Regrettably, I can visualise a number of installers using this as a reason to sell up and leave the industry, but for those who have a positive attitude to the future, I believe we have a wonderful opportunity to build quality-confirmed systems that will guarantee police response and bring much credit to all professional installers.
My first role with my customers is to introduce them to confirmed technology, and as a member of BSIA there is no easier way than to distribute their Users Guide to the ACPO Policy 2000. We are then targeting our less successful users of police calling systems (and fortunately we do not have many) and are advising them of the benefits of re-engineering their alarm system into a fully confirmed system. I use the word re-engineering as it is essential to take a totally new approach to confirmed alarm systems.
Frank discussion with client
Our alarm surveyor starts the process and has to be capable of assessing risks, yet none of us can be professional valuers. It is therefore most important that he establishes a full and frank discussion with his clients regarding what he is protecting, and when this is understood, he can then start to develop a new specification.
In areas of low risk, conventional cover will be acceptable, ie door contacts on outside doors, passive infra red/dual technology sensors covering the open spaces.
A different technique is called for in areas of higher risk. (I would define higher risk commercially as petrol forecourts, tobacconists, electrical goods shops, offices with more than one computer etc. Domestically they would be sitting rooms full of modern day gadgets, dining rooms with a concentration of porcelain and silver, main bedrooms where jewellry and cameras may well be stored as well as the executive garage/garden shed full of motorised gardening equipment.)
In these circumstances, it is essential to design the system in such a way as to ensure that an intruder cannot arrive in these areas of higher value without having tripped two independent detectors.
This can be achieved currently by using curtain detectors across windows and conventional detectors, providing they do not overlap the curtain detectors. Having got the detection right, don't forget the alarm control and signalling equipment. Ideally, it's best if you can't reach this equipment without having confirmed an alarm otherwise you are relying on the tamper switch to confirm the alarm. If the risks are high this latter approach would not be acceptable.
Stop competing with cowboys
Other solutions will be to use more door and window contacts as well as inertia devices. There is a feeling within the industry that the current rules for Confirmation, which are covered in NAPC14-2 or DD243 are inadequate to achieve the best practice in Confirmed Technology.
This is only partially true in that DD243 will still allow the job to be done badly, as it is not a heavily prescriptive document.
However, if a company is prepared to sell a total quality package then the rules available at the moment will enable the better companies to deliver the full benefits of a confirmed system. It is time to stop competing with the cowboys, who always bought the cheapest equipment possible. If we try to match them and get it wrong it will be so easy to lose police response at Level 1 and immediately expose your company to being sued for "not fit for the purpose intended" – and a County Court bill for up to £5,000 is a very simple and straightforward remedy for disgruntled customers.
My design brief
My design brief to my company when installing confirmed systems is:
i. Always use a top-of-the-range Galaxy panel which is fully programmable.
ii. Design the system in such a way that the customer cannot gain entry into the main part of the building until the confirmation is turned off. We do this by restricting the customer entry route to one door per set group and install in the final door a Chubb deadlock with microswitch. (Don't ask about the glass doors as this is the one case where it is essential that DD243 allows us to adopt setting & unsetting from outside the premises, which is, incident- ally, in line with the new Euro standard EN50131).
iii. The door then becomes the first group on the alarm system and can only be set from the outside when the Chubb lock is thrown. The rest of the alarm system within the protected area is then assigned to Group 2 and is set and unset using a keypad within the entrance lobby.
It’s time to stop competing with the cowboys, who always bought the cheapest equipment possible.
If we try to match them and get it wrong it will …expose your company to being sued
iv. On large systems where access control is used, we maglock the customer into the recreation area and programme the system not to release the doors into the corridors/factory areas until the whole alarm is turned off.
V. We also request that the customer provides a telephone line so that they can have support from our engineers and/or the alarm receiving centre. All detection circuits are wired back on their own cables, so that if they experience rodent damage the system is unlikely to confirm unless the cable is so badly damaged that it pulls the whole 12v supply down.
vii. All ancillary power supplies are smart units and the data line needs to be run in such a manner that it cannot be mechanically damaged or got at by rodents. In a number of installations we are now fully encasing the data lines in tube or trunking.
viii. We programme the Galaxy panel to give us such fault warnings as total mains fail after 15 minutes and high resistance through to the alarm receiving centre.
ix. We now insist that there are sufficient sounders within the building that no one can be trapped in without being aware that an alarm is being set. (Customers must have training in aborting an alarm when they have become locked in). We insist that our engineers do no work at a customer's premises until the alarm receiving centre has put the system on test.
ix. At the end of the day it's no good selling the best system without proper, adequate training for your customers, especially in how to deal with the premises when there has been an unconfirmed alarm. It is our recommendation to our customers that they do not attempt to deal with their alarm system until they have first made sure that the building is safe to approach and that they have warned the central station that they are about to enter the premises. It's no good confirming your own system as any mistake on entry under the above circumstances would generate a confirmed system. I personally believe that a mobile phone is essential and that if there is any perceived danger, a keyholder needs backing up by a colleague or possibly a registered guard.
*Specialised Security Systems is based at Carmichael House, The Green, Inkberrow Worcs WR7 4DZ
Installers have mixed views Other alarm installers opinions ranged from supportive to critical.
Anthony King, MD of Kings Security Systems, a family business with nine branches, has been one of the most vocal supporters of the policy.
"Installers are closing branches, rumours are running rife, connections to ARCs are dropping," he told the audience at one of our forums. "But this policy can bring new life back into the industry like never before.
"This policy is the most revolutionary thing since 999 diallers. Now we have something new to talk to people about. Now we can do a more professional job, as we've wanted to do." It was up to installers to communicate much more with the client than they have been used to "The days of the twenty minute survey have gone " he said.
Roger Byron who, with his son, Matt, runs Byron Security, of Evesham, Worcs, identified a lack of information and policy over confirmation technology from the insurance industry. On the the plus side the policy would "provide the tools for a predictable growth in our maintenance/service department and the upgrade for commercial work. I foresee a good year ahead. I would like to see the business develop considerably over the next ten years."
But not all installers have been so welcoming. One of the loudest critics of the police's implementation of the policy has been George Mullaly, Proprietor of Krypto Security, a South East London based NACOSS company with five branches. Mullaly is an influential voice in the industry, being Chairman of SITO's Education and Training Forum, Chairman of the South East Security Co-operative and Secretary of the 98% Club for installers. He said: "The implementation of the unagreed policy by the UK police constabularies/services has, without doubt, caused untold administration problems for all companies, well knowing that applications not submitted by the October 1 2001 would result in a heavy penalty upon the installer in updating the system to confirmed technology.
Source
Security Installer
Postscript
By Ashley Carmichael, MD of Specialised Security Systems
