Nice Speaker Installation Down The Local Bowling Alley

[goncall]

99% ANPR. It was a good revenue earner although the ANPR was expensive, it had a reasonable ROI. I was reading the forum that had it in for me earlier today and they are still there doing the same old same old having ago at every parking operator under the sun and telling people who disregarding parking rules how to get off with it.

Maybe I'm just strange, rut I don't abuse parking rules so I don't get fines, pcns or anything else you want to call them. .I've only had 2 parking tickets in my 14 years if driving and I deserved them both.

Before they get a URN they sign an agreement with our policy in. Would it hold up in court, dunno. The reason we do it, and I appreciate it is a bit from the norm is that in the UK we are lucky in that the police still respond to alarms. In many other countries this died and I would love to keep it. If we don't fix the issue of false call outs, my fear is we will just get turned off, similar to how the fire brigades have started and that's bad for everyone.

The policy isn't there as a revenue earner, it's there to make the users sit up and realise that making hoax calls to the police is the wrong thing to do, and something I'd like to see stop so we can have some credibility with the police when passing calls to them.

hoax call to the police, i want to see the beak say,mr gd48 you are hearby charged of making hoax calls,how do you plead,double beep your honour...

[matthew.brough]

I think history as shown that you vilified yourself without assistance from others.

With respect, as you weren't part of it, you know what you read on the Internet, which is far from the truth. The clients involved paid substantial damages to us. Remember that MP got trading standards involved, the BPA, the police and DVLA? The outcome no case to answer, BPA AOS approval and the clients paying huge damages to us. That to me doesn't say we did anything wrong.When I get back to work ill have a look at when the NDA time limit is up and if it has elapsed you can read the full story and then decide for yourself who was to blame. If after that you still feel I'm a villain, fair enough but until you have read the facts of the case I'd ask you to reserve judgement.

hoax call to the police, i want to see the beak say,mr gd48 you are hearby charged of making hoax calls,how do you plead,double beep your honour...

Funny. The policy only applies for user error, not equipment error. I goes both ways though, if we have an issue on some kit, we remove the response but pay for guards to sit there guarding the premises whilst we get to the bottom of it to prevent the customer being pulled off response due to an issue with out kit.

[Oxo]

Is the guarding FOC?

And if found to be user error are there costs invoiced?

[Cubit]

Ah, the powerful BPA.

in cahoots with the DVLA.

 

Problem is, the BPA is akin to this forum, nothing more, nothing less. Just a chummy trade members club that tries to put a legitimate gloss on underhand sharp practice. Suitably aided and abetted by the DVLA of course.

[matthew.brough]

The guarding is FOC. I can only talk about the handful of times we have actually done it, and the faults were clearly not user error and causing spurious alarms and it took a couple of attempts to get it right. Hypothetically speaking if it was found user error, we would probably want to recoup our costs. A real world example we had was a signalling manufacturer had an issue with Galaxy where the unit was falling off the databus and as two mods disappeared, caused confirmed alarms. The unit wasn't faulty as a few replacements had the same. Issue so we guarded the site to allow the fault to carry on but allow the manufacture to investigate.

[goncall]

you could make the customer stand in the corner with a dunces hat on for every misop,a policed activation could be no tv for a week

[Oxo]

The guarding is FOC. I can only talk about the handful of times we have actually done it, and the faults were clearly not user error and causing spurious alarms and it took a couple of attempts to get it right. Hypothetically speaking if it was found user error, we would probably want to recoup our costs. A real world example we had was a signalling manufacturer had an issue with Galaxy where the unit was falling off the databus and as two mods disappeared, caused confirmed alarms. The unit wasn't faulty as a few replacements had the same. Issue so we guarded the site to allow the fault to carry on but allow the manufacture to investigate.

 

So would you or not?

 

My edit.

 

Or would you withhold a URN? Until stettled?

[matthew.brough]

Ah, the powerful BPA.in cahoots with the DVLA. Problem is, the BPA is akin to this forum, nothing more, nothing less. Just a chummy trade members club that tries to put a legitimate gloss on underhand sharp practice. Suitably aided and abetted by the DVLA of course.

To be honest I don't know as the day after we got AOS approval that business was sold as I wanted to stick with security. The audits we went through were reasonably thorough but I don't know if it is just a pally pally trade membership organisations. I know this new appeals process has popped up which the car park operator has to pay £27 for each appeal and an annual fee. I don't believe the BPA have the teeth or legislation behind them to do a proper job, but that isn't the BPAs faults. My personal belief is that as a landowner, I should be able to protect my land and a parking operator, with the right regulation should be allowed to issue tickets and have some law behind them to make people pay the tickets as has always been with public land. If someone parked on my drive for the day and I couldn't do anything about it I think that's a tad unfair. This is the fate of a lot of landowners and the motorists can quite legally just stick 2 fingers up at them.

So would you or not? My edit. Or would you withhold a URN? Until stettled?

If we could categorically proove it, we would send an invoice but my feeling is if it were user error, we would know that before putting guards there but if you want an official stance then yes, if we could prove it we would want to recover the guarding costs.

you could make the customer stand in the corner with a dunces hat on for every misop,a policed activation could be no tv for a week

I don't know about others, but this isn't an epidemic problem, off too of my head probably 8 incidents in a year where we have done this. In all but 5 police forced areas, our false alarm rate for the whole of a year has remained at zero. We have the same policy for pas but since we upgraded all pas to confirmed ones (at our cost) we haven't had a false confirmed pa yet.

[goncall]

protecting land,money making scam more like.

[Oxo]

No FA`s and talk of "fines" makes me wonder.

No FA rates for HUD`s????? Even confirmed, we all know the end user wants to try it out to be sure.

 

You`re coming across as the best company in the country, and I thought where I made improvements we were good.

 

How long have you worked in the " Security Industry",  a question, that is all?