Have we forgotten the real purpose of an intruder alarm system?

WHAT IS THE USE OF SOMETHING THAT doesn't meet its desired objective? If we ignore the profit motive and ask what is best for the customer and best for crime reduction and then consider the direction in which we as an industry are heading, it would seem that we have lost the plot. The idea that 'one solution' fits all is ludicrous.

Take a look at it from the point of view of those outside the industry – our customers. What are they looking for? First and foremost they want a good deterrent. Next they want to minimise any losses and damage. They want any intruder to clear off and leave them and their property alone. If a burglary can be successfully carried out within five minutes, how can a monitored alarm system (with or without police response) realistically help them achieve this? It can alert them to the fact that their premises might now be insecure but it contributes little else.

The best chance of minimising further damage and theft is for an alarm to sound.

If we want to improve relationships between the industry and the police, we should recognise that the more systems that are installed with police response, the worse the situation will become. Accordingly, we should stop using the idea of ‘instant police response’ to sell alarm systems for small domestic dwellings and business premises for which they are not appropriate as they do not improve the security of the premises and inundate the police with false alarms.

A call from an ARC simply means that the alarm has activated. Key holders invariably arrive before the police, and a key holder with knowledge of the premises arriving on site is best placed to assess if there are genuine signs of a break in. With a key holders-only system, a mobile phone could be used to call police when appropriate (without entering the premises) and a faster response could be expected. As far as the police would be concerned, the result would be zero false alarms.

The key holder can also ensure the premises are secure or remain onsite until they are. The police would have more time to deal with alarm activations from premises at high risk and where they have a more realistic chance of success. Insurance companies might consider taking a more realistic approach with the emphasis on cutting losses and reducing claims.

It is a proven fact that an alarm sounding usually causes an intruder to flee. Systems with a ten minute bell delay (proven by experience in clubs) allow burglars to steal and cause more damage before the alarm sounds.

The exception to this is where very strong physical security is encountered after the alarm has activated or where, quite clearly, a considerable amount of time would be required for the robbery to be successful, thus allowing time for the police to attend.

The criteria for any alarm to have police response should be based on common sense and reserved for appropriate premises and risks where additional costs incurred in specifically avoiding false alarms are more easily justified.

We could then expect a vast improvement in false alarm statistics, thus reducing the threat of an eventual complete blanket withdrawal of response.

However, false alarms from any type of system diminish the effectiveness by crying wolf and we should be doing more to prevent them. Noise nuisance could provide the key to improving standards at the end of the market which currently enjoys no regulation.

The maximum ring time allowable in populated areas could be cut from twenty to ten minutes, thus reducing the problem by fifty per cent. If it hasn't had the desired effect in ten minutes it might as well give up.

Users should be forced to be more responsible. If they have an alarm installed on the cheap or it is DIY or has not been maintained, they should face the consequences of noise nuisance enforcement.

A current maintenance contract should be seen as taking reasonable precautions and where the company has been at fault or has installed inappropriate equipment they should face the consequences. Perhaps then we would see a more positive approach to reducing false alarms with an end to cheap and nasty equipment.

There would also be an incentive to use control panels with a text display and a proper event log, even on the smallest of systems. We would have to work with our customers to ensure they are properly instructed on the use of the system and the pitfalls of ignoring proper advice. Then they would have an incentive to have the system properly maintained.

What better way is there to rid the industry of the cowboy element that is thriving on the lack of control and regulation, (which involves additional expense for those of us who take the compliance route)?

We must now carry out a risk assessment when specifying an alarm system. My assessment is that if you take away outside sounders (as suggested from some quarters) in most cases the alarm will be ineffective.

Surely the answer lies in proper control and enforcement? Do you ban car horns because some people misuse them? The idea of ‘signage' as a deterrent must have come from a sign maker. Just look at the number of people selling and fitting bogus CCTV signs.

Could, for example specifying a system for any premises without the inclusion of an outside sounder result in a claim for wrongful advice in the event of a subsequent successful break in? What if we have implied 'instant police response' in our sales literature knowing that the average response time is far from instant?

If ignorance is no excuse what about the electrician who installs a very basic alarm on the cheap in a small business premises without considering or caring about the insurance implications and leaves the customer with a non-compliant useless system?

The customer could have been acting in good faith and genuinely not have understood the requirements. Anyone making a charge to install an alarm system should be expected to know what they are doing and, accordingly, be open to a charge of giving wrongful advice.

As an industry we should be demonstrating our ingenuity in system design and take the lead in providing effective alarm systems that defeat intruders.

We should not hide behind providing minimal, often ineffective, systems with the promise of police response as the selling point with the sole aim of ensuring future revenue from maintenance contracts … which brings me back to wrongful advice.