Alarms uncovered!

The announcement left installers and business owners with the near impossible task of installing confirmation systems within a few weeks before the deadline of June 1 … or face having no insurance cover.

But the announcement itself confirmed installers’ long-held views that police wanted to ditch first response to alarms. Installers we spoke to believed this was the “thin end of the wedge” and could lead to the same policy nationwide with other forces following suite, although others believed West Midlands were “out on a limb” and would not set a precedent.

Said one NACOSS installer: “It’s impossible to do this in the time. We won’t even try. Who’s going to pay for it anyway?”

And an insurance industry insider told Installer: “This will be an absolute disaster. Burglary cover will be withdrawn right across the board. 97 per cent of all business don’t have verification. The insurance industry is now in an impossible situation. How can insurance cover be allowed if there’s no police response?”

The go-it-alone policy has thrown doubt on the unified approach aimed for between the security industry and ACPO and has caused concern at the British Security Industry Association and in insurance circles.

‘I couldn’t believe it’

Installers, inspectorates and alarm receiving centres received an “Important Notice” from Paul Blewitt, Assistant Chief Constable. Operations, on April 12.

It read: “Following research that has been conducted by the Force in relation to the attendance of officers at alarm activations, the following change in policy will take effect from June 1 2000:

“Police resources will not attend alarm activations occurring at commercial premises, Monday to Saturday inclusive, between the hours of 0600-1900hrs.

“The exceptions are: personal attack alarms, or, the activation is at a premises for which a ‘confirmed call’ has been received”.

Said Dave Profit, Technical Manager, SSAIB: “I couldn’t believe it. I thought it was a wind up. I got on to them in two minutes to clarify it.”

He was surprised the confirmation requirement covered existing systems as well as new ones.

David Fletcher, Chief Executive of the BSIA said the deadline was “certainly not realistic”.

There are about 32,000 alarms in the West Midlands area with about 15 per cent currently on the black list.

Although the announcement came as a shock, it was not exactly unpredictable given that the police nationwide are fed up with the huge waste of resources in responding to false alarms.

The industry as a whole has made a huge effort to reduce false alarm activations with the result that false alarms “per system” are now at their lowest ever level.

The initiatives of manufacturers, installers and alarm receiving centres have been formally recognised by ACPO which, on publication of the 1998 false alarm figures, welcomed the improvement, saying: “ These are the best figures since 1986. The saving of 75,478 false calls over 1997 represents many hours of police time which have been redirected to other incidents and improving response”.

But these achievements have been continually offset by the steady increase in the number of monitored systems installed overall.

Last year the Met Police received 219,503 alarm calls from professionally installed systems of which 183,996 (84 per cent) proved to be false. The estimated cost in wasted manpower and resources was £18,400,000, or £100 per false alarm.

In the West Midlands police area there has been a rise of 18 per cent in the number of monitored systems since 1996. Despite this there has been only a 2.5 increase in false calls.

Says the BSIA: “This new regime … contradicts the unified policy formed after ten years of discussion and co-operation between ACPO and the security industry. This unified approach was agreed to be the best way to tackle false alarms and has proved very successful. Figures show a 36 per cent reduction in false alarms since the ACPO policy was introduced.”

David Fletcher said he understood the police’s shortage of resources … “but the way to solve these problems is through discussion not through unilateral imposition.”

There were a number of practical problems with the West Midlands policy: Many commercial premises were closed at some time between 6am and 7pm Monday to Saturday and if there was no police response to alarms during these times it was a “golden opportunity” for burglars to operate. There was also no clear definition as to what constitutes a “confirmed call”.

The ABI (Association of British Insurers) has also written to West Midlands police pointing out that many premises would be without insurance cover during the ‘no response’ period.

More time refused

West Midlands police said they had genuine worries about the number of false alarms during working hours. They added: “The force does not wish to appear dismissive of ACPO, existing national policy, or of the industry: The force wishes to maintain an open dialogue on the subject.”

Last year they dealt with 40,000 false alarm calls which put disproportionate amount of pressure on resources. The decision was taken after pilot projects were run and evaluated.

The BSIA and members of the systems regional committee met with ACC Blewitt to voice their concerns and get a delay in implementing the policy to give the industry and its customers time to make arrangements and implement improved technology. This request was turned down by West Midlands. Afterwards, David Fletcher said he was “disappointed that this course of action is being pursued”. They would keep on discussing the changes with West Midlands and there would be a review after three months.

The BSIA has issued advice to its systems companies in the West Midlands: “Write to your customers immediately to inform them of the changed policy and include these points:

l West Midlands police will continue to respond to alarms that are (a) confirmed (b) from schools (c) from a personal attack alarm and (d) a response will still be provided in line with existing policy on Bank Holidays.

lAlarms will continue to be monitored at ARCs but those that do not meet the above criteria, outside stated hours, will not be passed to police.

• Customers should speak to their insurers about their cover during these hours.

• Companies and their customers will need to work together to provide alternatives where necessary, including keyholding, and to review the technology needs of the system to provide confirmation as appropriate.”

NACOSS said West Midlands’ decision was not in the best interests of crime prevention. Said Alex Volossevich, Head of Corporate Affairs: “It’s like saying to the criminal ‘If you see an alarm please go and burgle!’ ”

The blanket 6am-7pm withdrawal would also help criminals who were aware that some premises closed much earlier. The unilateral declaration with no consultation was also against the police and industry partnership approach.

“False alarms overall have been going down every year overall with a small increase last year. But it’s not an emergency situation and it doesn’t deserve this emergency action,” he said.

’Police losing support of customer’

Companies that Security Installer spoke to were agreed that the action said a lot about police attitude to response. This had already led to many commercial premises using private security firms for keyholding and response.

Said Bob Ingram, former MD of Realm Security Systems and now a consultant at the Birmingham company: “This is the thin end of the wedge. I’m not surprised. It is just not possible to do this. We won’t even try. Who’s going to pay for it anyway?”His NACOSS company, recently taken over by ADT, did have sequential and audio systems but these “just confirmed the mis-op!” He added: “The police are losing support of the customer. What they are saying is don’t bother passing us anything between 6am and 7pm. Between certain hours the central station will try to confirm anyway so there is a certain amount of filtering going on. It’s so easy to lose police response anyway and it’s only a matter of time before they stop altogether.” He believed most false alarms were down to customers: “You’ll have the best customer in the world. The person responsible for the system goes on holiday and the alarm is set off three times in a week and you’ve lost response.”

’Could be a nightmare’

Said Vernon Fletcher, a partner in Elite Security Services, a NACOSS company based in Derby: “The police don’t want to respond. This was almost expected. They are just trying to make it so awkward. This is a big problem for customers and the insurance companies.”

Most of Elite’s systems were in the Derbyshire area. If Derbyshire police followed suite “it would be a nightmare for us … an impossibility.” He was worried that West Midlands Police’s promise to “monitor the situation” would not lead to them reversing it, but lead to other forces following suite. “6am to 7pm is the time they get most false alarms … then they’ll go on to the next period.”

’West Midlands are leaders’

Alan Wright, proprietor of Central Alarms, an SSAIB company of Halsowen said: “This was a shock but it is just one more thing in the decline of the alarms industry. West Midlands police look upon themselves as leaders. They were the only force in the country to insist that a box should go off for twenty minutes only … and now look. It could be the same with this policy. The rest could follow.

“At the end of the day if the police say this is their policy because of their manpower, there’s not much we can do about it.”

An insurance industry insider told Installer that blue chip customers would be likely to quickly arrange a uniform response from a private guarding company … “but the vast majority of customers will inevitably blame the installers for their loss of cover. They’ll, no doubt, accuse installers of profiteering from the replacement costs of installing Point ID or audio/visual verification ... on the other hand there could be a lot of work for engineers in the West Midlands.”

He believed West Midlands Police were out on a limb and it was unlikely other forces would follow their example. “This has undone a lot of good. ACPO will be unwilling to take the blame. They will distance themselves from this”.