Police Response

[IPAlarms]

Just to note - I would be happy to discuss my thoughts on this, but not on the public side

J - with all due respect, the guys in trade fully understand the URN system, and for many, its existence ensures the continuity of their business.

I have an interest in the public perception of what rights they have with regard to the security of their home and family. I do not see a problem discussing this on the public side of the forum. If any of the mods disagree with me, then I'm sure they will move or close the thread accordingly.

[james.wilson]

The URN system is in place as a method of regulating the industry and therefore reducing false alarms. I don't think it is in jeopardy at this time.

Agreed the point of the URN system is control and monitor the number of false alarms on a site so that response can be withdrawn.

In most cases burglaries in commercial buildings are done whilst there is nobody on site and there is no risk to life.

Agreed, but in intruder alarm is to detect intruders, protecting life is best served IMO by a PA system.

In domestic premises, burglaries often take place whilst people are actually still in their home, and in today's society - anything can happen.

Id say sometimes... not often but again a PA would illicit a faster response IMO

In light of the above answers to the two scenarios, it seems like one can receive a police response to a domestic property when there is a "verified" confirmation that an event is taking place. That begs the question - why bother having URN's for domestic premises ?

How do you control the person always saying its genuine when it isnt? Or are you proposing that everyone that has a visual confirmed alarm should recieve a police response regardless of how many times it false alarms? How does the Arc tell the householder from a burglar? etc etc

If said monitoring station has video verification of an event, then I guess there is nothing to stop them. Should there be ?

I beleive so, if only to stop abuse.

If the person in scenario 2 handles all of his video verification himself - does he have a right to phone 999 - or the local police ?

Good question id say he does have the right to call the police.... what the response would be is what this debate is about and according to current acpo policy it shouldnt get a response as the site has no urn.

What if he goes off to Spain for a couple of weeks - is it not reasonable that the non-approved monitoring centre should be able to take care of things on his behalf ?

Yes i think it is reasonable, but i personally wouldnt pay an arc to pass call the police that the police shouldnt respond to but again its against current acpo policy.

BTW this system would be well loocked afetr and serviced and reliable and all cameras would work, and would all areas that have detectors have cameras?

Seems this would only work for self installs?

[billythebellbox]

In light of the above answers to the two scenarios, it seems like one can receive a police response to a domestic property when there is a "verified" confirmation that an event is taking place. That begs the question - why bother having URN's for domestic premises ?

i) Requirement of the insurer on cetian policys

ii) confirm by second intruder

iii) Urn for PA handy when attacked in your own home (car key being a fav @ the mo )

maybe I'am reading you wrong but I'am seeing an arguement in favour of extending scope & getting cctv urn's?

[IPAlarms]

How do you control the person always saying its genuine when it isnt? Or are you proposing that everyone that has a visual confirmed alarm should recieve a police response regardless of how many times it false alarms?

How can the police refuse to respond to a visually confirmed burglary - regardless of whether or not there is a URN in place or indeed if the member of the public has had 10 similar events in the last few months ?

Good question id say he does have the right to call the police.... what the response would be is what this debate is about and according to current acpo policy it shouldnt get a response as the site has no urn.

Exactly - the official stance is NO RESPONSE. In reality - I believe they would respond.

BTW this system would be well loocked afetr and serviced and reliable and all cameras would work, and would all areas that have detectors have cameras?

It doesn't matter. A

[IPAlarms]

i) Requirement of the insurer on cetian policys

Agreed. If the homeowner wants insurance to a certain level then he has to play by the rules.

ii) confirm by second intruder

Surely no better than the visual verification from the lady next door ?

iii) Urn for PA handy when attacked in your own home (car key being a fav @ the mo )

Agreed.

maybe I'am reading you wrong but I'am seeing an arguement in favour of extending scope & getting cctv urn's?

That is not what I am aiming at - although it probably is a good idea.

I would like to see a relaxation of the "official" rules for providing a police response on domestic premises where there is visual confirmation of an intrusion. It already seems to be in place now, so why not make it official ?

[magpye]

Id say sometimes... not often but again a PA would illicit a faster response IMO

....... but what about the times a phone call from the police to ask 'do you know you've pushed your Panic Alarm?

Everything ok?'

I know of examples of this to both commercial and domestic premises.

Whoops, I forgot one, what about the 'Parking Attendant' that was sent into a jewellers following a PA activation?

[james.wilson]

LOL yes magpye intervention hasnt really been thought through has it

[Guest anguscanplay]

another great product with no market ?

the police response will be the same for a " diy confirmation...." as it is for any dialled call - next available officer will attend, it might not be a policeman and it might not be the same day

if your lucky you`ll get 18 months out of it before the police clamp down and say no response at all unless the witness is within eyeball range.

Anyone else actually called the police to report a burglery in progress - and what happened ?

[james.wilson]

I agree with Anguscanplay, if you dont have a URN there is no priorty at all. Most alarms are confirmed these days, what should the police priortise, blokey on the bech watching something on his mobile, or the confirmed, URN'ed system?

[Joe Harris]

another great product with no market ?

the police response will be the same for a " diy confirmation...." as it is for any dialled call - next available officer will attend, it might not be a policeman and it might not be the same day

if your lucky you`ll get 18 months out of it before the police clamp down and say no response at all unless the witness is within eyeball range.

Anyone else actually called the police to report a burglery in progress - and what happened ?

There have been several well publicised examples of police attending to sites after being alerted by a member of the public on his hols with remote cctv monitoring on their laptop (Look at doktorjons website and check the cctv news section for examples of this).

I can understand the frustration of having 'non-compliant' monitoring and being unable to pass activations to the police even where a genuine incident is seen but I can also (Note - I say this in an unbiased way distancing myself form an official stance) appreciate that there is no difference between what you are attempting and what a member of the public may do themselves, but I DO understand why they have the controls.

The problem is the age old one - where do they draw the line? They have had to commit to a set procedure in order to provide resonse, if they allowed one instance of a non-compliant centre passing alarms (even where the false alarm rate was 0%) then they would have to allow others. It really starts to get muddy then in that area - so they decided to stick to the current set up.

In future, I strongly beleive that the increasing technology and effectiveness of the systems and detectors used as well as the software used at ARCs will drastically reduce false activations if used effectively. This may well then result eventually in a looser approach from the police to remote activation based response.

I don't mean to alarm those who are compliant into thinking that they may burn their own fingers by being 'too good' but it is a real possibility and I hope it does come to pass - we strive daily to make sure that false alarms are reduced as much as possible whilst still providing response in any situation which 'could' be genuine. This may sound like a contradiction but in reality it is not, it is simply the daily battle we face and will continue to address until we get to 0%.

'J