Others say that ACPO stands for 'A Completely Perfect Opportunity' because they look at the commercial opportunity that has been presented to them by ACPO via the scapegoat that ACPO has become, as perceived by the consumer.
There are, indeed, major opportunities for installation companies who can grasp what is required for the installation of confirmed technology from the part-completed codes of practice that affect not only new systems but also the upgrading of old systems, and for those wishing to be reinstated to police response.
If the installation company is having difficulty understanding the precise requirements for, say, overlapping detectors or exit entry requirements etc, you can appreciate how little they understand about how their ARC is going to implement the requirements having received the alarm activation.
Interestingly there was little input to the proposed changes to the draft for development (DD243) by the ARCs, who, at the end of the day, are the organisations which link with the police forces and make the reduction in false alarms that are passed to the police service a reality.
Separate databases needed
Many ARCs are coming to terms with having to completely recreate alarm handling databases for the new rules whilst leaving the old alarm handling databases to cater for the old rules. This has a significant cost implication for the adaptation of software, rewriting of operational manuals for ARC customers (installers) and staff. Additionally, there is the cost of delivering training to ARC operators, administrators and installers who utilise remote access software on the new rules.
The ARCs have to cope with the transition period of systems to be connected under the old rules (systems specified and URNs obtained before October 2001) and those which qualify under the new rules. A system having lost police response is dependent on the installer telling the ARC to withdraw police notification as, indeed, it is necessary for the installer to inform the ARC of reinstatement under the new rules because the databases need to be amended to reflect the new practices. It also extends to an installer who wishes to transfer his connections from one ARC to another ARC. After October 2001 the installer will have to identify which of the systems being transferred meet the new rules and which the old.
All-round impact
The ACPO policy has not only had an impact on the installer and the ARC but also the manufacturer of panels and signalling equipment. For example, the insurance requirement for a monitored line signalling path has now been negated by the new ACPO policy. Communication failures, when the premises are set or unset, may not be dispatched to the police for new systems installed after October 2001.
However, a communication failure preceded by an unconfirmed alarm activation within a given time frame can be considered to be a confirmed alarm and dispatched to the police … But who breaks into premises and then cuts the line?
Therefore, the old monitored line signalling system now has to be upgraded for new installations to dual signalling technology. In the event of a line cut prior to entering the premises, the unconfirmed alarm will be received by the ARC via the other signalling path and can be considered to be a confirmed alarm (due to the line cut) and dispatched to the police accordingly. Likewise the combination of a line cut followed by a radio path failure is accepted as being a con-firmed alarm and may be dispatched to the police.
Not as straightforward
Other scenarios for extended format transmissions such as Point ID include differing zones which, in their singularity, are considered unconfirmed but, when a multitude of zones signal to the ARC within a given time frame, are considered as confirmed.
So, as you can see, it is not as straightforward as a simple code 3 unconfirmed alarm followed by a code 7 confirmed alarm within a given time frame.
It can be seen the ARCs have had to consider every permutation and ensure that the alarm handling software caters for each scenario and then ensure that their operators fully understand the implications of the ACPO policy and the new dispatch rules. A further complication to installers and ARCs, whilst coming to terms with the new policy, is that police forces throughout the UK have introduced Premium Rate Lines for the ARCs to use when dispatching alarms to their respective forces.
These rates range from 50 pence to £1.50 pence per minute. These costs have to be calculated and passed onto the installer by the ARC. Ultimately the consumer has to foot the cost of this stealth tax for a police service that they already contribute towards through council taxes.
Men in grey suits
A lot to grasp, but for those installers and ARCs who are at the forefront there are great opportunities. A technical understanding of the issues will convince the consumer to buy your system rather than a competitors … even if it costs more to meet ACPO's requirements.
As for those men in grey suits who sit on the various committees trying to make a name for themselves, they have a lot to answer for. Invariable they have no comprehension of what an alarm is, how it is installed or monitored … but they can count. They can count the amount of false alarms the police attend each year. However, it's a shame they can't use percentages because, if they could, they would clearly see that the security industry has delivered on the old ACPO policy with a national average of 0.98 false alarms per system per year, and still dropping. Quite an achievement.
Interestingly, ACPO statistics also show that genuine alarms are up and arrest rates are down.
Who needs to deliver for whom?
Source
Security Installer
Postscript
By Steve Kimber, MD of Southern Monitoring Services
