shouldn't have locked the panel in the first place, and are responsible to
make that right.
> >And get the alarmco to pay for it.
>
> Get the seller to pay for it.
Whatever.
js
fly in the ointment
Frank Olson <Use-the-e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
news:a_Hob.241209$9l5.13793@pd7tw2no...
> news:a8Cob.38206$Rd4.36541@fed1read07...
> >
> > Frank Olson wrote
> > > I agree that the alarm company could have handled this better.
> Obviously
> > > their "actions" in this regard would cause me to have serious doubts
> about
> > > using their services in the future as well. The OP has limited
options
> in
> > > this particular respect and they've been outlined already.
> >
> > Limited options? Not unless the subject alarm company is the only one in
> > town.
>
> The panel is locked. His "options" *are* limited. They include:
snip the obvious
I meant that many other alarmcos might be available to him. He is not
limited to the unethical one.
> 1. Hiring the original company to come out and default the installer
code;
Not an option. The company is unethical, and he should reject that option .
> The OP is stuck between a rock and several pebbles... Since we don't
> really *know* what actually transpired between the original owner, the OP,
> and the alarm company I wouldn't go off and start *condemning* the Dealer
> "out of hand"... It does *look* like he's being taken advantage of, but
> there's always "two sides to every story"...
Yeah, no kidding. This discussion is based on the info. we have from the
OP, whether it is inaccurate or incomplete. What else is new?
> And I stand behind what I've said previously, Mr. Fly...
Buzz off, then.
js
Auditor
"AlarmReview" <alarm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031101002654...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Excellent analogy, nice job!
Robert
Frank Olson
> I meant that many other alarmcos might be available to him. He is not
> limited to the unethical one.
>
> > 1. Hiring the original company to come out and default the installer
> code;
>
> Not an option. The company is unethical, and he should reject that option
.
The panel is *locked*. What's another company going to do?? Buzz around
for a few minutes and then???
> > And I stand behind what I've said previously, Mr. Fly...
>
> Buzz off, then.
Bzzzzz! :-)
fly in the ointment
Frank Olson
> The panel is *locked*. What's another company going to do?? Buzz around
> for a few minutes and then???
Frank, are you really that thick? My point is that he should not do
business with THAT company, no matter what. If he needs to buy another
board, or have it unlocked by someone, at least he will not be supporting
the unethical alarm company as you and some others have suggested he do.
js
petem
they had the right to put there installer code to prevent tempering with the
programing ...
but LOCKING the board was there decision and they had no reason for
that..\the previous owner didnt had a renting agreement on it and no "free
if sign for 5 year" contract cause they paid in full for it at
installation...
thats like if the a cable company would sell tvs to its costumer at full
price and put a lock on the antenna input to prevent them to go to
satelite....
"AlarmReview" <alarm...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:20031101002654...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Marc Mazzarese
>The alarmco never refused the service, they simply are charging a service
>call
>fee for the service.
correct, the company has no legal obligation to unlock the panel or to do a
site visit for free. If they are able to default the panel by remote, then they
should at least offer to do that at no charge. But if they have to do a site
visit, then I have no problem with them charging. The old owners should have
had the company come out and unlock the panel before transfer of the residence.
Marc Mazzarese
ABC Alarm Holdings
Aquisitions
Marc Mazzarese
>they have put the lock on the panel and they had no rights to do
>so..period...
Oh but they might Peter. We are not privy to any contracts that the company
might have had with the old owner. Even if they sold the system outright, most
well written sales contracts state that the company still retains ownership of
any propietary information that may be stored in memory or in a dialer if the
company was the monitoring provider. So in effect the company may still owns
the information in programming. The gentlemans options are basically limited to
paying the old company to come out and default the panel or go with another
company and replace the panel.
Marc Mazzarese
>no but if the dealer putted a lock bolt on you tire to prevent you from
>changing your tire where ever you like because of a contract or a
>warranty,and the warranty/contract is finish its there responsability to
>remove the lock bolt or to give you the special key to remove it....
but if you sell the car to someone else with the lock still on it, the dealer
has the right to charge them to remove it. Because it was your responsibility
to make sure it was removed before you transfered ownership.
Frank Olson
Some may see it that way. This guy's a lawyer, and if he's anticipating
launching any legal action, he has to "mitigate" his loss as much as
possible. That usually means going with the "cheapest" solution (not always
the "best"). Having another company come in and replace the board is going
to be a lot more expensive. I agree with you that *on principle*, I
wouldn't employ the old company either. I was simply pointing out options.
The choice is the OP's.
Jackcsg
liability issues as a reason for locking users, and potentially other
dealers, from getting into programmable features that effect the manner in
which the system operates, other's choose to run that risk. First off, if
your a dealer and don't think that the variables in that program can put
your company at risk, your a fool. This doesn't relate much to DIY's, but it
can affect the CS that monitors it, especially if ANY life safety devices
are used. Also, if you stop and think for a moment, there is a reason why
Manufacturers separate the user from the installer in programming. As a
dealer, I point out the significance of the separation in my contracts. If a
customer of mine was paid up in full for my services, and wished to change
companies for what ever reasons, my contract states I will gladly reset the
panel to "Factory Defaults" for a fee, but I usually do it for free. Now
here's the flip side; not often is a customer paid up, it's usually the
reason for them wanting to leave. (Someone else offered it to them cheaper)
yeah sometimes there's other issues (Frank) but from what I have experienced
in this industry, price is a factor as well. On the other hand, there are
some dealers who love to play the devil's advocate and use this access to
programming as a hostage, and from that, it's no wonder a customer wants
out. I've seen dealers, who don't get their money when THEY want it, access
programming to further irritate the situation, and possibly, in one case
that I knew, end all functions of their company from being sued. Things like
removing codes, so the user can't disarm the system; or making all zones 24
hour sirens, etc.. That's nuts. Turn the communicator off, but before you do
that, take the legal steps before you just get mad about it. Especially if
your monitoring "Life Safety". In most states, regardless of monies owed or
due, tampering with, disabling, or disconnecting a "Life Safety", mostly
FIRE, is a FELONY! Alarm Dealer, or not. I have a story behind that
statement as well, for further discussion.
Jack
"petem" <pe...@nospamatall.com> wrote in message
news:07Sob.22500$RG1.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
Robert L. Bass
>> keys?
>
> Would you buy a car without checking to make sure the keys you were given
> unlocks the car?
In this case the analogy fails beacuse car keys are not entirely like alarm
lock codes. In almost every situation the home buyer does not get the code
or even know that there is one until after the purchase. In most cases even
the seller is unaware that the system has been illegally locked by the alarm
company to prevent anyone from making changes without their consent and
without paying them. Since this system was customer owned the alarm company
had no right to encumber it with a lockout before the home as sold. They
have the code and they should give it to the buyer without requiring
payment.
It is entirely diingenuous to make any claim that the alarm company which
locked out a customer-owned system is entitled to anything other than a
license action by their state's attorney general for doing so. They're not
protecting the public, avoiding liability or any of the other standard
nonsense excuses. They are extorting money from someone who owes them
nothing and they should be horse whipped for it. Come to think of it, isn't
horse-whipping SOP in Texas?
>>Yes, however the panel could be
>> downloaded.
>
> And the dealer can charge a fee for doing that if they want.
Absolutely not!!! They locked out a customer-owned panel. They are
responsible for unlocking it. The whole procedure will take all of five
minutes. Demanding money is just a rip-off.
> Nothing says they HAVE to do it for free because they have
> the capabilities of providing that service....
Yes, there is something which cries otu for them to do it at no charge.
It's called ethics -- something which is becoming more and more foriegn to
our industry. Sad. That panel didn't lock itself out. Its prigramming
access code didn't suddenly decide to change itself to something the
property owner can't get. The alarm company changed it in order to force
whoever comes along to deal with them. This is one of the lowest dirty
tricks in this industry and unfortunately it's also one of the most common
ones.
> If that's the case, monitoring should be free because you
> CAN provide that service.
Bob, Bob, Bob. Surely you know better than that. There's no comparison
between requiring payment for ongoing services and forcing someone to pay
you to unlock *his property* when you locked it and he owns it. If I buy a
pizza I expect to pay for the pie and to tip the delivery man. I don't
expect to find a locked box inside the outer carton which requires further
payment before I can enjoy the anchovies.
>> Perhaps. But according to the OP, "the
>> last owners DID pay the company to
>> reset everything"
>
> So what? The new owner didn't pay for that service, it was the previous
owner.
This sounds as though the alarm company was paid in full but decided to keep
it locked any way just to try to extort money from the next owner. This
happens often enough that it should come as no surprise to anyone who has
been in the trade more than a week or two. [That leaves only Olson out]
>> IIRC, the OP stated that the alarm system
>> was unencumbered. Why was it locked if
>> the customer owned it?
>
> Why did the new owner accept a locked system?
How would he know it was illegally locked before he moved in? How many
inspectors have you known who would even know that you *should* check, let
alone know how to do so? Try zero.
> Why didn't he demand the house
> and it's fixtures be delivered as agreed upon in the sale?
Have you ever tried to enforce against a seller over something that costs
less than 1% of the price of the home? Even small claims courts (which
generally refuse to handle real estate matters) would cost more than he can
expect to recover. The problem here is the doing of the alarm company. The
previous homeowner almost certainly didn't lock it out. Why should he? For
that matter more than 90% of homeowners wouldn't even know how. No, it was
the alarm company and they are dead wrong to do this.
>> The fact still remains that the alarmco has
>> no business locking the unencumbered
>> panel.
>
> That's between the old owner and the alarmco.
Perhaps the letter of law agrees with you. But honesty, fair play and
common sense dictate that this rotten alarm company at least divulge the
code and hand over the manuals to this gentleman. Better yet, they ought to
have defaulted the code for him for free and then *offered* to visit and
explain the system to him. They'd probably have stood a decent chance of
winning a customer that way. Instead, they now have one more enemy in the
community. Companies like that tend to fail after a while. I hope this one
does soon.
> The new owner purchased the alarm from the previous owner,
> not the alarmco. It's the seller who must deliver.
But the alarm company misled the previous owner into believing his alarm was
not locked. They are still reprehensible.
>> And get the alarmco to pay for it.
>
> Get the seller to pay for it.
No one should pay for it. The alarm company that locked a customer owned
system should unlock it and charge nothing. It will take all of five or ten
minutes to do so.
Robert L. Bass
Yes, he really is.
AlarmReview
>In this case the analogy fails beacuse car
>keys are not entirely like alarm lock
>codes.
It doesn't matter if it's locks, keys, gas cap, bolts that hold the engine
together, muffler or anything else. The fact is the seller did not deliver the
alarm system to the buyer in the condition that the buyer was told it would be
delivered by the seller. What if the buyer purchased the house with an
automatic sprinkler system and the code for accessing the programing wasn't
correct? Does the buyer demand that the installing irrigation company default
the system for free or do they go after the seller? The issue of should the
system been locked out or not is between the original purchaser of the system
and the alarmco, the new owner needs to go after the person who sold him the
locked system!
>In almost every situation the home buyer
>does not get the code or even know that
>there is one until after the purchase.
So it's the installing alarmco's fault that the new owner never checked the
system? If the alarm was such an important part of the home purchase, they
should have demanded an inspection as part of their home inspection. Because
consumers are too lazy or ignorant to know about alarms is no excuse for
accepting the purchaser's word. I bet they had every faucet checked to make
sure it works, bet they made sure all the windows opened and closed, bet they
made sure the water heater heated up, bet they made sure the air conditioner
wasn't on a locked out timer, bet they made sure the electrical panel wasn't
locked, SO, why didn't they exercise the same care in the alarm?
>Since this system was customer owned
>the alarm company had no right to
>encumber it with a lockout before the
>home as sold.
And that's an issue between the person who originally purchased the alarm
system and the alarmco, not the new owner!
>They are extorting money from someone
>who owes them nothing and they should
>be horse whipped for it.
I agree, the seller of the home should be sued and forced to pay for any
service required to unlock that system since they are the ones who lied to the
buyer that the system was unlocked! How dare they lie to the purchaser that
they paid to have the system unlocked when it wasn't unlocked! BUT, maybe
we're not looking at this correctly, Don't sue the seller. Don't even sue the
alarmco, SUE the manufacture for incorporating that illegal lock-out feature in
the panel! Force the manufacture to provide a new panel at NO CHARGE and pay
for it's reinstallation!! Oh My God, what am I saying, It's not the
manufacture's fault for incorporating lockout codes in their systems, it's the
computer programmers fault for writing the code! Yes, sue those computer
geeks! Give me a break.
>Absolutely not!!! They locked out a
>customer-owned panel. They are
>responsible for unlocking it. The whole
>procedure will take all of five minutes.
>Demanding money is just a rip-off.
Handling an alarm signal takes less than five minutes, why not make monitoring
free? Are you advocating that unless a tangible product changes hands that
everything else should be provided for FREE? Even to every person who ask even
if they are not your client?
>Yes, there is something which cries otu
>for them to do it at no charge.
>It's called ethics -- something which is
>becoming more and more foriegn to
>our industry.
No, it's not something that's foreign, it's something we conveniently bring up
when we want to say that someone else's actions are wrong because the accuser
doesn't do that, yet those who cry ethics are the first to say it's "Business"
when their actions are called into question.
>This is one of the lowest dirty tricks in this
>industry and unfortunately it's also one of
>the most common ones.
No, the lowest dirtiest trick in this industry is to use legal or regulatory
issues to stifle legitimate competition.
>There's no comparison between requiring
>payment for ongoing services and forcing
>someone to pay you to unlock *his
>property* when you locked it and he owns
>it.
The original purchaser should demand that the system be unlocked at no charge
if it was locked-out against his wishes and for no legitimate reason. The
original purchaser should complain about not getting the service they claimed
they paid for. The original purchaser should make all sorts of stink because
of this. HOWEVER, the new owner of the house should do likewise, but against
the previous home owner, not the alrmco. They have absolutely no standing to
demand free services of the alarmco since they never paid or asked the alarmco
for any services prior to purchasing the home. The issue of and transactions
regarding the unlocking of the panel is between the parties that have direct
seller buyer relationship. In this case, the relationships are: Alarmco and
original purchaser, and Originals purchaser and the new buyer.
>If I buy a pizza I expect to pay for the pie
>and to tip the delivery man. I don't expect
>to find a locked box inside the outer
>carton which requires further payment
>before I can enjoy the anchovies.
Close but let's put this in perspective. Tony opened a pizza shop. He sells
his pizza's to Gino. Gino sells you the pizza and the outer box is locked. Do
you go Tony and demand that he unlock the box? Or, do you go to Gino, who sold
you the pizza, and demand he unlocks the box?
>How would he know it was illegally locked
>before he moved in?
He checks!!! Just like he probably checked to make sure all the doors were
unlocked. Just like he checked to make sure all the windows were unlocked.
Just like he checked to make sure their wasn't locks on the kitchen cabinets,
water heater, furnace, thermostat!!! If the alarm was such a big deal, Why
Didn't He Have It Inspected!
>How many inspectors have you known
>who would even know that you *should*
>check, let alone know how to do so? Try
>zero.
I know 9 home inspectors, in the metro Phoenix area, who will have the alarm
inspected by contracting for a full alarm system inspection report. Yes, they
cost more, but never have they ever had any problems after the fact about the
alarm system. I wonder if the OP even asked the home inspector about the
alarm, or did he just TAKE the seller's word for it?
>No, it was the alarm company and they
>are dead wrong to do this.
The alarmco never sold, serviced, or received any payment for anything from the
buyer. The FRAUD was COMMITTED by the SELLER for saying the alarm was being
delivered in a condition that it was not!
>But honesty, fair play and common sense
>dictate that this rotten alarm company at
>least divulge the code and hand over the
>manuals to this gentleman.
The alarmco has agreed to unlock the panel, they are just asking that this
non-clinet pay for their services.
>But the alarm company misled the
>previous owner into believing his alarm
>was not locked.
Even the NEW owner admitted accepting the programming as it was since he was
able to change the user code. It wasn't till later that he discovered that he
didn't have the installer's code. Why didn't he check from the get-go? So if
ten years went by, the alarmco is still responsible?
Rob-
RH.Campbell
homeowners would even know about the presence of a lockout feature on an
alarm panel. And if they did, how would they be able to even tell if their
board is locked. Some panels like DSC will "click" when powered up, but I
doubt most others do. And at the time of sale of a home, the alarm system is
probably just about the last thing on their mind...
I understand all the legal and ethical issues associated with this business
of locking boards, but I have to ask why it really exists at all. My
understanding is that it was initially driven by large alarmcos who wished
some way to further protect their property against theft when marketing in
the "low end" zero down market. But if companies insist on using this
feature, can it not be argued they too have some responsibility to see that
it is removed once the equipment is fully paid for, and not just when some
new homeowner gets inadvertently caught through their lack of diligence.
All around, it seems a lousy deal for end user alarm buying customers caught
through no fault of their own, regardless of who is technically responsible
for removing it.
IMO, it's just one more thing that casts this industry in a bad light !!
RHC
petem
installer code to protect it is more then enough..
no one can read it,and if defaulted the info is gone...and i am pretty sure
that no one could be asking to retive there propietary information back from
a panel?its not something you can recover and bring back with you
physicaly..no?
Locking the panel is more like taking control of the whole hardwire not just
data..
"Marc Mazzarese" <marc...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:20031101131730...@mb-m10.aol.com...
petem
allways going to the same dealer?
how could someone that have no clue at all about locking of installer code
in alarm system can ask to have it removed?
why would they ask for a lock remove if there is no reason for it to be
there?
the previous customer did show that he owned the equipment..he had no clue
that the alarm company was keeping there hands thights on the system
board...
thats total Bull Shit..
if anyone would even try that with me....wow,it would cost that company a
few more $ then just the time of a technician or even a sales rep to go to
my place to remove the lock...
bad publicity is worst then loosing 15 minute...
and a few well placed nails in the company parking lot would make the thing
more even in my mind...
"Marc Mazzarese" <marc...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:20031101132231...@mb-m10.aol.com...
none
>
> *8 and whatever combination of four digits you want to try. The panel will
> continue to give you a "long beep" every time it's wrong. There's no
> provision for "locking the keypad" after a certain number of attemps (on the
> installer code).
Not true. I've come across DSC 832 panels where the system is locked (long
beep from touchpad) for a minute or two after entering several wrong
installer code.
Frank Olson
news:1ff1v7px6i00f.1...@40tude.net...
Hmmm... You must have missed pressing *8 then... (or pressed the # sign
somewhere in the sequence). There is no provision for locking the keypad
for incorrect installer codes. Check out section 5.22 (page 36) of the
installation manual. "Access code entries" refers to arm/disarm codes,
*not* the installer code...
Arthur VanZant
> >How many inspectors have you known
> >who would even know that you *should*
> >check, let alone know how to do so? Try
> >zero.
>
> I know 9 home inspectors, in the metro Phoenix area, who will have the
alarm
> inspected by contracting for a full alarm system inspection report. Yes,
they
> cost more, but never have they ever had any problems after the fact about
the
> alarm system. I wonder if the OP even asked the home inspector about the
> alarm, or did he just TAKE the seller's word for it?
A number of home inspectors in this area call us to check the alarm if they
are inspecting a house with an alarm.
Auditor
"RH.Campbell" <rhcam...@homemetal.com> wrote in message
news:HK0pb.95283$7B1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
I have been having a dispute with one of my clients. He asked me to monitor
his alarm trailer for $20.00 per month tax in. I agreed, he gave me post
dated cheques for the first year. I provided the equipment at no cost to
him. I sent the invoice for the second year and was told that the guy I was
dealing with is no longer there. This has been going on for twelve months.
I told them that I would be removing the equipment and cancelling the
services that I provide. I just drove by the area today. The trailer has
been dismantled as in the process of being set up for transport.
Had I not driven by today, I would not know to rush down there first thing
in the morning to reclaim my equipment. (If they let me). I did lock the
panel on this job. If I lose the equipment for which I was never paid, I
truly hope that Jim Rojas will not unlock it for the next lucky guy who
finds a fully functional current model alarm system in his rented real
estate trailer. I hope that the panel will be scrapped and never used
again.
Had they purchased the equipment from me, paid me the monies due, I would
have been happy to complete a full default at no charge when they moved the
trailer.
The lock out is necessary, unlocking skills are not. My property will be
stolen from me should I not be able to remove it. Calling the cops will be
of no avail, suing them costs too much money. I lose all around.
Robert
>
>
>
Robert L. Bass
>> keys are not entirely like alarm lock
>> codes.
>
> system to the buyer in the condition that the
Knoiwing the way many alarm companies operate it is highly unlikely that the
seller even knew they had locked it. The only information we have at this
point is that the seller told the buyer that the alarm was free and clear.
You and I also know that many (probably most) alarm companies change the
default code to keep anyone *they* don't authorize, including the buyer,
from accessing programming. Given that situation and the information we
have so far it is very likely that this alarm company did lock the customer
out.
But all of that isn't really the key isue here. If I find your wallet on
the ground and pick it up, it is your fault for losin it. But it is still
both my legal and ethical responsibility to return it to you. I have no
right to demand payment for "services rendered" in returning your property.
In this case the alarm company is in possession of the buyer's intangible
property -- the code which is necessary for him to make use of that which he
owns. They have zero property rights to the alarm system and to the code
which they have placed in it. It is his and they need to return it.
This can not be any more plain and simple. The alarm company is wrong to
demand payment. There is no excuse whatsoever for what they are doing. If
they claim there is other information in the panel such as their receiver
phone number and account number which could be used to their harm, they must
bear the expense (a few minutes' effort) of deleting that information. The
homeowner did not put that information there and if they want it removed
that is their problem.
> What if the buyer purchased the house with an
> automatic sprinkler system and the code for accessing the programing
wasn't
> correct?
The code is not "incprrect" in this case. It is in the possession of the
alarm company but it is his intangible property -- not theirs. I hope he
takes these people to court. They deserve it.
> Does the buyer demand that the installing irrigation...
That is not analogous to the current situation. This is a lock-out code
which the alarm company put there for thir own financial advantage. You
know and so do I. Now the homeowner knows it, too -- assuming he's still
following this thread.
>> In almost every situation the home buyer
>> does not get the code or even know that
>> there is one until after the purchase.
>
> So it's the installing alarmco's fault that the new owner
> never checked the system?
No, it's their fault that they are in possession of his property aqnd it's
their shame that they are willing to keep it to extort money from him. They
have no right to refuse to give him that code.
> If the alarm was such an important part of the home
> purchase...
Come off it! You can't exonerate a thief by saying that what he stole was
of little value to the victim. You know full well that most home buyers
haven't any idea about this dirty, little alarm company trick of locking
panels.
> --- snip attack on victim ---
>
>> Since this system was customer owned
>> the alarm company had no right to
>> encumber it with a lockout before the
>> home as sold.
>
> And that's an issue between the person who originally purchased
> the alarm system and the alarmco, not the new owner!
The issue is one of property rights. He owns the system free and clear.
That includes any codes necessary to access any part of the system. They
have the code and refuse to give it up without a ransom payment. That makes
them a pack of thieves -- not a company protecting the property of their
clients but *precisely* the kind of people against whom he needs protection.
>> They are extorting money from someone
>> who owes them nothing and they should
>> be horse whipped for it.
>
> I agree, the seller of the home should be sued and forced to pay for any
> service required to unlock that system since they are the ones who lied to
the
> buyer that the system was unlocked!
At the present time the seller is gone but the alarm company still has the
buyer's intangible goods in their possession. They need to relinquish that
code to him. I don't give a rat's bum about any accusations against the
long-gone home seller who more than likely never knew that the alarm company
was going to pull this scam.
> How dare they lie to the purchaser that they paid
> to have the system unlocked when it wasn't unlocked!
The history of the indusrtry is that more often than not it is the alarm
company that lies about lock codes by failing to inform the buyer that they
intend to lock him out of the system which he thinks he's buying outright.
The willingness of this company to continue running the scam against the
buyer is indicative of an unethical business model. OTOH, we have no
evidence at all that the home seller lied -- only that the alarm company
refuses to relinquish something that does not belong to them.
> BUT, maybe we're not looking at this correctly...
I'm sure you're not.
> --- snip silly rant ---
> ... Give me a break.
Where? :^)
>> Absolutely not!!! They locked out a
>> customer-owned panel. They are
>> responsible for unlocking it. The whole
>> procedure will take all of five minutes.
>> Demanding money is just a rip-off.
>
> Handling an alarm signal takes less than five minutes, why not
> make monitoring free?
That's not the point and you know it. We monitor because the customer
*asks* us to do so and enters into a contract with us to perform the
service. In this case the alarm company is simply trying to extort money
for something which they have no right to keep -- the code to this
gentleman's panel.
> Are you advocating that unless a tangible product
> changes hands that everything else should be provided
> for FREE?
No, I'm advocating that this alarm company give back to this man his
intangible property -- the programming access code.
> Even to every person who ask even
> if they are not your client?
This man is not my client. If I had the code I'd give it to him in a
minute. The alarm is his property.
>> Yes, there is something which cries out
>> for them to do it at no charge.
>> It's called ethics -- something which is
>> becoming more and more foriegn to
>> our industry.
>
> No, it's not something that's foreign, it's something we
> conveniently bring up when we want to say that someone
> else's actions are wrong because the accuser doesn't do
> that, yet those who cry ethics are the first to say it's
> "Business" when their actions are called into question.
That was uncalled for and you know it's not true. Apologize!
>> This is one of the lowest dirty tricks in this
>> industry and unfortunately it's also one of
>> the most common ones.
>
> No, the lowest dirtiest trick in this industry is to use legal
> or regulatory issues to stifle legitimate competition.
That's another subject entirely. It is also one on which we probably agree.
> >If I buy a pizza I expect to pay for the pie
> >and to tip the delivery man. I don't expect
> >to find a locked box inside the outer
> >carton which requires further payment
> >before I can enjoy the anchovies.
>
> Close but let's put this in perspective. Tony opened a pizza shop. He
sells
> his pizza's to Gino. Gino sells you the pizza and the outer box is
locked. Do
> you go Tony and demand that he unlock the box?
Who locked it? If it was Tony I'd go to another shop and order a
replacement pizza. Then I'd take Tony to small claims and demand
reimbursement plus costs. I'd also notify every state and local newspaper
sold in my area that Tony's Pizza sells locked out pizzas and demands
payment before to unlock them. I'd file a complaint with the attorney
general, the board of health (those anchovies are going to go bad fast) and
the local branch of the Canactonesi Society with a request that Guido pay
old Tony a visit and talk about his medical options.
ALarm systems are one thing but don't even *think* about messing with my
pizza! Fogettaboudit! :^)
>> How would he know it was illegally locked
>> before he moved in?
>
> He checks!!!
How?
> Just like he probably checked to make sure all the doors were
> unlocked.
With doors you just turn the knob. With an alarm it requires technical
knowledge to which most home buyers are not privy. [Note: "No, Jake. Not
*that* kind of privy."]
>> No, it was the alarm company and they
>> are dead wrong to do this.
>
> The alarmco never sold, serviced, or received any payment...
> --- kersnip ---
They are in possession of his property and they need to give it up to him.
> >But honesty, fair play and common sense
> >dictate that this rotten alarm company at
> >least divulge the code and hand over the
> >manuals to this gentleman.
>
> The alarmco has agreed to unlock the panel, they are just asking that this
> non-clinet pay for their services.
That is an act of larceny on their part.
A.J.
as well as "user access code".
Don't take my word for it, try it.
Program section 012 as
[012]
001
001
exit programming and try entering programming with a wrong installer code
and see what happen.
"Frank Olson" <Use-the-e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
news:knbpb.260558$6C4.98492@pd7tw1no...
Frank Olson
news:XNudnWuQvJF...@giganews.com...
> >> In this case the analogy fails beacuse car
> >> keys are not entirely like alarm lock
> >> codes.
> >
> > The fact is the seller did not deliver the alarm
> > system to the buyer in the condition that the
> > buyer was told it would be delivered by the seller...
>
> Knoiwing the way many alarm companies operate it is highly unlikely that
the
> seller even knew they had locked it. The only information we have at this
> point is that the seller told the buyer that the alarm was free and clear.
> You and I also know that many (probably most) alarm companies change the
> default code to keep anyone *they* don't authorize, including the buyer,
> from accessing programming. Given that situation and the information we
> have so far it is very likely that this alarm company did lock the
customer
> out.
On a *monitored* alarm, yes. On a local, there's no need to lock out the
customer (or even change the installer code). I wouldn't recommend leaving
the programming code at the "default" value. Change it to something the
customer wants.
>
> But all of that isn't really the key isue here. If I find your wallet on
> the ground and pick it up, it is your fault for losin it. But it is still
> both my legal and ethical responsibility to return it to you.
You're not "legally" responsible to return a wallet you find on the road...
You're not even "legally" responsible to pick it up if you see one there...
That doesn't mean you shouldn't though...
> I have no
> right to demand payment for "services rendered" in returning your
property.
Now wait a minute here... If you incur expenses in performing your "moral
duty", then you should have every right to ask the guy for compensation if
he wants it back. I'll give you a "for instance". Say the guy was a
tourist from Japan... Or even Belgium...
> In this case the alarm company is in possession of the buyer's intangible
> property -- the code which is necessary for him to make use of that which
he
> owns.
They're not "in possession" of anything belonging to the buyer. It's
*their* code (probably the one they use to access all their panels). This
is nothing more than a "marketing ploy" to get the guy to call them, give
them a chance to "sell" him on the monitoring service, and if he's not
interested, make a fast buck. Yes, it's unethical... I personally wouldn't
deal with a company that did something like this. In this instance though,
it would be far cheaper for the OP to call them in and "bite the bullet",
but this is just *one* of the options open to him. The final choice belongs
to the OP. You can rant and rail against the unfairness of it all you want.
Get over it...
> They have zero property rights to the alarm system and to the code
> which they have placed in it. It is his and they need to return it.
They have every "right" to the code. They have no right to the equipment
(or to lock it out) if the previous owner had clear title to it...
>
> This can not be any more plain and simple. The alarm company is wrong to
> demand payment.
Horse twaddle... If they have to send a tech out to default the panel, then
they have every right to invoice the user. Some companies even charge to
"download" a panel. They have every right to do so if it's a change the
customer has requested. It's not a "scam" or unethical to do so.
> There is no excuse whatsoever for what they are doing.
Agreed. When they defaulted the master code, they should also have
defaulted the installer code.
> If
> they claim there is other information in the panel such as their receiver
> phone number and account number which could be used to their harm, they
must
> bear the expense (a few minutes' effort) of deleting that information.
The
> homeowner did not put that information there and if they want it removed
> that is their problem.
If the homeowner cancels monitoring then any expense related to that should
be born by the homeowner and not the alarm company. It's the alarm
company's choice whether-or-not they will bill the guy for it. It's been a
long time since you've run an alarm company (if you ever did)...
>
> > What if the buyer purchased the house with an
> > automatic sprinkler system and the code for accessing the programing
> wasn't
> > correct?
>
> The code is not "incprrect" in this case. It is in the possession of the
> alarm company but it is his intangible property -- not theirs. I hope he
> takes these people to court. They deserve it.
He'd lose... It's the sellers responsibility to ensure everything the buyer
expects is delivered, not the alarm company's... If I bought a used car
with a keyless remote could I demand Ford provide me with one if the seller
didn't give it to me?? Would I be able to demand that Ford reprogram it
"free of charge" because the seller might still have one in his possession??
>
> > Does the buyer demand that the installing irrigation...
>
> That is not analogous to the current situation. This is a lock-out code
> which the alarm company put there for thir own financial advantage. You
> know and so do I. Now the homeowner knows it, too -- assuming he's still
> following this thread.
Yeah... I agree that's probably why they did it... It's the OP's choice
though as to which of the three options presented he's going to take...
>
> >> In almost every situation the home buyer
> >> does not get the code or even know that
> >> there is one until after the purchase.
> >
> > So it's the installing alarmco's fault that the new owner
> > never checked the system?
>
> No, it's their fault that they are in possession of his property aqnd it's
> their shame that they are willing to keep it to extort money from him.
They
> have no right to refuse to give him that code.
They have every right to refuse to give him *their* code.
> > And that's an issue between the person who originally purchased
> > the alarm system and the alarmco, not the new owner!
>
> The issue is one of property rights. He owns the system free and clear.
> That includes any codes necessary to access any part of the system. They
> have the code and refuse to give it up without a ransom payment. That
makes
> them a pack of thieves -- not a company protecting the property of their
> clients but *precisely* the kind of people against whom he needs
protection.
It's the alarm company's code, Robert. Not the homeowners. They should
default the panel for this guy and if they can do so via downloading then
they shouldn't charge him for the service. If they have to send out a tech,
though, they have every right to ask for payment for the service. The
seller's ultimately responsible.
>
> At the present time the seller is gone but the alarm company still has the
> buyer's intangible goods in their possession. They need to relinquish
that
> code to him. I don't give a rat's bum about any accusations against the
> long-gone home seller who more than likely never knew that the alarm
company
> was going to pull this scam.
No alarm company would give out their installer codes. Call one up and ask!
>
> > How dare they lie to the purchaser that they paid
> > to have the system unlocked when it wasn't unlocked!
>
> The history of the indusrtry is that more often than not it is the alarm
> company that lies about lock codes by failing to inform the buyer that
they
> intend to lock him out of the system which he thinks he's buying outright.
They have every right to restrict access to installer level programming on a
*monitored system*.
> > Handling an alarm signal takes less than five minutes, why not
> > make monitoring free?
>
> That's not the point and you know it. We monitor because the customer
> *asks* us to do so and enters into a contract with us to perform the
> service. In this case the alarm company is simply trying to extort money
> for something which they have no right to keep -- the code to this
> gentleman's panel.
The *code* BELONGS to the alarm company. Their obligation to the original
owner was to default the code and unlock the panel. What it looks like to
me is that the seller probably knew this but refused to pay for the full
service. The alarm company has every right to charge for it. They
"compromised" by defaulting the master code and probably figured they'd be
able to get payment from the new owner for the rest.
> No, I'm advocating that this alarm company give back to this man his
> intangible property -- the programming access code.
Fat chance!!
>
> > Even to every person who ask even
> > if they are not your client?
>
> This man is not my client. If I had the code I'd give it to him in a
> minute. The alarm is his property.
Yes... we all know your "mantra".
> > No, it's not something that's foreign, it's something we
> > conveniently bring up when we want to say that someone
> > else's actions are wrong because the accuser doesn't do
> > that, yet those who cry ethics are the first to say it's
> > "Business" when their actions are called into question.
>
> That was uncalled for and you know it's not true. Apologize!
Heh, heh, heh... For what?? What he said was absolutely true...
What's really astounding is Robert Bass... arguing "ethics"... That's a
new one!!
RH.Campbell
a lockout function. However, the odd situation as you describe certainly
doesn't justify IMO the general continuation of this practice for mostly
"just in case" reasons. Personally, I have no problem with the lockout on
boards that don't belong to the customer; however, I do have a problem with
the lockout when the board has been paid for and the company in question
doesn't make a point of taking the initiative to dial in and unlock that
same board (which at that point no longer belongs to them) once the board is
fully paid for. Failure to do so only results in problems for the next home
buyer who then has to go begging the original company to do what they should
have legitimately done at the end of the initial contract. And then they
have the nerve to charge the new homebuyer to dial in and do what was their
responsibility to have done long before ? I think not...
It could also be argued that you should have been more choosy in picking
this client to avoid this type of problem to begin with(BTW, I've been in
the same situation myself so I empathize with your situation). Far too many
companies extend unnecessary levels of credit because they are afraid the
competition will do so if they don't.
Let 'em ! Better your competition loses money than you . Ya gotta pick your
customers my man !!!!
RHC
"Auditor" <revenue...@fed.gov.ca> wrote in message
news:t7epb.164$VM.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Robert L. Bass
>> have so far it is very likely that this alarm company did lock the
>> customer out.
>
> On a *monitored* alarm, yes. On a local, there's no need to lock out the
> customer (or even change the installer code). I wouldn't recommend
leaving
> the programming code at the "default" value. Change it to something the
> customer wants.
Agreed. Good point.
> > But all of that isn't really the key issue here. If I find your wallet
on
> > the ground and pick it up, it is your fault for losing it. But it is
still
> > both my legal and ethical responsibility to return it to you.
>
> You're not "legally" responsible to return a wallet you find on the
road...
> You're not even "legally" responsible to pick it up if you see one
there...
> That doesn't mean you shouldn't though...
I don't know about Canada but in the USA found property is not the same as
abandoned property. If I find it you're right that I don't have to pick it
up. But if I do pick it up it's still your property and I am legally
obliged to give it to you. In most places in the US (it varies from state
to state) the rule is you must notify the local authorities of found goods.
They (or you, depanding on where it was found) then advertise the facts in
the local newspaper for x number of days. If no one claims it after a
certain period the finder can keep it.
That's off the topic here though. In this case the alarm company changed
the code from the default and that code (which they have in their
possession) is the intangible property of the person who bought the alarm.
They are legally obliged to relinquish it to him. They are also ethically
obliged to do so. Unfortunately, there appears to be a dearth of ethics at
the company in question.
> Now wait a minute here... If you incur expenses in performing
> your "moral duty", then you should have every right to ask the
> guy for compensation if he wants it back.
You can ask but he's uinder no obligation to reward you. However, this is
not pertinent to the present situation. In the case in question the alarm
company has effectively absconded with the access code to the gentleman's
alarm. That is IMO larcenous behavior.
> I'll give you a "for instance". Say the guy was a
> tourist from Japan... Or even Belgium...
Then send him his blasted wireless headset and be glad to get rid of it.
:^)
> > In this case the alarm company is in possession of the buyer's
intangible
> > property -- the code which is necessary for him to make use of that
which
> he
> > owns.
>
> They're not "in possession" of anything belonging to the buyer.
Yes, they are. You don't understand American law, Frank. That is
understandable since you never worked here.
> It's *their* code (probably the one they use to access
> all their panels).
Whatever they do and however that may impact their business is immaterial.
The issue is what they have done to his property. They've in essence stolen
the use of his alarm from him by locking it out when they have no legal
right to do so. This is one of the worst things alarm companies frequently
do to clients. Sadly, it is also one of the most common.
This post is way too long and I've made my point so I'll snip the rest.
none
> Unfortunately, "access code" in this case applies to "installer access code"
> as well as "user access code".
>
> Don't take my word for it, try it.
>
> Program section 012 as
>
> [012]
> 001
> 001
>
> exit programming and try entering programming with a wrong installer code
> and see what happen.
>
>
As AJ said, try it, you'll be surprised.
I await your humble apology for thinking I don't know what I'm doing. :)
Frank Olson
>
> This post is way too long and I've made my point so I'll snip the rest.
Yep... you "made your point"... It's wrong, but what the heck... From
what I understand the alarm system is *fully functional*. The only problem
being that the OP doesn't have access to installer level programming. If he
*needs* to make changes, he's going to have to either:
1. Call in the old alarm company to do it;
2. Remove the board and send it to Jim Rojas at http://www.tech-man.com;
3. Call in another company to replace the board (or buy a new one from you
or any of the on line dealers at
http://www.yoursecuritysource.com/buyingonline.htm and replace it himself).
There's no use arguing the "rights and wrongs" of what the original alarm
company did, or even the rights of the homeowner and seller. It comes down
to the above three choices and it's up to the OP to pick one. From my
standpoint, he's got a functional alarm. When he needs it serviced, he's
going to be forced to make a decision based on the choices I've outlined
from the very beginning of this thread. Whether-or-not you or I believe
what the alarm company did was "ethical" or not makes not one bit of
difference.
--
Frank E. Olson
Free listings for qualified industry professionals.
Alarm system information and FAQ's at
http://www.yoursecuritysource.com
AlarmReview
>Interesting discussion this ! But I have to
>ask .... honestly .... how many
>homeowners would even know about the
>presence of a lockout feature on an
>alarm panel.
In this particular case, it appears the seller knew enough to claim they had
the system's master code reset and the buyer knew enough to assume because he
was able to enter a replacement code that he had the master code. So they both
thought they knew enough, but obviously, not enough.
>And if they did, how would they be able to
>even tell if their board is locked.
If they didn't know about the alarm they should have had it inspected as part
of the home buying experience. It's no excuse that they didn't know. I know
enough about garage door openers to know if it works, but nonetheless, I had it
inspected when I bought my home.
>And at the time of sale of a home, the
>alarm system is probably just about the
>last thing on their mind...
Consumers need to treat alarms like they do any other item in the home when
it's purchased. It's inconceivable for a home inspector to inspect a house but
not check the water heater because they don't know about it. So why do
consumers accept a home inspection without the alarm being inspected?
>But if companies insist on using this
>feature, can it not be argued they too have
>some responsibility to see that it is
>removed once the equipment is fully paid
>for, and not just when some new
>homeowner gets inadvertently caught
>through their lack of diligence.
Yes they do. They should be unlocking the panels at conclusion of whatever
service prompted them to lock it in the first place. But, since we never fully
knew why a board was locked the responsibility is on the seller of the property
to ensure that the property they are selling is in a usable condition, and it's
the purchasers responsibility to ensure the property they are buying is in a
usable condition.
Have you ever seen a home inspector who didn't turn on a faucet to make sure
that the .35 cents washer was working? So why aren't consumers requiring them
to provide the same level of care to their $500. alarm system?
I sympathize with the purchaser who appears to be caught in this dilemma, but
it's his own fault for not taking his alarm serious enough.
Rob-
Auditor
who went on to become a Chartered Accountant. I should have called and
asked why he left.
"RH.Campbell" <rhcam...@homemetal.com> wrote in message
news:1bjpb.114376$7B1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
RH.Campbell
have to look at a lot of the alarms I takeover to see that most people don't
have a clue about how these things work, and what the different levels of
responsibility are vis a vis seller versus buyer, when it comes to buying
the thing. Most wouldn't know what questions to even ask, and I don't know
of any home inspectors that give the alarm even a cursory glance, let alone
get into it to the degree we're discussing in this thread. To my knowledge,
it's simply not included in any home inspection that I have ever been
involved in. The only issue that ever seems to come up is whether or not
there's one of those damn long term contracts still in force, and that's
often asked by the real estate agent, not the home inspector, simply to
determine the new owners liabilies up front.
I know "ignorance of the law" so to speak is no excuse; however, I still
feel that the real responsibility lies with the original alarm company to
have done the correct thing at the end of the original contract. In our
business, however, that seems to be too much to hope for from some companies
!
Strict adherence to ONLY the letter of the law makes for a decidedly
intractable and unfriendly market place for everyone.
RHC
"AlarmReview" <alarm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031102233526...@mb-m27.aol.com...
RH.Campbell
Have you noticed that the people you actually know seem to be far more
likely to screw you over than any stranger ever will ?
RHC
"Auditor" <revenue...@fed.gov.ca> wrote in message
news:LWkpb.1062$Pg1....@news20.bellglobal.com...
AlarmReview
>However, I just have to look at a lot of the
>alarms I takeover to see that most people
>don't have a clue about how these things
>work, and what the different levels of
>responsibility are vis a vis seller versus
>buyer, when it comes to buying the thing.
That's why consumers need to treat their alarm system in the same way they
treat the toilet when they are buying a house. If they don't know, have it
checked out.
>and I don't know of any home inspectors
>that give the alarm even a cursory glance,
>let alone get into it to the degree we're
>discussing in this thread. To my
>knowledge, it's simply not included in any
>home inspection that I have ever been
>involved in.
...and why not? Seems the home inspector isn't really "inspecting" the home if
they would not even look at a $500+ piece of equipment. So it's O.K. for them
to ignore the alarm but write a detail report how the light bulb in the stove
is burnt out?
Maybe we're letting consumers and home inspectors off too easy. Or, it could
be that security alarms have been reduced to such a cheap level in peoples
minds that nobody even thinks they are worth squat!
>I know "ignorance of the law" so to speak
>is no excuse; however, I still feel that the
>real responsibility lies with the original
>alarm company to have done the correct
>thing at the end of the original contract.
It's not "ignorance of the law" that's involved, it's a simple case of who sold
what to whom and what did the seller say that wasn't true to the buyer? The
transaction for the sale of the alarm WITH installer's code available was
between the seller and the buyer. The failure to deliver the installers code
was on the part of the seller. That's why it's so important for consumers to
demand that the alarm is part of the inspection process.
Rob-
AlarmReview
>It is in the possession of the alarm
>company but it is his intangible property --
>not theirs. I hope he takes these people
>to court. They deserve it.
He probably won't win. He probably will win if he sued the seller.
>Now the homeowner knows it, too --
>assuming he's still following this thread.
But if he's an attorney, he may have realized that his claim is against the
seller.
Another thing, we never asked the OP if he knew what the installer's code was
or if he even asked for it. Maybe he just asked for the "Master Code" and
that's what the seller gave him. I know of a case where the alarmco changed
the installers code and changed the master users code to what the owner asked
for. The alarmco gave them both codes. Months later, the owner kept claiming
the alarmco didn't unlock the panel because he forgot about the TWO codes.
>They have no right to refuse to give him
>that code.
They are NOT refusing to give him the code. The OP stated clearly that they
were willing to provide the code! They were just going to charge him for a
service call. Big difference!
>I don't give a rat's bum about any
>accusations against the long-gone home
>seller who more than likely never knew
>that the alarm company was going to pull
>this scam.
Or equally, may have been given the code and never past it on to the buyer! Or
equally, may have just given the buyer what they asked for not what was needed!
We have only the sellers word that any of this transpired. We have only the
seller's word that the alarmco didn't give them the code! We have only the
seller's word that they themselves didn't go in and accidentally changes the
installer's code and forgot what it was! That's why courts place the issue of
failure to deliver on the person SELLING the property!
>OTOH, we have no evidence at all that the
>home seller lied -- only that the alarm
>company refuses to relinquish something
>that does not belong to them.
OTOH we have no evidence that the seller told the truth!
>That's not the point and you know it. We
>monitor because the customer *asks* us
>to do so and enters into a contract with us
>to perform the service.
That's what the OP is doing with the alarmco, entering into a contract to
provide a service that the seller legally refused to do. The seller failed to
provide the installer's code and the alarmco is now being asked to render that
service. They have every right set a fee for that service!
>No, I'm advocating that this alarm
>company give back to this man his
>intangible property -- the programming
>access code.
But your entire argument hinges on one single point, that the alarmco never
unlocked or gave the seller the code. Since we have not heard from the seller
or the alarmco, it's equally possible they did what they were asked. That's
why, again, courts place the responsibility on the seller of the property.
>That was uncalled for and you know it's
>not true. Apologize!
It wasn't aimed at you, Sorry if you got that impression. I'm pointing out
that many people do what they claim others are doing unethically, they just
change the terminology so it sound like a normal business practice, but in the
long run, it's the exact same thing.
>With doors you just turn the knob. With
>an alarm it requires technical knowledge
>to which most home buyers are not privy.
So they get a damn home inspector that's willing to do the job correctly which
includes inspecting the alarm! Why are we so willing to let the seller and the
home inspection company off the hook? Why must the alarmco be made to be the
villain when we know nothing about the truth? One fact is clear, NOBODY
checked the system at sale!!! Not the seller, Not the buyer, Not the home
inspector! Gee, three people screwed up, but it's the poor single alarmco
that's at fault even though we have absolutely no idea what happened!
Rob-
Robert L. Bass
>> that code.
>
> They are NOT refusing to give him the code. The OP
> stated clearly that they were willing to provide the code!
> They were just going to charge him for a service call.
> Big difference!
Yes, it is the difference between ethical and crooked. They are on the
wrong side of the gap.
>> That was uncalled for and you know it's
>> not true. Apologize!
>
> It wasn't aimed at you, Sorry if you got that impression.
OK. Thanks for clarifying.
> I'm pointing out that many people do what they
> claim others are doing unethically, they just
> change the terminology so it sound like a normal
> business practice, but in the long run, it's the exact
> same thing.
On this we agree.
Robert L. Bass
> in the same way they treat the toilet when they are
> buying a house.
Pee in it? :^)
Marc Mazzarese
>In most states, regardless of monies owed or
>due, tampering with, disabling, or disconnecting a "Life Safety", mostly
>FIRE, is a FELONY!
Unless you are a utility you can turn off any service on a deliquent account
even fire alarms as long as you give appropiate written notification to the
client(check the laws in your area as required notification varies in each
state).If you are a utility company than there are certain services that cannot
be shut off for nonpayment to low income families. I have mentioned utility
companies because in some states monitoring service is classified as an
utility, so check your specific laws.
Marc Mazzarese
>thats total Bull Shit..
>
>if anyone would even try that with me....wow,it would cost that company a
>few more $ then just the time of a technician or even a sales rep to go to
>my place to remove the lock...
>
>bad publicity is worst then loosing 15 minute...
>
cry and rant all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the alarm company
has no legal obligation to come out and default your panel for free. Any
contractual agreement they might have had was with the original owner.
>and a few well placed nails in the company parking lot would make the thing
>more even in my mind...
so now you want to destroy the property of the alarm company because of the
negligence of the original owner.
petem
they do have in there possesion part of my property with out a
reason...thats unethical from my part but what the heck they play the game
that way!
Frank Olson
news:j4Mpb.65563$Gn2.1...@weber.videotron.net...
>
> they do have in there possesion part of my property with out a
> reason...thats unethical from my part but what the heck they play the game
> that way!
I'll bet you believe in the Code of Hamurabi... but then you "Quebecians"
were always a bit "strange"... :-)
petem
"Frank Olson" <Use-the-e...@yoursecuritysource.com> a écrit dans le
message de news:vvPpb.290451$9l5.122584@pd7tw2no...
tabarnacos"... ;-)
RH.Campbell
you or not, you know you're right, and for what little it's worth, I agree
with you.
The original company has a hold on this client's panel which they have no
business having, and it WAS (and IS) their responsibility to unlock this
board at their cost (what little that is with uploading) once the terms of
full ownership were met (regardless who owns the panel at that point). The
fact that so many can't see that is simply a reflection of some pretty fuzzy
ethical thinking on the part of those who think that the company should be
allowed to charge for this simply because the first owner has left the
scene....
Stick to your guns !
RHC
"petem" <pe...@nospamatall.com> wrote in message
news:NOUpb.61666$of7.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
Robert L. Bass
> industry agrees with you or not, you know you're right,
> and for what little it's worth, I agree with you.
That makes two of us, Bob. Ethics and morality are not decided by
democratic vote. Right and wrong simply are. It makes no difference if a
hundred people say he's wrong. Petem is right about this.
> Stick to your guns !
Agreed, but lock the triggers when you're not using them. :^)
petem
"RH.Campbell" <rhcam...@homemetal.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:Q_Upb.19522$152....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Petem, it doesn't matter whether the whole rest of the industry agrees
with
> you or not, you know you're right, and for what little it's worth, I agree
> with you.
>
> The original company has a hold on this client's panel which they have no
> business having, and it WAS (and IS) their responsibility to unlock this
> board at their cost (what little that is with uploading) once the terms of
> full ownership were met (regardless who owns the panel at that point). The
> fact that so many can't see that is simply a reflection of some pretty
fuzzy
> ethical thinking on the part of those who think that the company should be
> allowed to charge for this simply because the first owner has left the
> scene....
>
> Stick to your guns !
>
i didnt shoot anything since a good 20 years..!!!
Well i thank you for your support...But dont worry i am and will always
treat my costumer with respect and fairness
I had to act fair just today...
one costumer asked me to give him a refresh training on its access control
system
he wants to rethink all his access level cause it got out of hands....(they
have 19 acesse level just for the IT departement..30 guys)
so he had question and i went there and gave him a good refresh...But while
i was there i have noticed a bug in the software...
they had to go out of acess level programing and back in when switching
sites(they have 3 sites) or the system would not save the new levels on the
new site...
So i called the software company and i had to explain the probleme to about
3 tech before they would understand..took me a good 2 hours,
when i finally finished the bug report i went and filled up my service call
invoce...i was there for 3.5 hour, I billed 1.5
the customer was really happy of it and i know that he is not even thinking
about switching company...in fact he is refering us to other company
we got more then 500.000 in contract from them in the last 5 year(access
contole,video,burglar,fire alarm) and we deal with them since 1992
they dont even go public for cotation..trust and fairness....it pays....
RH.Campbell
courses resolved a full two years after it became law to register all my
firearms....
Cripes ! No wonder most people are simply ignoring it....
RHC
"Robert L. Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bOmdnUF2kYP...@giganews.com...
RH.Campbell
this (and any other) business. Service and going the little extra mile costs
you very little and really proves to the customer that you care.
I had the occasion to talk to my monitoring station recently and we got into
a long discussion about service quality etc. It quickly came out that the
companies that were being successful and that were the busiest on the
station were well known for not "nickel and diming" their clients to death !
On the other hand, the fast buck artists, and those that choose to charge
for every little thing were almost always having to scratch for business.
I'm fairly certain this way of approaching people and dealing with them
hasn't changed over the centuries. One on one (and that's where most
business is conducted), a handshake and a promise counts as much as
anything, and always will, even in our sue crazy environment.
RHC
"petem" <pe...@nospamatall.com> wrote in message
news:w4Wpb.72389$Gn2.1...@weber.videotron.net...
Mark Leuck
> Petem, it doesn't matter whether the whole rest of the industry agrees
with
> you or not, you know you're right, and for what little it's worth, I agree
> with you.
>
> The original company has a hold on this client's panel which they have no
> business having, and it WAS (and IS) their responsibility to unlock this
> board at their cost (what little that is with uploading) once the terms of
> full ownership were met (regardless who owns the panel at that point). The
> fact that so many can't see that is simply a reflection of some pretty
fuzzy
> ethical thinking on the part of those who think that the company should be
> allowed to charge for this simply because the first owner has left the
> scene....
>
> Stick to your guns !
>
> RHC
How do you know the system was even sold to the customer and not a lease?
Did the previous owner ask for the system to be unlocked or did they (more
commonly) move without contacting the alarm company beforehand?
Too many unanswered questions to assume fault on the part of the alarm
company.
Marc Mazzarese
>Petem, it doesn't matter whether the whole rest of the industry agrees with
>you or not, you know you're right, and for what little it's worth, I agree
>with you.
>
>The original company has a hold on this client's panel which they have no
>business having, and it WAS (and IS) their responsibility to unlock this
>board at their cost (what little that is with uploading) once the terms of
>full ownership were met (regardless who owns the panel at that point). The
>fact that so many can't see that is simply a reflection of some pretty fuzzy
>ethical thinking on the part of those who think that the company should be
>allowed to charge for this simply because the first owner has left the
>scene....
>
morally correct does not always equal legally correct.
Marc Mazzarese
>How do you know the system was even sold to the customer and not a lease?
Did the previous owner ask for the system to be unlocked or did they (more
commonly) move without contacting the alarm company beforehand?
I think it was brought up that the system was owned by the customer. But that
still does not equate to the alarm company having to go out to default the
panel for free. It is the obligation of the previous owner to make sure that
the system is transfered to the new owner in a matter that the new owner could
access the programming. Now the only thing is that if the company could do it
remotely, they should at no charge or if they were paid by the previous owner
to default the panel and they did not then they should go out and do it.
RH.Campbell
that is so of course. If it isn't, then the client has no business trying to
have it unlocked, and the original company would be well within their rights
to tell the guy to take a hike.
My point (albeit somewhat obliquely) is in regard to those who would say
that the original company should charge for unlocking it if a second owner
calls up. The company has no claim on the board, and should have taken the
initiative to unlock it at the cessation of the contract without being
chased by the owner (first or second...)
However, if the client does not own the board, that is another whole kettle
of fish....
RHC
"Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aVWpb.77230$mZ5.495637@attbi_s54...
RH.Campbell
system is transferred to the new owner such that the new owner can access
the programming. End user programming for sure ! But I still contend it is
the responsibility of the alarmco to restore the unlock feature capability
without any prompting from the owner, simply for no other reason than that
they have a hold on someone else's property that they no longer have a right
to possess. Once a car is paid for, the car company no longer has a legal
right to reclaim it, and will issue the necessary paperwork to nullify any
liens. Once a mortage is finished, the mortage company will take the
necessary legal action to clear the owners title. The onus is (or should be)
on the alarmco to take action without being prompted by an unhappy owner !!
Seems this sort of example is one more reason why savvy consumers should get
it up front as part of their initial agreement, that once the board belongs
to them, the alarmco will dial in and make sure the board is unlocked...
But then in this business, how many consumers are really "savvy" ?...))
If they were, there'd likely be a lot less of the "zero down, mega monthly"
systems going in...:)))
...hehehe.....
RHC
"Marc Mazzarese" <marc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031104190439...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >From: "Mark Leuck"
Marc Mazzarese
>The company has no claim on the board, and should have taken the
>initiative to unlock it at the cessation of the contract without being
>chased by the owner (first or second...)
Robert, most well written contracts state that the company will always own any
data stored in the panel. We dont know what the entire situation is here, but
the company might have a claim. It is the responsibility of the previous owner
to make sure before they transfer ownership that the board has been unlocked.
They should have been the ones to have the alarm company to come out and
default the panel. But since they did not, and if the new owners want it
unlocked, there is no legal obligation for the company to come out at no
charge. Morally, if they can do it remotely they should at no cost or if they
were paid by the previous owner and did not unlock the system fully, then you
have a case that the previous owner paid for a service not rendered.
Robert L. Bass
> company will always own any data stored in the panel.
Not quite. The company owns the data which pertains to communications with
the central station. Everything else belongs to the client. The problem
here is that this is a non-monitored system which belongs to this man and
the alarm company is trying to extort money out of him. You can explain
this nine ways to Sunday and they (and you) will still be wrong.
petem
"Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:aVWpb.77230$mZ5.495637@attbi_s54...
> How do you know the system was even sold to the customer and not a lease?
>
> Did the previous owner ask for the system to be unlocked or did they (more
> commonly) move without contacting the alarm company beforehand?
>
> Too many unanswered questions to assume fault on the part of the alarm
> company.
>
>
from that link you will read:
<quote>
the previous owner did not have any commitment to the monitoring company;
that was confirmed prior to purchase. and the alarm was included in the
sale (they showed me the receipts for when they paid for it originally.
there were no rental agreements etc, just the monitoring service which was
cancellable)
<end quote>
is that enough?
for me yup!
they have no reason to lock it.....NO DAMN REASON!!!!!!
they have all the right to put an installer code in the system.....BUT NOT
TO LOCK IT!!!!!!!!
I really think that if a customer want to have a panel defaulted or an
instaler code removed from a panel and that the panel is not lock the alarm
company do have a right to ask for paiment cause the customer have every
thing he need to do it by himself of some other company
but when a company decide to keep a part of a system in there control for
the only reason that they can do it......thats fraud from my point of view
Marc Mazzarese
>Not quite. The company owns the data which pertains to communications with
>the central station. Everything else belongs to the client. The problem
>here is that this is a non-monitored system which belongs to this man and
>the alarm company is trying to extort money out of him. You can explain
>this nine ways to Sunday and they (and you) will still be wrong.
>
Yes Robert I know the company owns only the proprietary data in the
communicator, just didn't want to type the whole thing out.
The system was monitored for the previous owner and it is his responsibility to
make sure that the system is defaulted prior to transfer of ownership. There is
no extortion involved, they will come out and default the panel but there is a
service fee involved. I don't have to explain it 9 ways when I am correct the
first time.
fly in the ointment
> Petem, it doesn't matter whether the whole rest of the industry agrees
with
> you or not, you know you're right, and for what little it's worth, I agree
> with you.
>
> The original company has a hold on this client's panel which they have no
> business having, and it WAS (and IS) their responsibility to unlock this
> board at their cost (what little that is with uploading) once the terms of
> full ownership were met (regardless who owns the panel at that point). The
> fact that so many can't see that is simply a reflection of some pretty
fuzzy
> ethical thinking on the part of those who think that the company should be
> allowed to charge for this simply because the first owner has left the
> scene....
>
> Stick to your guns !
Yes, it's just that simple. No matter what, the alarmco is ethically
obligated to unlock that panel, immediately, and at their own expense, based
on the information provided by the OP.
js
Marc Mazzarese
>You say it is the obligation of the previous owner to make sure that the
>system is transferred to the new owner such that the new owner can access
>the programming. End user programming for sure ! But I still contend it is
>the responsibility of the alarmco to restore the unlock feature capability
>without any prompting from the owner, simply for no other reason than that
>they have a hold on someone else's property that they no longer have a right
>to possess. Once a car is paid for, the car company no longer has a legal
>right to reclaim it, and will issue the necessary paperwork to nullify any
>liens. Once a mortage is finished, the mortage company will take the
>necessary legal action to clear the owners title. The onus is (or should be)
>on the alarmco to take action without being prompted by an unhappy owner !!
>
Correct Robert, the onus is upon the prior resident to make sure the panel is
defaulted. Its one of those things that someone has to do before selling their
premise, its just that its escapes memory more than say have the furnace
repaired or patching some holes and painting before you transfer to the new
owners.
And we don't know the exact details of the situation. Maybe the alarmco is
protecting some interest. If it is a zero down deal, some companies contract
states that ownership of the system does not commence until the initial term of
the monitoring contract is fullfilled. Maybe the previous guy sold after 2
years of a 3 year deal? Who knows.
fly in the ointment
Mark Leuck wrote
> How do you know the system was even sold to the customer and not a lease?
>
> Did the previous owner ask for the system to be unlocked or did they (more
> commonly) move without contacting the alarm company beforehand?
>
> Too many unanswered questions to assume fault on the part of the alarm
> company.
My position is based strictly on the info provided by the OP. It may or may
not be true and complete, but that's all we have to go on. There may well be
other factors we don't know about which might change this situation, and we
can all speculate all day. I'm just going by what the the OP said.
js
fly in the ointment
Marc Mazzarese wrote
> morally correct does not always equal legally correct.
True, not saying it does.
js
fly in the ointment
Marc Mazzarese wrote
> Robert, most well written contracts state that the company will always own
any
> data stored in the panel
The issue is not whether the alarm company owns the data, it is that they
locked any one else out from defaulting it. That's a no-no.
js
Mark Leuck
Just because the current owner SAID he owned the system doesn't always mean
he does, one of the problems in this ng is we take for granted what the
poster says is true which may not always be the case
fly in the ointment
> The system was monitored for the previous owner and it is his
responsibility to
> make sure that the system is defaulted prior to transfer of ownership.
There is
> no extortion involved, they will come out and default the panel but there
is a
> service fee involved. I don't have to explain it 9 ways when I am correct
the
> first time.
The point is that if the alarmco had not locked the panel in the first
place, there would be no issue. They had no business locking it, and now
they need to correct that at their own expense.
js
Yes they do. :-)
Mark Leuck
> Mark, the issue here is not whether the client owns the board. I am
assuming
> that is so of course.
Yes but as you say you are assuming it is his board which it may not be
> If it isn't, then the client has no business trying to
> have it unlocked, and the original company would be well within their
rights
> to tell the guy to take a hike.
Exactly
> My point (albeit somewhat obliquely) is in regard to those who would say
> that the original company should charge for unlocking it if a second owner
> calls up. The company has no claim on the board, and should have taken the
> initiative to unlock it at the cessation of the contract without being
> chased by the owner (first or second...)
>
> However, if the client does not own the board, that is another whole
kettle
> of fish....
>
> RHC
Too many things we don't know and/or will never know which was my point
fly in the ointment
Mark Leuck wrote
> Just because the current owner SAID he owned the system doesn't always
mean
> he does, one of the problems in this ng is we take for granted what the
> poster says is true which may not always be the case
Yes, that is true. It is just a hypothetical situation, based on what the
OP said.
js
Mark Leuck
> > Robert, most well written contracts state that the
> > company will always own any data stored in the panel.
>
> Not quite. The company owns the data which pertains to communications
with
> the central station. Everything else belongs to the client. The problem
> here is that this is a non-monitored system which belongs to this man and
> the alarm company is trying to extort money out of him. You can explain
> this nine ways to Sunday and they (and you) will still be wrong.
>
> Regards,
> Robert
Without knowing all of the specifics none of us here can say it is right or
wrong
Mark Leuck
"fly in the ointment" <no...@nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:WlZpb.234$Cj1.44@fed1read07...
Why is that a no-no? I don't lock boards but I can see the reasons why
others do
Mark Leuck
>
> "Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de
> news:aVWpb.77230$mZ5.495637@attbi_s54...
> > How do you know the system was even sold to the customer and not a
lease?
> >
> > Did the previous owner ask for the system to be unlocked or did they
(more
> > commonly) move without contacting the alarm company beforehand?
> >
> > Too many unanswered questions to assume fault on the part of the alarm
> > company.
> >
> >
>
http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=et2dnRs5bJwbHD-iRVn-sw%40comcast.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dinstaller%2Bcode%2Bfor%2Bdsc%2B832%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Det2dnRs5bJwbHD-iRVn-sw%2540comcast.com%26rnum%3D1
>
> from that link you will read:
> <quote>
> the previous owner did not have any commitment to the monitoring company;
> that was confirmed prior to purchase. and the alarm was included in the
> sale (they showed me the receipts for when they paid for it originally.
> there were no rental agreements etc, just the monitoring service which was
> cancellable)
> <end quote>
>
> is that enough?
>
> for me yup!
>
> they have no reason to lock it.....NO DAMN REASON!!!!!!
>
> they have all the right to put an installer code in the system.....BUT NOT
> TO LOCK IT!!!!!!!!
1. You assume the original post was accurate which it may not be
2. The alarm company is well within its rights to lock the board
3. The alarm company is not responsible to unlock the guys board
Even if the original post was accurate they had a contract with the previous
owner and not the current one
> but when a company decide to keep a part of a system in there control for
> the only reason that they can do it......thats fraud from my point of view
Fraud? I hardly think so
Mark Leuck
True but if the original post isn't accurate "we" can get someone into
serious problems by screwing up the panel, this is one reason I don't
explain here how to default panels. Without knowing all of the information I
hardly think any of us are qualified to say anyone is at fault, committing
fraud etc.
How many of us have run into potential customers who "thought" they weren't
under contract when they were?
fly in the ointment
tired of saying that, but will continue doing so as long as necessary), it
wasn't warranted.
js
Mark Leuck wrote
Mark Leuck
And what ends up happening is we end up recommending the guy sue, call the
BB etc when in the end we know nothing about what this guy is dealing with
Hey....lets all use legal disclaimers on the bottom of each post :)
*the above advice or recommendation may or may not be accurate and is based
on an original text message which also may or may not be accurate, Users
here may or may not really exist or have knowledge of alarm systems. The
mental state of many regular posters is often in question therefore any
accurate advice may actually not be accurate. Do not taunt the red ball
fly in the ointment
Mark Leuck wrote
> > they have all the right to put an installer code in the system.....BUT
NOT
> > TO LOCK IT!!!!!!!!
>
> 1. You assume the original post was accurate which it may not be
Based on original info., (I now have this on my clipboard)
> 2. The alarm company is well within its rights to lock the board
Not in this case.
> 3. The alarm company is not responsible to unlock the guys board
Yes they are, if they locked the board for the purpose of holding the
customer hostage. Again, Based on original info.
>
> Even if the original post was accurate they had a contract with the
previous
> owner and not the current one
Contract notwithstanding, there was no defensible reason to lock the board
to prevent default. Ready? Again, Based on original info.
> > but when a company decide to keep a part of a system in there control
for
> > the only reason that they can do it......thats fraud from my point of
view
>
> Fraud? I hardly think so
Yeah, hard time proving fraud, gotta agree there.
js
>
>
fly in the ointment
RH.Campbell
occasion. I have a board unlocking service for DSC and Paradox panels and do
a brisk business with local alarm companies who bring me their locked
boards. I put a disclaimer on my site suggesting I may require proof they
own the boards I am unlocking, but it bothers me from a couple of
perspectives:
1- How the hell could they ever prove they own the board even if they wanted
to, and...
2- How would I know it was for real ?
So far, I've known the dealers I am dealing with and am quite sure that
everything is above board. But I do get boards mailed to me from out of town
and I have no way of knowing if the situation is legit. I don't know how Jim
Rojas views things along this line, but it continues to bother me a bit..
RHC
"Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9RZpb.108498$HS4.919874@attbi_s01...