No Response to Burglar Alarm Puts Customer on Alert
As often happens, this customer’s dissatisfaction began with a company’s switch from personal to electronic phone communications.
Joseph C. Sanchez, a high-tech consultant from Corona del Mar, has had a burglar alarm system at his home for nearly 20 years. But it was not until his provider, National Guardian, was bought by “SecurityLink From Ameritech,” he says, that things began to sour.
“When your company acquired National Guardian, we began to notice some deterioration in service and responsiveness,” Sanchez wrote to SecurityLink on Aug. 6.
“About six to eight months ago, we noticed that to access your monitoring station, instead of almost instant reaction, we now have to be ‘processed’ through a voice mail menu of options which takes several minutes.”
As is common in such situations, the company’s spokesman insisted that the new phone system was actually installed to improve communications at a firm that has a million customers nationwide.
“The system allows us to route calls to those reps who handle them as fast as possible,” said Rich Maganini. “It’s a tool to get calls to [the right people].”
But such explanations don’t wash well with a skeptical public.
Sanchez said he is sure that SecurityLink’s phone system prevents him from getting through nearly as quickly as before, although he also may resent that his old, familiar company was taken over by a larger, more impersonal one.
But these issues did not inspire Sanchez to contact The Times.
What really annoyed him was that he had come home from a two-day business trip to find that his burglar alarm had somehow been triggered and that SecurityLink had neither taken any action nor notified the police.
“The system display indicated a front door had been opened and the alarm sent to your monitoring station,” Sanchez reported.
“Your operator confirmed the system had been activated and a call sent [in]). Within seconds our home or personal contact should have been notified, and in the absence of response, the police . . . called,” he said. “The operator I spoke with and her supervisor told me that the operator on duty did absolutely nothing.
“To add insult to injury, when I insisted to speak to a senior executive right away about this matter, even at midnight, and was so promised, no one called, even after more than a week later.”
In the electronic age, complaints that consumers’ calls for supervisors frequently go unanswered are common. But maybe that has been the case in every age.
Sanchez summed it up: “It is clear that significant corrective action . . . and Ameritech oversight is required on an urgent basis.”
The company’s response was underwhelming, even acknowledging that nothing was stolen from the home.
“In this case,” spokesman Maganini said, “an employee made a mistake and didn’t follow through on all the steps necessary. The alarm was canceled without anyone being notified.
“We’ve offered [Sanchez] a credit for three months of monitoring, October to December. We’re very sorry for what happened.”
But is three months free service, without a guarantee of better service, an adequate response?
Maganini, pressed on the point, added: “We’ve gone back to the employee, and reviewed our policies with him. It’s not indicative of the service we provide our customers.”
Sanchez remains dissatisfied, and since Corona del Mar is part of Newport Beach, he has an alternative to the private company.
Newport Beach is one of a very few cities that offers, through its Police Department, direct monitoring of home alarm systems.
Susan Meade, an alarm officer for the Newport police, says that about 550 residences now use this municipal system, which is priced at $18 a month, or a little below most private systems, but that also has hefty penalties for excessive false alarms.
“The first two false alarms are free, as a courtesy,” Meade said. “The third one generates a $50 fine and the fourth is $100. The fifth and every one after is $125.
“After a sixth false alarm in a 12-month period, we revoke the permit, and then to get it again, they need to show that they have fixed their problem and pay a reinstatement fee of $50.”
Of all alarms received by the Newport Beach police, Meade said, 99.9% are false.
This compares with an estimate in this month’s Congressional Quarterly’s Governing magazine that 98% of all alarms nationwide are false, triggered “by roaming pets, bad weather, faulty equipment or forgetful homeowners.”
Although a Temple University study holds that homes without security systems are about three times more likely to be broken into than homes with such systems, the Congressional Quarterly notes that police costs from false alarms are staggering.
It reports that the National Burglar and Fire Alarm Assn. has calculated that checking out false alarms could soon cost police $1.4 billion annually and constitute up to 30% of all police calls.
Some cities, such as Los Angeles and Phoenix, have schools to train homeowners how to reduce the number of false alarms, and a meeting is scheduled this Monday in Irvine to bring alarm dealers and police together in such efforts.
Irvine Police Chief Charles Brobeck cites a few cities, such as Evanston, Ill., where the false alarm rate has been reduced by as much as 70% through expedients such as fines for excessive alarms or household training to avoid them.
There’s even new technology. Alarms are being developed that require a larger triggering weight than can be generated by dogs, cats or small children.
We don’t know what caused Sanchez’s false alarm. But if it could have been avoided, a lot of bad feelings would have been as well.
*
Ken Reich can be contacted with your accounts of true consumer adventure at (213) 237-7060, or by e-mail at ken.reich@latimes.com
