Confirmed Alarm

[jb-eye]

I thought that DD243 stated that you should not be able to enter into an armed protected area without first starting the entry proceedure

Then were all in big trouble.

[PeterJames]

Just my two pence but I recall that we had an Abacus 72r panel that sent confirmed alarms when just one detector was triggered. Could be a potential software problem. brum69, as above, a check of the log will reveal wether or not a second detector had been triggered. It's also probably a good idea to get your alarm company to come out and check the system over to make sure this can't happen again.

Pretty much every Abacus panel I've ever worked on apart from the smaller 6/8P and the mega old 64 has a 2nd alarm or "verify" output. It's not subject to the same restrictions as the sequential confirmation we know today is, but it'll send a 2nd alarm if two or more detectors are triggered none the less.

If you prog intruder signal as pin 7 and tell the ARC that pin 7 is confirmed this would happen, the panel cannot send two signals for the same activation ie pin 3 progged as intruder and pin 7 progged as intruder would only send a pin 3 not both. The op states that the ARC recieved both int and conf which would suggest that two signals were sent. (The fact that they both went through at the same time would only be relevent if the signaling is not digi, but it would also depend on the ARCs reciever so we can only summise if the system is not digi.

Then were all in big trouble.

Maybe I'm thinking ahead

6.4.1 General clause about unsetting amplified.

Now specifically mentions the use of external ACE for

unsetting.

Requires that application of force to external ACE cannot

initiate change of status of IAS

6.4.2 Adjusted so that permits additional methods of ensuring

that IAS is unset before entry is possible.

6.4.3 Adjusted so that permits additional methods of ensuring

that confirmation is disabled before entry is possible.

6.4.4 Option remains, with additional notes for guidance of

installer.

6.4.5 Method unchanged. Includes concession to use of PIN

code for unsetting after expiry of entry time, and mentions

use of external ACE (with PACE only).

Includes scenario where unconfirmed alarm takes place

BEFORE start of entry time.

“Zone Omit Rearm” must now be advised to keyholder.

[antinode]

Should have said that the Abacus in question sent the intruder signal aswell as a confirmed signal with a single detector, which is also what seems to be happening with the OP's system (until a read through the log proves otherwise!)

[jb-eye]

Maybe I'm thinking ahead

Quite Peter. Although we should all remember how loose the DD243 was and remember that 6.4.X refers specifically to entry of supervised premises. If you take your extract and dissect the content then the confusion as to whether non entry route doors should be considered (which of course they are not) would be speculative.

[brum69]

Thanks for your replies!

I have checked the log, but the entries are not there anymore. When the side door was opened and the alarm triggered, I tried to contact the ARC to report the false alarm. However, the alarm company changed my system to a different ARC without notifying me. By he time I found out the number for the new ARC, the Police had turned up. The alarm company then stated that the engineer placed stickers on my panel and wrote on the faded service record that he had updated the digi number to the new ARC. At NO time did they tell me that I was connected to a new ARC, nor does the keypad display the number for the new ARC, as it used to.

As for getting the alarm company to come out to check the system, they have refused as they feel that the system is working correctly - nice alarm company eh? Rest assured that i'm currently trying to find a new alarm company.

Yesterday I asked the ARC to put the system on test, while I tried a few tests of my own. The results were:

1. Side door slightly open, single activation sent to ARC
   
2. Up and over door slightly open, single activation sent to ARC
   
3. Side door open wide, me walking in, 2 activations sent to ARC - confirmed alarm.
   

I can only surmise that the door is causing the PIR to trigger, but it wasn't opened far enough in test 1 - is this allowed? The original activation in March was caused SOLELY by the door being opened, as no one entered the garage. I can post the exact contents of the log if anyone is interested?

BTW, what does Ack CS mean in the log?

Thanks

Brum69

[james.wilson]

I then feel your current alarm co are then correct. It is allowed to have a pir and a door contact overlap their coverage. It is possible that the detector saw the door. It does seem your system is setup correctly but may I ask how you reset your system aftert these tests?

Also re the point about them coming out to check. Was this a chargeable or a free visit? I can understand this as from my own company point of view if a visit had already been made and the facts established then I wouldn't send an engineer out for free. However I would send one to test the system with you and if a fault was found not charge.

Also changing alarm company. Some firms specialise in their equipment they use. For example we could not support your panel and this as a minimum would require replacement

James

[MrHappy]

As I assumed from the start there appears to be nothing wrong with the system

When the side door was opened and the alarm triggered, I tried to contact the ARC to report the false alarm. However, the alarm company changed my system to a different ARC without notifying me. By he time I found out the number for the new ARC, the Police had turned up. The alarm company then stated that the engineer placed stickers on my panel and wrote on the faded service record that he had updated the digi number to the new ARC. At NO time did they tell me that I was connected to a new ARC, nor does the keypad display the number for the new ARC, as it used to.

I can't think we ever informed a cleint before we've moved accounts numbers or providers, just ensure the contact details are recorded in the log book ect...

As for getting the alarm company to come out to check the system, they have refused as they feel that the system is working correctly - nice alarm company eh?

I'd be more than happy to send somebody on site to the subscribers premises, however it would be chargeable

BTW, what does Ack CS mean in the log?

acknowledge central station (for signal sent)

[brum69]

I then feel your current alarm co are then correct. It is allowed to have a pir and a door contact overlap their coverage. It is possible that the detector saw the door. It does seem your system is setup correctly but may I ask how you reset your system aftert these tests?

Also re the point about them coming out to check. Was this a chargeable or a free visit? I can understand this as from my own company point of view if a visit had already been made and the facts established then I wouldn't send an engineer out for free. However I would send one to test the system with you and if a fault was found not charge.

Also changing alarm company. Some firms specialise in their equipment they use. For example we could not support your panel and this as a minimum would require replacement

James

I'm not an installer, so i gladly take your advice on this. I telephoned the ARC and asked them to make my system live, so not on test anymore.

I asked the alarm company to attend site FOC, which they refused to do. Not because I wanted the visit to be FOC, just because they didn't think that there was anything wrong with the system. Customer service is not very high on their list, as I obviously feel a charge is relevant if I am at fault.

As for changing alarm companies, I've found that most of the companies will take on my Abacus system. There are a couple who have stated that I would have to change panel, but I would say a good 80% are happy with it. The likes of ADT and Chubb are also happy to take it over, but I wasn't impressed with the non-technical salesman sent from one of those companies- i'm sure you can guess which one!!

Regards

Brum69

[james.wilson]

as I obviously feel a charge is relevant if I am at fault.

id agree i think that is fair enough. As i said i think its fair for them to charge if there is not a fault.

Changing alarm cos will not fix your issue though. WOuld it not be better or at least an option to move the sensor in question so it does not cover that door.

[brum69]

As I assumed from the start there appears to be nothing wrong with the system

I can't think we ever informed a cleint before we've moved accounts numbers or providers, just ensure the contact details are recorded in the log book ect...

I'd be more than happy to send somebody on site to the subscribers premises, however it would be chargeable

acknowledge central station (for signal sent)

I couldn't give a monkeys about which ARC the alarm company uses, as long as I have their contact details. They originally wrote me a letter stating that the number needed to be changed. What they actually did was to change to a different ARC, without notifying me. When I complained, they stated that I had followed the engineer around my house and knew that the change of ARC had occurred - complete lies. The MO of this company is to simply lie constantly to cover their butt - not the welcomed behaviour of an alarm company. For this reason, I would like to change to a large company, rather than a family run one. At least I would then feel that there are proper procedure in place, along with a willing to do best by the customer.

The fact that my alarm company is NSI Gold certified means absolutely nothing, as I was very unimpressed with their support.

Regards

Brum69