Up to now most alarm companies have run keyholding as a very informal "just leave it all to us" service and charged a very reasonable price because there has been very little in the line of overheads ("we had to send a man anyway") but now things are changing and keyholding is to become very regulated.
Fair price to everyone
I am not advocating ripping off the customer, but British Standard for keyholding has always been part of BS 7499 for manned guarding and precious few alarm companies even knew of its existence, hence the casual way it was offered to the customer, very much like giving your keys to the neighbour. Now with the changes in the ACPO policy and the introduction of confirmed alarms the keyholder is going to be pushed to the front line and, often as not, will be the first and probably the only response to an alarm. Therefore the likelihood of the first response keyholder coming into contact with the undesirables who activated the system will increase out of all proportion. This puts a whole new light on the keyholding service and alarm companies may not wish to have their engineers put at risk.
Perhaps it is significant that the standard for keyholding has now been taken out of BS 7499 and been made into a standard in its own right (BS 7984: 2001), just at the same time as the ACPO policy and confirmed alarms come into being. One thing is certain; when the penny drops with the end user of alarm systems there will be a rush to let someone else go in first after activation. Neither the business owner nor the alarm company will want to risk their staff in a confrontation with thieves. The question to ask is are they trained to look after themselves and are they insured against an attack.
According to my reckoning, we will soon be facing a situation where the business owner will want someone else to respond. The insurance company will be demanding that a trained operator from a recognised and inspected company does the first response because the police will probably not be attending until the second confirmation call and the alarm company will want to re-set the system via the up/down-load without attending at all.
Here is now an opportunity to formalise the service and I can well see a new breed of response operatives that are a cross between the manned guard and the alarm engineer, perhaps we should have a quick look at the new standard and see what we need. Needless to say the integrity of the operator is paramount, so BS 7984 (clause 4) calls up BS 7858 (vetting) and asks that all unspent convictions be disclosed. A company must now submit (Clause 4: 2) two years accounts for auditing (or proof of funding and a suitable business plan). NACOSS and the NSI guarding division ISI have been doing this for years but this is a new aspect for the rest of the installing industry. Efficacy insurance will need to be expanded to include contractual efficacy (failure to turn up) as well as the usual.
Another new one for the installer is the requirement to provide the customer with written information about the company they are buying their service from. Besides the name, address and telephone number of the company, you are now asked to include the following info:
- Names of company principals and contact names,
- Details of Trade Association membership.
- Claims of compliance with British Standards.
- Details of UKAS certification.
- Date and number of incorporated registration.
- Details of any parent company.
- Details of uniform and ID insignia.
- Details of personal communicators.
And, if asked for:
- Response officer's terms and conditions.
- Type and extent of insurance cover.
- References for current or previous work.
- An organisation chart of the company.
- Numbers of employees and their qualifications.
Perhaps we are missing out on something here, perhaps we should have been providing similar information to the customer about our alarm companies as a means of selling more systems by giving the potential customer more confidence in us?
Sufficient staff is an obvious requirement but now they must submit a medical history (including the requirement for colour vision and a good sense of smell), and all operators are be subject to a disciplinary code.
The provision of a uniform and sign written vehicles is also written into the new standard (clause 5:6:2) although there are provisions for a company to be tasteful and discrete in the way they kit out and transport their operators.
Clause 5:6:3 requires that all operators are trained in the appropriate use of equipment, I wonder if that includes using the standard issue 2ft long sturdy metal torch as a means to stun the intruder until the police arrive?
Regular training essential
All operators must have a means of communication with base, probably a two-way radio. All operators also have to be suitably trained and the minimum is two days in a classroom plus "on the job" training with regular assessments for the first tree months. After that, training records are to be kept. Once again perhaps we should be doing this anyway on the intruder side. I know NACOSS have been insisting on training records for years as part of the ISO 9000 scheme, but the rest of the industry has a tendency to ignore training in any shape or form let alone keep records, and I often despair at the attempts at alarm installation that I have seen over the years from companies that were hoping to get recognition from the various inspectorates. I would dearly love to see training and qualification built into the British Standards for installation.
There are now laid down guidelines for the "secure facility" for keeping keys and records of keys... no more throwing them in the company safe with the petty cash and the second set of VAT books.
The list could go on and on but it is a new standard and the dust has not yet settled on an industry interpretation of the finer points. The main point to remember is that as a British Standard it can now be inspected against and inspection is already being carried out by the ISI.
With the current changes within the industry centred round the new Security Industry Authority, licensing, confirmation and UKAS accreditation and the need for the personnel who respond to these systems to be well trained in the use of them, there will be a lot of scope for alarm companies to take first response and keyholding to a new and very professional level – and make a lot of money.
The likelihood of the keyholder coming into contact with undesirables will increase ... alarm companies may not wish to have their engineers put at risk
A cinch with a finch? You must be yoking!
Have you ever been dumped on from a great height? Well, I have ... or more to the point, we have (my wife and I) with the arrival at our house of four finches in a cage.
It all started when my wife's nephew and his wife decided to treat themselves to a wedding anniversary present, (Their marriage is still at that stage where they are running out of the bedroom shouting "eureka"). They decided upon a pair of love birds.
There followed a visit to the pet shop where the shop owner advised them against love birds because they are difficult to keep. So, after much advice and discussion, they decided upon the much easier to keep Zebra finches, and four were purchased. Bearing in mind the time they have been married and the fact that they are "dinky's" (Double income - no kids yet), money was not an issue so only the best was good enough and a nice large cage, birdbath, cuttle fish, swing, two nesting boxes and about a hundredweight of seed, grit and sand sheets were included.
Finches have a very distinct song – like a set of old fashioned bulb hooters played by a sea lion, then played back at double speed.
This high-pitched honking quartet were bundled into the back of the little Fiat, carted home and established in pride of place in the dining room. After two days, much fuss and palaver and a lot of cooing over the birds, her ladyship had an attack of hay fever, which steadfastly refused to go away. The doctor was consulted and the diagnosis was that she was allergic to birds. It was about this time that my wife paid a visit and you can guess the rest – we are now the proud owners of four finches.
Now, I am convinced that somebody must have seen us coming. The birds turned out (very conveniently) to be two boys and two girls and they treated us to a display of scrapping, honking, pairing off, nest building and "doing what comes naturally". Then an egg was laid in one of the nest boxes and my wife and daughters instantly assumed the roles of a highly trained team of midwives. It was about this time that I surrendered to the whole deal and retired to the other room with a large bottle and my collection of Charlie Dimmock videos.
In the maternity ward there was much speculation about how many chicks would be hatched, and many extras and comforts were provided for the expectant mum – like a supply of premium nesting material and a variety of treats to spice up their diet – and the ungrateful little sods rewarded us by all four of them squeezing into the one nesting box and cracking the egg, which was promptly eaten, shell and all.
Since then another egg has appeared and I have been ordered to "shell out" for a new, larger, super cage to house the expected rush of new arrivals, (do you know how much these cages cost? The one they are looking at is priced at £119.99p). My comment that there would soon be enough to fill a small pie dish did not go down at all well.
Soon an ad will go in the local press: "Good homes wanted for feisty finches", and I'll throw in the cage for good measure. But if you are interested in keeping birds remember the old telly advert – "Starting's a cinch with a finch".
Source
Security Installer
Postscript
Mike Lynskey is a former proprietor and independent inspector of alarm systems. He is now a network manager with the NSI. The personal views expressed should not be taken as the opinions of the NSI. E-mail Mike on mike.lynskey@virgin.net
No comments yet