Security Alarm System That Doesn't Provide Full Coverage

[datadiffusion]

In a nutshell, expect a bill if you mess about.

And, yes, sounds very much like the scanny homelink where it could take a (single?) 46xx wireless device as an intruder alarm add-on.

 

The 'code' for turning on or off the alarm was holding down a single button on the control station with a long press IIRC.

scantronics expander

 

It's a scanny universal 2 zone 7xx wireless RX rather than an expander as such (good luck with the future supplies of that - seems ripe for obsolescence) so makes sense.

Perhaps they have cobbled together their own hybrid panel for whatever reason.

Edited August 8, 2015 by datadiffusion

[duffbeer2015]

If it's screwed up it is classed as fixtures and fittings.

 

It could be a chattel or a tenant's fixture, mainly because the alarm is wireless and it is a simple case of undoing some ordinary screws.

 

'An item which is loose, or that can be removed from a building without damage to itself or the fabric of the building will be more readily considered as a chattel'

 

'A tenant has the right to remove tenant's fixtures during the course of its lease'

 

'An item which is annexed to leased property for the purposes of the tenant's trade or for ornamentation or utility, and is capable of being removed without causing substantial damage to the land and without causing the chattel to lose its usefulness following the removal will be considered a tenant's fixture.'

 

'A tenant has the right to remove tenant's fixtures during the course of its lease'

 

There is an exemption though which says that the right to remove tenant fixtures can be restricted if this is clearly and unequivocally stated in the tenancy agreement.  Peel Land and Property (Ports No.3) Ltd v TS Sheerness Steel Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 100.

[norman]

I could remove the sink without damaging the fabric of the property.

[al-yeti]

I think op wants diy fix, system is locked or doesn't know how to default or programme , most of above doesn't make sense (not trade comments), owner would upgrade if paid for , company would install if paid for, and tenant wants to put there own system in? If that's the case, how is other system affecting them?

[james.wilson]

id guess its a pr thing and the landlord is protecting for free. No harm in that but id also guess at a bulk deal im sure a rear contact can be added

[petrolhead]

It might be connected to the smoke detectors and there might be a wireless flood detector somewhere or they maybe using it for inactivity detection, a lot of councils have made it a rule that if the sheltered tennant is not getting daily calls to check they are ok then there must be automatic inactivity detection. Its unlikely the landlord fitted it for no reason there must be some requirement for it, either insurance or council rules, removing it is not a good idea if you are going to fit another fit it alongside.

Contact the landlord before messing with it to make sure.

[charlie6]

Agreed Petrolhead, but I really don't think he should mess with it at all, just leave it where it is and install a basic hard wired to cover the rear..