sixwheeledbeast

Ply backing would only resolve it temporarily won't take too long to warp and delaminate. With whoever fitted it having the tampers parallel hopefully everything else is ok and at least one of the boxes is in a low power mode.

Welcome to the world of alarm monkey misfits I am sure you'll be right at home. Have you tried switching it off and on again?

If it's wired correctly then you can meter the tamper return. If they are in parallel in the panel this wouldn't help find the fault tho, would have to test up there which isn't ideal. You would normally do all bell tests from the panel on a service, getting up and disturbing the bell every year is only asking for trouble. 20-30 minutes sounds average for a smallish domestic. Plenty other tests would be done at the control panel as well as the other things you mention. To be fair while I'd suspect the tamper on the bell it could be anything, bell, cabling, or panel would need much further diagnosis with a meter.

Sounds like typical Pyronix tampers, plastic flexing. Is this a DIY system? When was it last serviced? I can only suggest make sure the tamper switch is adjusted and closing firmly on both boxes. It's also possible the tamper loop hasn't been wired correctly between the bells so the panel isn't triggering on tamper correctly. Different manufacturers have there own way to wire multiple bell tampers so you may likely need to swap both and read the instructions on multiple tampers carefully. You can't just parallel all the connections if you want it to work correctly.

I don't ever recall seeing vertical two lines like that on the display for Scantronics. You may get a compatible 9800 or 9x5x somewhere but your just replacing a really old obsolete panel with a less old obsolete panel. There's no guarantees the keypad isn't duff or become duff due to a fault with the current panel. There's a lot more to a working system than the lights flashing on the PIR's too. At least the external sounder would appear to working correctly from what you have said. I know you probably want to DIY but have a think about how much time, trail and error, money and effort you want to put into it first. We have seen many a DIYer spend months asking questions trying to get something near functional.

Ding.

If it is Websafe at fault then it could happen with any service.

Never had this issue but I would imagine there is some allow list somewhere that you can add *.texe.com to if you didn't want to disable their Websafe. Although ISP provided routers are generally junk so maybe not.

Retired and selling up....?

To try and give you some idea it's not specifically "a VPN" that would cause an issue. VPN is a bit of a sales buzzword at the moment and used for all sorts of services and marketing rubbish. In a simple form they are just a way of tunnelling your traffic via an "encrypted pipe" to another location anywhere on the internet, you can have private ones to link remote sites as if they are on the same network for example. "VPN services" you see advertised are generally sold to pipe as many connections as possible so there connections look like they are in another country this would be to access geolocation blocked media. You wouldn't expect to get all services through these due to NAT and the way the traffic is routed, certainly hosting services would be an issue like with CGNAT. To try put it simply you need to know where this "pipe" starts (I am assuming the router in this case?) and not route the CCTV via it if possible.

Possibly. Depends how the network is setup and the provider. Do all connections definitely go via the VPN? If he's been able to set his network up to route most traffic via a VPN, I would expect he would be capable of setting the cameras to not use it?

Never mind graded, I wouldn't recommend it at all! These thresholds are there to reduce false alarms not to abuse with more devices. Also if that theory is correct you will have to use strictly 4 devices, as 1 or 2 devices certainly wouldn't go Active when required. Add to that' no tamper or fault detection on anything beyond the first device and it's not an option that's fit for purpose.

I am the opposite, I prefer the flexibility of speakers via panel programming.

Apart from the electrical connections being different they have slightly different applications. A speaker will mimic all the noises the panel makes, if you have a good panel you can program volumes etc. Sounder is just a loud noise typically only in alarm conditions but would depend on output programming.

Ofcom put BTGroup in that position. The network had to become a separate company as part of some review done to make it fair for telcos. Most of the public seem to think "BT" still look after the network and rant at them when there is an issue, so it's more a clarification to that.

I still don't see how you can slag BT off out of context. This thread is about a product they probably don't even remember they put there name on as a rebranded product. If we are talking about as a teleco company when we say "systems" then they don't have anything to do with the network any more it's all Openreach now, that wasn't their doing. With domestic services like this it often comes down to cost, it's so easy to compare prices now and they pretty much provide all the same thing. Only need to speak to them if you have an issue and from what I gather BT are fairly decent on the customer services front when it comes to complaints (OFCOM).

Is this related to the topic at all? The issue seemed to be unrelated to the BT VP1000 thing. Also it's some DIY "home monitor" kit (well it's an early rebranded Powermax from what I can tell) so I don't see what "system" support you would expect.

If there is no double pole type connections and no option to wire them with others then I don't see how it's possible without doing stuff to the PCB. Not fitted the new impaqs but the old version had two versions the more expensive had more terminals and latch line options.

use 0.25W resistors?

It's really not ideal to have multiple devices on one zone you have no idea which has triggered. Do you have a latch line or some way to identify the triggered device? If required the maximum EOL devices supported on one zone is 3 and you would wire only shunt resistors (4k7) in intermediate devices and usual shunt and EOL in the last. With devices that have built in resistors not all of them support this type of unusual multi device setup either so you'd have to work around this.

The panel is completely obsolete so there is no manufacturers you could contact. Even so they are generally installer only technical support numbers for security equipment.

Programming is one aspect we do not provide installation manual or defaulting information here as per our guidelines. You also need to test all the components including the sensors work, replace the standby batteries, get up and reconnect then test the external sounder if required. Test the voltages and the battery is charging etc, yes you could just power it up and cross your fingers, but it is a security system after all. For peace of mind you'd want it right IMO. If you do try to power it up be aware you may trigger the external sounder and also there will be mains voltages present in there too.

Sounds like the best option is to contact a few local installers and see what they say. It's most likely that the system has been decommissioned (powered down) which was sensible if they didn't use it. I would probably recommend to replace the controls and the external sounder myself in this situation but it's possible the system may work if recommissioned. The main issue with takeovers like this is you have no idea of the condition of the system. If they had false alarms, if was decommissioned for a reason, it maybe be the keypad is faulty or fuses are blown it hard to say from a photo.

I would assume the system is monitored, if so you should contact your installer to see what they can do.

Lid open on something?