Your clients, on the other hand, whilst not quite as enthused as you, will at least be content with the knowledge that you have sold them an alarm system that will end the worry of their beloved businesses being 'cut off' from police response!
Excuse me whilst I pause for a moment, but I have just seen a flying pig land on my office car park!
Seriously though, many alarm installers are simply 'frightened to death' to tell the customer of the potential pitfalls of alarm verification and also that losing Police response is still a distinct possibility. I can well understand your reasoning, with clients already whinging about the additional cost and upheaval of having verification for their 'grudge purchase' alarm system. However, along the way a fair number of your clients may well soon discover that this new 'anti false alarm' verified system is not all it's cracked up to be, and may also feel that they have wasted their money!
At this point, may I apologise to the majority of you who are 'clued up' on the contents, intentions and implications of the ACPO policy, but here goes anyway…
Caught in the toilet!
The bottom line is this, the ACPO policy is an attempt to reduce false alarm call-outs for the police, and, without doubt, it will reduce some types of false alarm, but unfortunately not all of them. Let me explain ... if one of your client's passives 'crashes' on Sunday night then alarm verification will ensure that the police are not called, (great so far). If, however, on Monday night the client locks-up with a member of staff still in the toilet, as soon as he has finished 'his business' there will be police all over the place.
The point I am trying to make is this: The current ACPO Alarms Policy does not sufficiently address the 'user error' problem, because it is very difficult to differentiate between 'friend or foe', ie staff or intruders.
Now, as Chris Tarrant might say, for one million pounds can you tell me which, according to recent BSIA statistics, accounts for more than 50 per cent of all false alarms in the UK (& Europe)? Well done, you've guessed it, 'user error'!
Recently, the DTI paid for the BSIA to study the alarm system methods of our European cousins, and it came as no surprise to our alarm industry that the biggest cause of false alarms is the same as in the UK, ie 'user error'.
They also discovered that whilst those clever Germans still have false alarms, they don't have as many problems when switching off their systems because wherever possible they switch the alarm off before they enter the premises (more of this later).
Where we're at now ...
To put alarm verification into perspective … this is where we are currently at in the UK:
1. All new alarm systems must be verified, but, as you know, a verified alarm system cannot distinguish between a member of staff walking around the premises or an intruder! So, if your client's staff wipe out his 'police lives' as a result of 'cock ups', the premises will still be 'cut off' from police response.
2. If your client has a conventional alarm system and is 'cut off' as a result of 'user error' and/or equipment problems, he must upgrade to a verified alarm system to enjoy police response. Once again by upgrading to verification he will not address the 'user error' problem and staff 'cock-ups' can soon put your client back to square one.
The Germans … DD243:2002 …and Three And You're Out!
As you undoubtedly know by now, ACPO are extremely keen to further reduce false alarm call-outs, and the revised DD243 standard (now published) will become mandatory. This new document will lay down new rules for installing verified alarm systems. Also in the near future it is expected that ACPO will reduce, across the board, the number of 'police lives' down to three in any 12 month rolling period. Now brace yourself for something really worrying.
ACPO are really impressed with the Germans. In Germany a large number of premises have large thick wooden doors and are fitted with a device called Blockschloss.
This is an electrically contacted lock which, on turning the key, unlocks the door and un-sets the alarm system. This is a great way to reduce false alarms on entering the premises, but it's not quite that simple.
ACPO now wish to adopt a similar method in the UK. So from an installation point of view, here's what's in store.
Many alarm installers are simply ‘frightened to death’ to tell the customer of the potential pitfalls of alarm verification and also that losing police response is still a distinct possibility
If the entry door to the premises is wooden, then a verified system will require a minimum of a contacted mortise lock to be fitted eg Chubb 3G110. The lock must turn off the whole of the alarm system or at least the verification (remember the police will not attend a non-verified alarm activation). If the entry door is not suitable for a contacted lock your client will be required to fit an access control system which only allows entry into the building if the alarm is simultaneously disarmed. The consequences of this document will be daunting for many clients. Firstly, fitting a mortise lock to a wooden door is not really a major problem, although if your client decides to replace his wooden door with a double glazed variety then he has a whole new situation.
Secondly, the Industry 'dumped' the fitting of mortise locks in favour of timed entry doors years ago because of the hassle of fitting a lock to every entry route and the appearance of more and more 'non-wooden' doors.
Thirdly, imagine that your client has a company which has several alarm entry routes, and owing to three 'cock-ups' during the year his alarm system loses police response. To regain response he must fit an access control system to each of the entry doors, and ensure that it simultaneously turns off the alarm.
Nightmare for the client
The expense, upheaval and inconvenience for the client will be a nightmare, not to mention the question of 'how secure is it?' and the possibility of external 'keypads or tag/card readers' being targets for vandals.Every alarm access door will need some kind of override in the event of malfunction, and I wonder how many staff will be tempted to use the 'override facility' should they forget their code number or tag/card, and almost certainly generate a false alarm
Furthermore, ACPO's verification and access control solution will not eliminate the problem of staff being accidentally locked in the building, or entering the premises through a 'non-intended entry' perimeter door. So, it is quite possible that after your client has invested in a verified alarm and access control system, he could still find himself out in the cold!
With DD243 being just published, you now have an ideal opportunity to address the 'user error' problem, save yourself and your clients an awful lot of 'aggro', and earn additional profits into the bargain.
What can be done to combat 'user error' false alarms? The SeedBox (Subscriber Error Elimination Device) which was recently a finalist in the Best Innovation section of the Security Excellence Awards, run by Security Installer and SMT magazines, and has previously won an IFSEC Security Industry Award. The system has a European patent and has received several positive testimonials as to its effectiveness (available for inspection on request).
How does it work?
Research has shown that in Fire Alarm Systems the 'spoken word' is far more effective than any bell or siren can be. People can become confused by or simply ignore certain sounds, but readily react to speech.
The SeedBox works on this principle and will verbally advise the staff, when the alarm is being set, when a 'cock up' has occurred and the relevant action to take to abort the alarm. Also, should the alarm user have trouble aborting the false alarm via the alarm keypad, he may use the automatic dialling 'Key-Holder Phone' to quote his password to prevent Police attendance.
Furthermore, if premises have problems with staff leaving doors insecure or entering into alarmed areas, the client can address this problem by installing SeedBolts, which are simple locking alarm door contacts. If SeedBolts are fitted to fire doors, the SeedBox will even advise the staff to unlock them when the alarm is switched off. Finally, the SeedBox has features that can help stop accidental Personal Attack alarms being passed to the police.It is compatible with any make of alarm control panel with set & alarm output. It supports up to 16 key-holder phones, expands up to 16 areas and supports up to 98 speakers. It can be linked into client's public address system to reduce cost and it warns the monitoring station of 'user-error' false alarms. It works with conventional and verified alarm systems and addresses both 'user error' and personal attack false alarms. Minimal customer training is required.
Source
Security Installer
Postscript
John Seymour, the inventor of the aSeCo SeedBox, is a former alarm engineer and NACOSS alarm company owner.
No comments yet