Who's responsible for all these charges?

An unfortunate reoccurring theme for service in the security industry is "the return trip", having multiple trips to fix a problem. Often times there is a valid and very good reason for this, and unfortunately much more often is the truth.

This type of problem typically begins before the system is purchased. Primarily it's the result of when a customer takes over an old system, which should be replaced. Systems (CCTV, access control, fire alarm, burglar alarm, data systems, etc.) have a life expectancy. Some of these systems have lasted well beyond their service life expectancy and are still kicking, but these WILL eventually begin to fail. It should come as no surprise that these systems will require more maintenance than a properly installed newer system. Here's where things begin to be complicated.

We see often in the industry, that a larger company (we'll pretend ACME), sends their corporate National Account Associate, to your company. You're in a building with an older alarm system. You need to add the functions of a newer device to your system. Here's where the pitfall begins in this example. ACME may not look into your local ordinance or even consider national code when selecting this solution. They may be selling you something specifically to avoid telling you that your system is no longer supported, and your presence constitutes a code violation, as you are bound by code to upgrade the system to meet those requirements. Now you're in a jam, because there will likely be compatibility issues and there already are code issues, and BOOM your system begins having false alarms. Who shows up to those? None other than the people who will be fining you for not having a system operating in compliance with ordinance or code.

Now, with less money, you have to install a new system. You surely don't want to spend a lot, because you have already incurred this unexpected expense... what's next. Well, ACME will gladly replace your panel and devices for a price. Unfortunately, ACME subcontracts another company and... you may notice that replacing the wire wasn't mentioned right (this will be important later)? ACME's subcontractor comes in, throws the system in, does a brief test, and the panel is clear when they leave. You come in one morning and something happened that the system didn't pick up. So, you just spent money on this new system, and it didn't work. So, you put in a service call. ACME sends another contractor out to service your equipment... they find a resistor across the terminals of your device (strapped out is what it's called in the industry). The technician moves the resistor where it belongs and suddenly you have more problems. Who made the mistake?

This is where it becomes very difficult to know what you're getting, and where customers begin blaming the wrong person in the equation. ACME is who is responsible, and the installation contractor who upgraded your equipment is also responsible. Here's what happens, the installation contractor is only going to be paid to perform the work that ACME contracted them for. They often make NO attempt to let the customer know that (in this instance) that the wire was bad. If they do, they often don't get paid because the customer and ACME would need to work out an arrangement to pay them. Your service contractor identifies the problem but is only contracted to service what the call states "one device failed". Now you're about to have a slew of return trips on your system.

So far you have basically been screwed by everyone but the service contractor... I say so far... because your service contractor should note everything found and recommend wire replacement. This should have been done in the first place when you first considered upgrading your system. There are service contractors out there who are more than happy to come out to fix one problem at a time. It's profitable to keep running calls to your facility, but it's very dishonest... and unfortunately a business model that companies like ACME are happy to accept.

One thing you may notice though, is if you went with someone who wants to plan out a budget and recommend steps to conduct a proper upgrade.... you wouldn't be unexpectedly upgrading your system, or having several return service calls, for what you assume is the same problem... but is really the result of a poor or outdated installation. I have personally been to a facility so many times to fix problems, that a brand-new system installed properly would have been cheaper... and met code for the next 10 years or better and had up to a 5-year warranty on the parts and had a workmanship warranty and the list goes on.

Yes, sometimes it's better to manage the outdated system as long as you can to establish a budget for replacement... but when you are considering making these decisions, it's important to ask questions about things like code, ordinances, parts compatibility, building a budgetary quote, but also very importantly TESTING YOUR CURRENT SYSTEM, and providing you with a list of deficiencies currently on the system. Many times, cheap contractors will bypass devices rather than fix them. You need to know your system is operating properly. You should accompany or have someone accompany your contractor for this test. You need to make sure everything is tested and reported properly... so no matter the integrity of the contractor you hired, that you saw yourself when things failed.

In this scenario, everyone is at fault... including you. If the service contractor took the time to explain the problems with your system, outside of what he was there to address, and explained how to proceed towards a resolution, that's probably the one I'd trust and move forward with. I personally have been the brunt of attack explaining to a customer that their fire alarm system was unsupported, code deficient, in immediate need of replacement, and poses an imminent threat to loss of life (and reported it to the authorities having jurisdiction)... and while everyone was upset with my assessment (except the AHJ)... in the end, the residence of these facilities are safer as a result and now that customer doesn't have service calls very often. That may sound extreme, but it doesn't have to be. The process involving the AHJ, can have leeway for budgetary accommodations, allowing the correct solution to be implemented over time. The short of this, whole article... the right solution is cheaper than trying to compare the upfront cost.