Unfortunately for the customer the choice of installer preferred by the insurance company was often the larger company with higher overheads, top heavy on office staff and the old BS5750 hung round its neck like a millstone. In other words, a very different choice to their own.
In all fairness to the insurance companies, all they were trying to do was to ensure that they only got good reliable systems with the right coverage levels. The problem was that the end user got clobbered with the bill, and some of those bills could be pretty heavy.
It didn't take end users long to realise that once they were established with a policy and a suitable system the insurer tended to sit back and be happy to collect his premiums. The answer was simple ... as soon as the contract was up (and quite often long before) they could kick the "approved" alarm company into touch and get a much cheaper local company to look after the system.
Not such a good idea
This might sound like a good idea – until there is a break-in followed by a few enquiries from the insurance company, like "When was the system last serviced and could we have a copy of the invoice?" Following the reply (complete with a copy of the new installer's invoice) there would probably be a letter asking why they have changed their alarm company without informing the insurance company, and is the new company an "approved" company?
Let's face it, even if the change of installer was done with the very best and the most innocent of intentions it still amounts to an attempt to defraud the insurance company or a breach of contract. The customer may possibly be able to mitigate by pleading ignorance but the alarm company that took over the contract has no such chance.
Honest is best policy
When the man with the white wig stands up in court he will point out that, as a professional installer, you should have known better and it was your duty to have informed the customer that this may happen. By now you will have a pretty good idea what the turkey feels like on Christmas morning.
My advice, as always, is to fight tooth and nail to get the job but make sure you play the game, and if that means telling the customer what the worst possible scenario is, so be it. And don't forget to cover your back by putting something in writing.
Everything was fine until the 12-month guarantee ran out and a service contract had to be paid for. I told him over the phone that it was a police requirement that he have his system serviced every six months but he wouldn’t listen
I had a classic episode some years ago when I was installing. I was asked to quote for an installation in a factory. The insurance company as usual required a NACOSS company but I persuaded the customer to fight the case in my favour because I put in a cheaper quote. I also put in a more comprehensive specification and I was recognised by the FSC (as the SSAIB was known then) and the police (by virtue of the fact that I was on the Police List at the time).
After a great deal of argument the customer won the day and I got the job, which included a police response. Everything was fine until the 12-month guarantee ran out and a service contract had to be paid for. I told him over the phone that it was a police requirement that he have his system serviced every six months but he wouldn't listen. I had no choice, the police response was terminated and a letter was sent telling him that he should inform his insurance company. I have still got a copy of that letter on file.
Paying for no cover?
The other day I was returning home by train past the rear of the factory and I looked, out of interest, to see who had now taken over the installation. You can imagine my surprise when I saw my old bellbox still on the building. A check with the local police confirmed that the system was still off response after eight years.
Here is a case of being tight-fisted to the point of stupidity. The next question is has he been paying out for insurance cover he has not got over all those years? If so,- what kind of economy is that?
The main question that comes to mind is how many more systems are there out there that are not being serviced – contrary to police and insurance requirements – because the customer will not take advice?
I believe that there is a simple way to resolve this matter. Syd Robbins of Select Business Forms put the idea to me some time ago. Syd suggested an "inspectorate service certificate".
Looking at the situation I have to agree with him. After the installation of an alarm system, the inspectorates, the police and the insurance companies all require the issue of a "Certificate of Conformity".
Proof of service
The downside of the Service Certificate idea is that there would be little or nothing the inspectorates could do to enforce the issue of them. We cannot force the customer ... The police and insurance companies, on the other hand, are in a perfect positio
After the first year, if the customer decides that he will not pay for service then we could conclude that the system no longer conforms to BS and that the Certificate of Conformity is no longer valid.
Perhaps the first thing we should do is to put an expiry date on the Certificate of Conformity. The validity of the Certificate of Conformity would then be dependent upon the issue of a "Service Certificate" at the usual intervals.
The real beauty of this idea is that the police could ask for a copy of the Service Certificate each year (or six months) before allowing police response to continue. It would also get rid of a lot of unused URN numbers that are currently clogging up the police computers.
The insurance companies could insist on seeing a Service Certificate to ensure that the customer is fulfilling his part of the agreement and the installer would have an even stronger case for selling a service or maintenance agreement to the owners of bells only systems.
Even the customer would benefit by having this "proof of service" to ensure that the installer's efficacy (failure to operate) cover still applies to their system.
Proof of service
There is also another side effect of the Service Certificate. If an insurance company gives cover to property where a system was previously installed, even if the original system was not installed to standard and certificated, then at least they could see that a system was being serviced in accordance to their requirements.
The downside of the Service Certificate idea is that there would be little or nothing the inspectorates could do to enforce the issue of these certificates. We cannot force the customer to take out maintenance. The police and insurance companies, on the other hand, are in a perfect position to demand them or withdraw their cover for the property.
There has been talk for some time of the police charging a nominal fee for the administration of the URNs. I think the idea is not at all unreasonable.
Source
Security Installer
