According to figures collected by the various Police Forces, there are approximately one million policed activations each year. Of these there are only about forty thousand genuine calls. The rest are false alarms caused by one reason or another. This was obviously going to have to improve.
Excellent opportunity
When the last ACPO changes were issued in late 2000, we as a company thought that this was an excellent opportunity for us on many levels.
We felt that this was the start of a series of measures that the police would introduce, in order to reduce false alarms. We set up an ACPO Team, which met twice a week to review all the different force's policies to ensure that we complied with each.
The team was tasked with understanding all the implications of confirmation, and passing this knowledge to the rest of the company. We decided that our favoured choice of providing a confirmed signal was via sequential verification.
We were concerned that audio verification may not be as reliable, as our ARC stated that they would call the police if any sound was heard. Visual verification would have been a fantastic solution, but it is, sadly, too expensive an option for most customers.
Full time administrator
We recruited a full time administrator to analyse all our signalled systems, so that we could arrange appointments with our most 'at risk' customers … We did not want any customer to go down to Level 3 response.
We also recruited a full time surveyor whose sole responsibility was to visit our customers and advise them of the changes and to suggest areas in which their systems could be improved.
It was a great success for us both in terms of reducing our own false alarm rates and improved sales.
We have installed over 50 RedCARE GSMs and have installed a few DualCom units. Dual path signalling is brilliant, and we are fortunate to be able to choose between these excellent products.
However, just to complicate things further DD243-2002 is being implemented from July 1 2002. This is a very impressive document that has obviously been put together with great thought. Sadly, I am not sure that I understand it!
I am collecting information from various sources to ensure we have a good, effective solution to this new policy. The gist of it is that you cannot send a confirmed signal by accident, when unsetting the alarm system.
Insurers need to act
All we need now is for the insurers to implement the system of identifying the level of protection any particular site needs, so that alarm installers can quote like for like.
I believe that the industry needs to move forward. Training is the key to this improvement both in terms of engineering and especially of end users.
It is important that minimum standards are introduced. Engineers should understand basic electrical principles. I believe that the City & Guilds 1851 could provide this foundation. This coupled with Level 2 NVQs in Customer Care and Installation/Service should become compulsory for all engineers.
- Preventative Maintenance is an issue that needs to be addressed.
- How long does a customer think it takes for an engineer to service an alarm system?
- How much time can a company afford for an engineer to service an alarm?
- How long should an engineer really take to service an alarm system?
I believe that most Preventative Maintenance visits are like a vehicle MOT. 'We have tested it and we can confirm that it works fine today.' That doesn't ensure that it will work next month.
We are regularly turning down jobs, where we feel that the site conditions will cause too many false alarms
If an average service charge is £50 per visit, a company cannot afford for an engineer to be on site for more than an hour. Can an engineer really find all the potential faults on a system, as well as test the devices, sounders, signalling and complete the paperwork in less than an hour?
If we are to drive false alarms down, then more time needs to be taken during preventative maintenance visits. This is going to cost a customer more upfront, but will probably save him from having to pay for an engineer during the night.
End Users cause the majority of false alarms. Keyholders can be changed at the drop of a hat. There is no system in place that states that keyholders must be trained in both the operation of the alarm, and the various procedures that need to be followed.
This could be verified by a simple test. New keyholders would then have to be trained by the alarm company before they could go on to the list.
I am sure that some keyholders are unaware of the danger they are in when they attend site after an unconfirmed activation.
Have keyholders considered the risk?
Have they considered that, whilst they are driving to site, a confirmed signal may have been received, indicating that there are intruders on the site?
How does the ARC tell them that the situation has escalated?
Do they realise that if an intruder only trips one detector then there could be an intruder on site waiting for them to turn the alarm off?
Are they aware that attending an unconfirmed alarm means that they are on their own? This has wide reaching Health and Safety implications.
Would any company, if they did a proper Risk Assessment, allow one of their staff members to turn up, unaccompanied and unsupported to their site out of hours? If anything happened to that staff member, the company would be liable, and could expect serious litigation.
In conclusion, I believe our Industry is at a crossroads. I hope that the days of cheap and cheerful policed systems are numbered. If someone wants police response to their property, it is going to be expensive. We are still in a price driven market. However, we are regularly turning down jobs where we feel that the site conditions will cause too many false alarm problems, or that the customer's budget means that we would have to take on old and potentially unreliable equipment.
These companies change their vehicles every three years, their computers every two years and expect their alarm systems to last for fifteen years!
Inevitably the police will publish false alarm performance statistics. Customers will hopefully want to place their business with a company that has a good track record for keeping their systems at Level 1 response.
Quality companies will want to ensure that their systems are reliable, by using the correct equipment that has been installed and commissioned correctly. They will train the keyholders so that user error false alarms are minimised. They will be a credit to the industry.
Allcooper
Source
Security Installer
No comments yet