Alarm Installation

[Guest]

Im not doubting it.

But as stated the insurance company of the customer calls the shots unfortunately.

[Chris Teague]

So the fact remains that there are indeed certain insurance companies which insist on NACOSS only.

I can only recall one such incident aprox 2 years ago & my client did not want to go the the available NACOSS (NSI) Firms around here (had their reasons) & wanted to use us, as we'd looked after them elsewhere for ages.

A spec for the site was sent to the insurer with a letter asking for it in writing that they would not accept SSAIB. They wrote back accepting us, no problems.

SSAIB will still pursue the insurers doing this I'm told.

However, I know I've lost plenty of work in the past through such biased info from insurers, where the client does not look any further than NACOSS in the Yellow Pages.

I bet Ken from "Team" wishes he'd never asked now?

[jb-eye]

This is true, and I also suspect it may now be illegal for an insurance broker to stipulate this.

Stand your ground and explain to your client that the insurer is wrong to stipulate nacoss only and that the ssaib will persue this.

49079[/snapback]

Richl I too used to think the insurer were acting illegally asking for NACOSS only. The facts are this misconception has been put to bed. There is no case for restrictive practices and all insurers are now being notified of this. In short they can stipulate anything they want. The SSAIB are right to pursue the insurers, but only to state their case. They have no power to influence the insurer

[Ken G]

I bet Ken from "Team" wishes he'd never asked now?

This post has been edited by Chris Teague: Yesterday, 09:57 PM

Seemed to have started something! All I wanted was a quote! I don't really care whether you're SSAIB, NSI, NACOSS, BSM, AA, RAC or M&S as long as insurance companies like you!

Thanks to the couple of people who contacted me off forum, and to the rest of you who gave me a laugh! Still open to quotations, if anybody is interested??

[jb-eye]

Jeff you made a statement and you are unwilling to explain ......

49279[/snapback]

Answered In the Members Lounge

Regards

Jef

[jb-eye]

Damage limitation now Jef,

Its great how you can make a post in a public forum that you cannot explain or justify to the public or to the other forum members that have read this post.

Yes you may have answered this topic in the trade lounge, but that merely shows that you are unwilling to stand by what you say without the fear of consequences of what you say.

If I were one of your customers and having read this and some of your other posts I would not know whether to believe what you tell me or not, because I would be unsure whether you meant or even could justify what you say.

By all means hide behind the trade forums and good luck to you, but you and I both know that what you said and the inference contained within the post meant more than, that they were simply not the "Same". I choose not to discuss the matter in the trade forums as I believe, as stated previously that the post was made in a public forum and if any discussion takes place on the matter then that too should be within the public forums.

49317[/snapback]

You really are bizarre you ask- I justify or explain? What exactly? I am too responded to an anonymous? The trade lounge is for the trade, you appear to be a masquerade of trade. The public forum has not asked for anything. You are not one of my customers, of this I am certain. My customers judge me on performance not hearsay. If you will not discuss industry matters in the trade forum I understand, this is your prerogative. I do however have my response in front of my peers.

Jef

[Brian c]

I personally feel this topic is getting silly.

I think if the in's and out's of the inspectorates criteria are to be discussed, it should be in the trade forums, even if raised in public.

I don't see why an issue raised in public cannot be moved to trade. This happens frequently.

I also feel that posting anonymously and having access to Jef's previous posts, gives you an unfair advantage in this debate. As that's clearly what you are judging him on, along with his post in this topic.

[Guest TheCabbage]

Right you bunch of Mary Ellens its honesty time.

If you cannot work out who the guest is you should not be left in charge of a mouse, who do you think he is the masked avenger or something.

The truth is there is no difference between NSI/SSAIB they both treat us as installers with contempt and just skim a living of us and our customers.The point raised about making complaints about other providers is truly valid,we as a approved company have made complaints, one being about a then NACOSS monitoring who seemed to want to live in the past and could not get their heads around fast format and were not acting on alarm signals therefore not complying to their contract, a dead cert you would think what did they do? nowt.

Same crack when advised a customer about a major issue with A*T, you have got to remember its there biggest harvest, they just fudged around it and hoped it go away.

As a fully paid up pleb of the SSAIB we had a gripe about some of the criteria that has to be met that costs us but covers their butt, they told us they had to consult their legal team and never got back.

The obviuos is that as installers we should stand up and sing from one song sheet, a song sheet we should have control over no matter who's gang you think you are in to get the best for installers and customers who always have to live with the consequences of nuts regulations of so called experts.

Does it matter that it is in a public forum? of course it does because if it isn't nothing will ever change.

The Cabbage

[Guest TheCabbage]

Is any body there, are you all hiding and talking up your sleeves in your own little world with a nanny goat tethered in the corner, come out of that special place and talk about whats relevent to Joe public.

2/3 days ago a punter ask the question if 1200 sheets was a fair shout for a system, if we as a body keep to all the regs that is expected of us, and all go down the ISO route its going to have to be £1200 for a 9448+ and four Rockonnets just to break even to cover all the extra office staff to keep up the paper trail and all the time you'll be away from the job.

The days of the 2/3/4 man outfit are numbered inside an inspectorate body after all it isn,t cost effective to inspect lots of little companies far better a few with the same amount of certificates.

So who's the loser, any one who's capable will get a well paid job with no stress like running your own ship, in fact we should all be jumping ship we glee.

Its the public thats going to lose out, it will be a choice dictated by the insurance company of a kick back system, that will have a have a choir of A4 sheets costing an arm and a leg, that needs a science degree to operate.

Or the choice of a £500 excess on their policy where theft isn,t covered but if you want a alarm "Wiring Willy" can bung something in cheap because their (insurance) is now not bothered.

So if this isn,t a public forum matter I,ll show my butt in Harvey Nicolls' window, a better class of butt.

[Service Engineer]

Thanks to Colin for comming clean about his GUEST posts.

But please note: The guests lounge is for persons not wishing to become full time members, it is NOT for members to use to post annonymously.

Sorry but if the guests forum continues to get abused in this way it will be deleted.