alterEGO Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 If you haven't heard of what this lot and the spin off companies have been doing for many years you must have been living under a rock. I often think these programmes are one sided, but in this case it was clear cut and they are very well known for this type of thing. Anyone who defends or tries to justify it is just as bad as them and in my book shouldn't be trading. There is a HUGE difference in pointing out risks and playing on peoples fear. If you have to stoop to those levels to gain business you are among the lowest of the low IMO.
james.wilson Posted June 5, 2010 Author Posted June 5, 2010 i cant see how any of us can sell a system that prevents anything. i have always thought that all we can do is detect and report. securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount.
alterEGO Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 Whilst not as bad as Direct Response, here's an example of yet another, old, single pensioner being sold a system - SSAIB this time. And no, they didn't even fit all the kit stated AND the two rooms in the bungalow most likely to get turned over have NO protection/detection. Neither does he get Security Guard (as stated). As for the terms and conditions, well... They are not SSAIB though are they? They just did SIA via SSAIB. This is their youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/B0SS955 Personaly i have no issue with what a company charges if the sales pitch was fair and the client knows the costs before hand, that is between the client and the company. However taking advantage of vulnerable people is another matter.
Cubit Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 They are not SSAIB though are they? They just did SIA via SSAIB. This is their youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/B0SS955 Personaly i have no issue with what a company charges if the sales pitch was fair and the client knows the costs before hand, that is between the client and the company. However taking advantage of vulnerable people is another matter. Splitting hairs somewhat. Like i say, what the customer got, and gets, is not as quoted. Also, the T&Cs
alterEGO Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 Splitting hairs somewhat. Like i say, what the customer got, and gets, is not as quoted. Also, the T&Cs I'm not commenting on the install as i'm sure you are correct, you have i guess seen the site. I don't think its splitting hairs regarding SSAIB, there is a big difference in being SSAIB Approved for intruder and just choosing SSAIB as an agent to get SIA. They hold no SSAIB certification, just SIA.
arfur mo Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 arf. i could of gone with the poor training or a rogue salesman if the company hadnt made a statement that neither they or mr hook had done nothing wrong. I wonder if they interupted so early in the second house because they wernt ready and feared they had been rumbled. I also think the boss handles it about as well as he could. But if it was a one off why the trading std's etc findings previously? James ps IAS are you saying that you dont think there was much wrong then in the first house? taking a short break from DIY. putting on my shop stewards hat (yes i served as one for 3 years on Chubbs in days of the EETPU), putting aside my own anger, i'm stripping away the company for a moment definately not condoning anything but keeping my council. i don't think Mr Hook has ever installed a system in his life, possibly what he is akin to 'Blakey' from 'On the Buses'. his bumbling 1/2 cocked sales pitch was very amateur and smacked of his misunderstanding of what really happens. his pitch was firmly based on fear, while his solution was over rating his products ability. i'd guess and if learned from a script, his training should be looked at and the Boss said it would be in the 1st interview. now the company is denying any wrong doing, ok, they have an absolute right to say that even if we absolutely don't believe them. Mr Hook also has his rights, one being to receive any disipline in total privacy, so what else can the company say without denying that right? even murderers are allowed a lawyer. Mr Hook did not sign on expecting to be exposed so publicly for any mistakes he makes - did he? without evidence the he is a natural rouge, some benifit of doubt is allowed for his ignorance, however distasteful the actions. Arfur (just another perspective) If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!
Guest RJBsec Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 Problem is arf you're assuming that the sales guy was working on his own initiative and the 'mistakes' were his alone but 'prior' shows it's a trait of the company. Remember Watchdog 'indicted' Direct Response, not the sales guy - that's why they went to the company HQ and spoke with the Director.
arfur mo Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 i cant see how any of us can sell a system that prevents anything. i have always thought that all we can do is detect and report. and should be a compulsory part of any sales pitch, alarms don't have a robot fido ready to leap out and grab any intruder by the gonads, no guarantee the siren outside will ward of an attempt backlit or not. the adds that assure protection by having a this or that system installed should be banned imo, they don't protect against the con artist, the distraction burglar, the steamers or any other doorstep felon. best any system can offer is to help reduce the loss by deterring an intruder from staying very long, once the sirens sound for that it has to be set. monitored or not -THAT'S IT! Arfur (or am i the only one who actually tells all new clients this?) If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!
arfur mo Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 Problem is arf you're assuming that the sales guy was working on his own initiative and the 'mistakes' were his alone but 'prior' shows it's a trait of the company. Remember Watchdog 'indicted' Direct Response, not the sales guy - that's why they went to the company HQ and spoke with the Director. as i see it he was selling on his own, i.e. not supervised. in our trade as engineers we might meet in a cafe regularly, at times exchange information, some of it accurate some of it fanciful and a lot of it sheer rubbish, but rubbish sticks if most the engineers are that new, that's what others learn. same with sales meetings, after you go for a coffee and compare notes, misconceptions can be sorted or equally introduced without firm proof either way this is deliberate fraud, the benefit of doubt has to be applied to Mr Hook. if you follow my reasoning then you have to apply that doubt to the company to. but don't worry, The NSI are their inspectorate and i'm sure will work with them to improve on their performance and competence. Arfur (yer! right - as if ) If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!
Cubit Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 I'm not commenting on the install as i'm sure you are correct, you have i guess seen the site. I don't think its splitting hairs regarding SSAIB, there is a big difference in being SSAIB Approved for intruder and just choosing SSAIB as an agent to get SIA. They hold no SSAIB certification, just SIA. But for joe public - and especially the elderly, less confident, seeing the company listed on the SSAIB web site would/could/may lead them to think they are kosher regarding systems. When you check out their Accreditation page it only adds further to the problem.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.