Current affairs: ... now, my biggest worry

In our trade as in many others there are people up at the top who are either elected or take it upon themselves to organise the trade and make rules that the rest of the industry have to abide by – like it or lump it. They also purport to act as the watchdogs or policemen of the trade, one presumes to remove or keep out the undesirable elements or people that try to creep in from time to time.

In our case we have three such bodies, first we have the ABI (representing the insurance companies) then we have NACOSS (representing the larger installing companies) and we have ACPO (representing the police with a mission to reduce false alarms).

All these people who make the rules and decisions that affect our trade are acting on what they believe to be the best interests of the industry. In my opinion many of those rules and decisions are ill founded and misguided but, to a great extent, I can see why they were made. But now there is a very worrying trend in the market and I would like to challenge those industry-representing bodies to do something about it. The problem is the current marketing method of ADT, the biggest installer in the business.

Somewhere to sound off
Over the last year or so on almost every inspection I have attended, in telephone calls and on around half my emails , I hear complaints about ADT. But first let me set out my stall.

I have no personal gripe with ADT but the reason I am re-opening this particular can of worms is simple – the sheer number of small (and larger) installers who tell me they are suffering at the ADT hand and need somewhere to sound off about it … and they appear to have chosen me to speak for them.

However, while I can sound off on their behalf, there is little I can do about it other than to advise. A new worrying trend, on the other hand, needs very careful monitoring by the powers that control our industry.

In fact I ought to be saying thank you to ADT for the extra work (and wages) they have thrown my way. The SSAIB (whom I inspect for) is currently inundated with new applicants and a small percentage of those are from companies only interested in getting recognition for the ADT partnership scheme. We also have a good selection of applicants formerly employed by companies who have been taken over by ADT and who have either been made redundant or have left because they do not like the new regime.

These people have been setting up small teams (usually a salesman/manager and a very experienced engineer) to form new companies and "go it alone".

The ex-management companies are well set up, well organised and very experienced and are made very welcome by the SSAIB. These companies also have no intention of working the ADT scheme because they are out to build up their own little empires. The other section of newcomers that want to work the ADT scheme are a different matter. Many are genuine and see the ADT scheme as a way of getting started with plenty of ready money rolling in to support them until they build up their own maintenance database.

On the other hand some others are very new to the trade, very inexperienced, badly set up, haven't really got a clue how the industry works and have had a very short and sub-standard training at one of the private training outfits that I have commented on in this column before.

All they want to do is to bang in systems as fast as they can, flog them to ADT and go out and buy a fast car. If you don't mind me being sarcastic, this is just what our industry needs – people who want quick money and no responsibilities! I worry for ADT on this point because it is the finest way to pick up a load of troublesome systems – and lose customers.

Companies like this last lot give inspectors a real headache because it is not always easy on the first visit to suss out the depth or extent of their electrical and electronic knowledge, or how much or how little they know about the trade in general.

On the other hand they are all, without fail, bright enough not to admit to the inspector that they will cut all available corners to save cash and dump ADT with the problem. Even so the inspectors are very aware of the situation and are very careful to weed out these companies.

Over the past year or so, on almost every inspection I have attended, I have heard complaints about ADT

Some people are complaining that ADT (or their representatives) are door knocking round the domestic market. There is little you can do about that provided they do not use disreputable practices and frightening the unwary householders into panic buying, because what they are doing is perfectly legal and an accepted way of selling almost any product.

The way to fight that is going out and competing with them ... although I know the smaller companies haven't got the time to do that, they're busy looking after their own customers. (As a general rule, if you discover evidence of malpractice from any of your competitors, take your evidence to your local Trading Standards.)

How to keep your engineers
There have also been complaints that ADT are poaching engineers from smaller companies. Once again the matter is in your hands to some extent, you have to offer reasonable bonus schemes and good happy working conditions to keep your engineers, but I suspect the real culprit in this case may just be the greed of your engineer who wants more returns.

Looking from the other side I also get to speak to ADT engineers from time to time and to the lads who leave to set up their own companies … and they all tell the same story – many domestic customers are upset because they can get a different engineer every visit and he cannot solve the problem because he is unfamiliar with the system. All the customers want is to see the same friendly face that they know and trust. Is the situation being explained to the customer before they sign up?

This leads me to my main worry. A lot of installers were originally co-opted onto the ADT scheme but a number have now left ... some of them because they have realised that although the money is good up front and ready cash is always useful, they are, in fact, selling their future.

In the long run they will make more money by installing for themselves and getting a steady income from the maintenance and still have the collateral of good maintained systems to sell come retirement day (or a good profitable company to pass on). As Syd the Printer (Select Business Forms) put it : "Mike, you don't sell the family silver".

There is also another reason for companies being removed from the ADT list – they are not passing over enough systems. This is the worrying aspect.

Why are ADT piling on the pressure to increase the input of new customers? Are they concerned about losing existing customers? Do they have to meet targets of new income to keep their profit margins healthy? These are all questions that have come to my mind in recent months, and the reason for my thoughts going in that direction is the latest breed of company that wants SSAIB recognition, and these are sales-only companies.

They want to set up teams of door-knockers and go blitzing whole areas of domestic properties.

Once a sale has been agreed they sub-contract the system to a recognised installer who will install the system to ACPO requirements, get the URN and certificate the system and then pass it to the sales company who immediately pass the system to ADT at a profit. All this, by the way, has to appear to be done under the ADT name because who in his (or her) right mind would buy a system from a nice friendly door to door salesman, (knowing a total stranger will come to fit it) knowing even further that their system and their security will now be passed to a different unknown company who will send in yet another stranger when the system has to be serviced or repaired?

In order to sell the system the customer has to believe that the salesman is employed by ADT, and the installing team is employed by ADT. The misunderstanding is compounded by the fact that ADT provide the sales and survey paperwork with the ADT logo on it.

One has to ask – how ethical is it for people not directly employed by ADT to be using the ADT name and paperwork to sell systems? Hmm ... good question! The use of sub-contractors has always been a touchy subject within the industry but, provided it is done correctly, there is no real reason not to do it. As long as the sub-contractor is fully vetted and fully conversant with the ACPO policy and BS and as long as the employing company realises that they will be held responsible by the inspectorates to correct any deviations left by the sub-contractor, then we can go ahead.

But my fear is this: If the selling-only company takes an order and then cannot find a recognised inspectorate company to fit it (probably because they are too busy with their own work) isn't there a danger that the selling company might then go to an outside non-vetted, non-inspected company and get it fitted on the side?

Would the selling-only company be able to carry out their own inspection to confirm that the system meets the standards? Would they have the knowledge and expertise to do that? Would they try to pass it on to ADT? … And what happens if the system is sub-standard and not accepted by ADT? We now have a customer with an ADT bell box, an ADT panel and ADT detectors and possibly even a communicator and no-one to repair or service it. And what about the monitoring contract, isn't that signed up in advance?

At this point it becomes very hard for the inspectorates to police the situation. It rather reminds me of Paul Daniels and his trick with the three walnut shells and the pea. It doesn't matter how hard you watch the pea, if Paul Daniels doesn't want you to find it you never will.

My big, and all consuming, worry is that we could end up with a situation where a man could come straight out of jail and land a job fitting systems for a selling company who flogs them on to ADT, which is required to re-certificate the system in accordance with ACPO rules.

If this is ever found to be happening it will blow the ACPO policy right out of the water.

The latest breed of companies who want SSAIB recognition are ‘sales only’ operations ...

Because ADT is a NACOSS company then it will be NACOSS, ACPO and the ABI (representing the companies which insure these systems) that will end up holding the baby. My challenge then is for these very responsible bodies to get their heads together and do something about it before they end up with egg on their faces.

Tale of two alarms
A regular reader of this column sent me this warning tale …

"An intruder alarm with police response was fitted to a building with the postal address 22 Acacia Avenue, L2 2PP (not the real address).

A second alarm with police response was fitted to another building with the same postal address.

The first system was updated to BT RedCare, and the digi for this system cancelled. The ARC, for reasons not specified, cancelled the digi to the second system. Note: each system has an individual URN and CSN/ARC/Customer No. and yet this error occurred. Was this discovered by the ARC? Was this discovered by the installation company? Was this discovered following a loss and the insurance company refusing to pay out? ... And if so, who was to be the fall guy?

The answer, thankfully, was that it was discovered by the alarm company. The reason for the loss: the probable failure of the ARC to compare URN and other relevant information before cancellation of a service.

Let this tale be a warning to the industry, quality management does not mean ISO certification. It means "hands on" management looking at, and preventing, such possible disasters. Let's hope this warning may prevent a disaster to installer and ARC alike , not to mention the end of line subscriber who may well go out of business, whilst the lawyers and insurance companies argue over who is responsible …"

Thanks for your letter. I am not surprised! To prevent this the ARC should confirm in writing any account that is cancelled and the panel should show up a fault on the failure of communication. Perhaps even to the point of not letting the customer set the system until an Anti Code has been issued. That should prompt some action.

Bank paid back in full!
Another reader sent me a copy of this real letter sent to a US bank from an unsatisfied customer. It should strike a chord with all installers who have had trouble with their banks ... You might be tempted to do the same! "Dear Sir, I am writing to thank you for bouncing the check with which I endeavored to pay my plumber last month. By my calculations some three nanoseconds must have elapsed between his presenting the check, and the arrival in my account of the funds needed to honour it.

You are to be commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and also for debiting my account with $50 by way of a penalty.

I am, therefore, restructuring my affairs , taking as my model the procedures of your bank. Please be advised about the following changes: I have noticed that whereas I personally attend to your telephone calls and letters, when I try to contact you I am confronted by the impersonal, faceless entity which your bank has become.

From now on I, like you, choose only to deal with a flesh and blood person. My mortgage and loan repayments will, therefore, no longer be automatic, but will arrive at your bank, by check, addressed personally and confidentially to an employee of your branch, whom you must nominate. Please find attached an Application for Authorized Contact Status which I require your chosen employee to complete. I am sorry it runs to eight pages, but in order that I know as much about him or her as your bank knows about me, there is no alternative.

In due course I will issue your employee with a PIN number which he/she must quote in all dealings with me. I regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits but, again, I have modelled it on the number of button presses required to access my account balance on your phone bank service.

My Authorized Contact at your bank, the only person with whom I will have any dealings, may call me at any time and will be answered by an automated voice. Press buttons as follows: 1) To make an appointment to see me; 2) To query a missing payment; 3) To transfer the call to my living room ; 4) To transfer the call to my bedroom; 5) To transfer the call to my toilet; 6) To transfer the call to my mobile; 7) To leave a message on my computer (n.b. to leave a message, a password to access my computer is required); 8) To return to the main menu and listen carefully to options 1to 7.