Terminating an alarm company contract early

[mm]

First, maybe you can get your coverage transferred to your new location. Do they cover that area. Even if it is a long distance call when you have an alarm or a test, that extra money will be a pittance, if they are in a position to notify the police (or whatever they do) in your new location.

If you can work something like this out, you probably will have to, because there is a general duty to mitigate damages in a contract case. That is, even though it might be "wrong" for them to collect money for no service, they did have a reasonable expectation you would be there long enough to complete your contract. Usually this means finding a new tenant for an apartment, or covering up even unordered building materials so they arent' ruined, but I think it would apply here, before you asked for relieve as in the next paragraph here.

Also, is there any chance you can get the new tenants at your old place to buy you out. But them you will have to give a discount to, unless your pro-rated three year contract is already at a discount, but the new tenant if he has any sense won't sign a contract with you, he'll only pay month by month.

Alternatively, I have no expericence like you ask for, haha, but I know the expression, The Law abhors a forfeiture. I think that is what you have here, if you forfeit the 700 dollars while getting nothing for it. But what the expression means in practice, I don't know. But I don't think people are necessarily held to every term of a contract, even if the contract is clear, despite the well intentioned comments of many people here.

You also have a contract of adhesion, one you had no input in writing, at least regarding the clause in question. IIRC that means that any ambiguity in the contract is interpreted in favor of the party that didn't draw the contract, but that might be a general rule and you might even have a tad more with a contract of adhesion. I forget, and different states are somewhat different anyhow, probably, even if I r remembered.

I also keep having this baseless notion that it can be better to pay a bill and sue for the money back then to risk a negative item on your credit report for not paying in the first place. Even though you could post an answer to the negative item on your credit report, I don't know that that really negates the item. My notino is baseless, because it comes totally out of my head. Check with someone who knows about credit, and who knows if a suit after payment is made is harder to win than if they sue you. They might not sue you, but then you will surely have a negative item on your credit report, and no court verdict to contradict it, only your own explanation.

I hear now that credit reports and credit score are used even when deciding to issue health insurance, on the theory I guess that people who don't take care of their bills don't take care of their bodies either. Or some such notion. And I know if you let your fire insurance lapse, some companies won't write a new policy. So I guess credit score and other irrelevancies are more important than ever.

Please I'd apprecitate any feedback on this because it involves a few issues I've wondered about for a long time, and might need to know some day.

No offense meant, but anyone who says you don't want to pay what the contract says would probably feel the same way in your shoes. Whether he read the contract in advance or not.

Oh yeah, if you could show in court or even before court maybe that a couple, several or every other company had a similar clause in their contract, or that the company you went with had a feature that other companies didn't offer, that would be good for you.

OTOH, if the company you are dealing with could show that you could have had a month to month contract for more money, that would be bad for you. You committed to 3 years to get a discount. OTOH, even if there were this higher priced contract, you should calculate how much

15 months of that would have cost you, subract what you have already paid, and offer to pay the difference. That would be fair, and would make you look good. Don't just offer, send them a letter with the caluculation in detail, and a check for the amount, marked Payment in Full, above where the payee endorses, which is better than the comment line beccause they are presumed to see that notation when they endorse the check. I don't know what the law is on notes made on the comment line, but that are is is mostly for your info, not for legal proof, afaik. Though mayyybe this is influenced by whether you get your checks themselves back, or you can only get printouts from the computer. If you get the checks back, you can write in the comment line after the fact. If you can get only a printout of both sides at once, maybe a judge will take the comment line seriously.)

And don't use a money order or anything but your own checking account for things like this, becausae you can't get a money order back and it it is probably very hard to get an image of the check. And certainly don't pay online because there is no way to make comments, or to prove them later. If no good answer during the life of this thread, maybe you can remove NOPSAM from my -from address and write me some day.

[mm]

The AG may be a good idea if the office has somethingb helpful to say, but if they don't have something helpful, it doesn't mean much. They are not your lawyer and they mostly know about illegal activities, and not about all the arguments that will win in court.

You'll end up talking to a clerk, not a lawyer, and even if a lawyer, he won't have the time to go over all your options or possible arguments. The alarm company is not doing anything illegal by writing a contract that favors themselves. That doesn't mean a court will enforce it, or that they won't settle for less than the full 700 to avoid fighting about it, and paying their own lawyer's fees.

I'm not suggesting anyone get free service with this kind of argument, but if you can't work out some substitution, you'll be getting no service, so it's reasonable for them to compromise. If they had a month to month rate, maybe that amount plus finally offer another 50 dollars, or 100, in addition to the monthly rate minus what you ahave paid.

[dpb]

That's not the purpose in calling them -- the point is to find out if their office has made any declaration against a particular firm in general in the pertinent jurisdiction. It's the kind of thing OP is hoping for--that, or a class-action suit or some such.

--

[M. Smithers]

Hello Dan,

I have experience with Protection One. The reason they will collect their fee, which they are billing you for, is they gave you a break on installation, providing you signed a service contract.

You can chose not to pay the bill, you can consult an attorney, which more than likely will charge you to review the contract. But, the final outcome will be, you will owe because you signed the contract.

Protection One will turn all debts over to a collection agency, your credit rating will drop, and in the end, you still will have to pay, plus all interest incurred at the highest amount allowed in the state of Washington.

I'm sure you will be hearing from us at Protection One.

Thank you for choosing Protection One, for your protection.

[mm]

BTW, it's "fair" for you to pay the extra 50 or 100. You in effect wagered that yhou would be there the whole three years and save on a

3-year contract over a month to month contract. You lost the bet and it wouldn't hurt to pay extra. If you would have saved 300 over 3 years (8 dollars a month), that's 100 over one year, so the extra 100 paid for 15 months is still losing less than you would have gained had you stayed the whole 3 years.

[Dan]

"M. Smithers" wrote in message news:46786fbd$0$3131$ [e-mail]...

There was no installation. The system/their yard signs/window stickers were present in the house when we signed the lease. I'm assuming the landlord, who had lived in the house prior to renting it, had it installed. There was no mention of a "break" for signing a 3 year contract, or of any alternate time arrangement, in fact there was no mention of the term at all either when I called to initiate the service, or when the guy came out to "test it" & get me to sign, even when I told him we were renting & looking to buy in the near future. Obviously he knew, but said nothing. I assumed it was month to month. There is no mention of any term on the front of the contract, it only appears on the back, which in retrospect I should have taken 45 minutes to read (all 4 legal-size, fine-print boiler plate-ese pages of it) while the "technician" stood there twiddling his thumbs. This was my 1st experience with an alarm company, had I known what I know now, I would have done things differently. I assumed it was like any other "utility", cable, electric, telephone, gas, etc., maybe you had an activation charge, but after that you paid monthly for as long as you used the service & when you were done, you were done. I'm sure all the arm-chair know-it-alls will claim they ALLLLLLWAYS read all the boiler plate, regardless of how long & regardless of who's waiting but most people don't, a fact the businesses rely on. I have an e-mail in to the landlord inquiring if the new tenants have signed with them. For all I know, the people before us are still paying for an early termination, the present tenants are paying for current service, and they expect me to pay until 2009 as well. Is this legal? Well I'm sure their army of attorneys has assured that it is. Whether it's right is another question.

BTW my wife & I have excellent credit, in the 800's. We own our house outright and the only consumer debt we have is a credit card we pay in full every month. We're probably in as good a position as anyone to tell the bastards to go f*ck themselves. Which I may well do.

[dpb]

...

Certainly understand the problem, but as you say, you assumed something that wasn't. Whether it's "right" or not unfortunately, has no bearing on the issue. You're only hope still is whether there's been some blanket action that you could use that the terms are excessively onerous. For the chance at most of $700, I'd call the lawyer and get a phone conversation. I've got a long-time "family lawyer" who I know won't steer me wrong and is reasonable for the occasional question. If you're not so lucky, many will give at least one telephone consultation free or at least cheaply. Oh, besides the AG thing, guess you could try the BBB and/or other consumer groups and see if you can find out anything you could use.

Unfortunately, w/ good credit and assets, that actually probably makes you in much worse position to tell them to shove it as you're worth pursuing (and the may also think $700 worth pursuing) whereas the deadbeat who can almost w/ impunity declare bankruptcy w/o doing any more damage to his credit, etc., than he's already done isn't worth pursuing because they know they'll get nothing.

If you want to live w/ the hell of a collection agency hounding you for who knows how many years, go for it. Otherwise, it's probably an expensive lesson learned, unfortunately.

Wish I had better prognosis... :(

--

[mm]

I didn't mention the argument before, and I even rebuked someone who thought you should just accept it and pay what the contract says, but...in fairness, no one including the know it alls have to claim that they theselves always read the contract to tell you that YOU SHOULD have read the contract.

This post is the first I hear that you didn't know the terms of the contract.

That's another wager, Will I lose out if I don't read the contract, or will I be ahead because I saved the time it took.

Nevertheless, everything I've said before still applies.

If this company didn't have a month to month price, another fair measure would be the month to month price of another company in the area, if it's services are comparable. If it's services are different, you can take the ration of it's 3-year contract price to your 3-year contract price and mulitply to get a fair month to month price for your company, but this is probably not totally necessary because the question is how much they will settle for, not what is exactly fair.

They will give it to a collection agency, but doesn't the collection agecny charge a healthy fee? That is another estiumate of what they will settle for, the total amount minus what the collection agency charges. They probably won't object on "principle" because you're not getting any unpaid service, so that principle isn't involved.

AFAIK, it's legal if there is no law against it, and no binding adminstrative rule against it. That is not to say that a court will enforce such a contract. So the result can be the same even if an action is not "illegal". If you can reach the prior tenants and they tell you they are still paying, you'll have a great argument. They should be willing to give you copies of their checks and you give them copies of their checks as evidence in court, espeically if they don't4 want to testify in your case or you in there's. Or the originals and if possible the accompanying bank statemennts, if the banks don't have an easy check printing service. I'm not sure how the authenticity of paid checks is proven in court, but tangible evidence is a lot better than hearsay, which is near worthless. And before there is a court case, you can tell them that you have the whatever you will have to prove payment for the same time by the prior tenants.

There are a lot of things that are not quite right that are not addressed specifically in any law. That is what courts are for. That is not the

Dopn't be sure of that. The question is not legality or not, in the first place, but don't be sure ever signed contract is enforcealbe. That doesn't mean you should be suing every time a contract might not be enforceable.

But just be aware of reality.

There was a short thread here tonight about the Duke students and the bad behaviour of the prosecutor. Angela S. Davis was on the radio today and she was saying that not disclosing exculpatory evidence is something that happens every day. It's just that most cases don't have such obvious holes, like an alibi that the prosecutor ignored. Or the obviousness that if they didn't rape her, the dna in her won't be theirs, so what does the DNA show. Also, most people don't have the money to pursue the issue well enough to find the undislocosed excul evidenc and the other thing she mentioned.

The same sort of thing happens in every area of our lives, including contracts.

That doesn't seem right. You signed it, and they will probably sue you. I got sued for less, $350?, also a genuine dispute, but because I was depressed, I didn't pursue my end, or even show up in court, where I would have lost because I hadn't prepared.

And I think you have it backwards. you have the most to lose, because you have such good credit. If you can't work out a deal, you have to see if you can pay now and sue later for what you just paid, and stand a chance of winning.

Because mostly lethargy and depression, I have somewhat bad credit, though I didn't pay for my credit score, but I know they wouldn't increase my credit limit to more than 1000 dollars, even though I have more than 50,000 dollars in the very bank where my credit card is. They don'pt care about that, it seems. (although it's impossible to find someone with any authority who will actually talk to me. Everything must be by email) But as long as I don't need any credit for the next 5 years, it won't matter. What I would like is a credit card with higher than a 1000 dollar limit. I won't get one because I pay fully at the end of every month too. I'm going to have to get 2 or 3 more cards with a 1000 limit for each one. I hate having more than 2 cards, and I won't know how many to carry with me. The only thing I really need credit for now is to rent a car. I think I offerrd to plunk down 1000 dollars and get the change later, but I don't think they would work that way, it has to be a credit card.

But you may want more credit than I want in the next 7 years. Did you move to another rental or did you buy a house? I see, you bought. How long before you want a bigger house? Or a home improvement or home equity loan? Or a better credit card?

[mm]

I didnt' want him to perhaps overestimate what you had said.

I said that it's good to call them if they have something helpful to say, like you mention here, but if they don't have anything, that doesn't mean he has no alternatives.

[Kitep]

I'll have to agree with the other poster who suggested

1) Try to get the new tenant to take over the payments

2) Try to get it transferred to your new home (congrats BTW)

You might see if the previous tenants are/were paying for it at the same time you were. You might have a case if they were charging twice for the same service. And FYI, just because something's in a contract, doesn't always make it legal (though I'm guessing it probably is).

TV/radio stations often have a consumer advocate, who loves to bust big companies who take advantage of the little people. Contact them.

Warn the new tenant, so he doesn't fall into the same trap.

If it's not too late (and if it's legal), remove the alarm company's stickers so no one else falls for it.

Good luck.

[Dan]

Thanks for the reply. I don't see that happening, but I have asked the landlord if he knows if they have activated the system

Thanks, If I had been thinking, that's what I would have done. Unfortunately, the new house had a system by ADT, so I just activated that.

Agreed.

Not a bad idea, especially if it turns out the new renters are also paying.

[Lou]

You also might see if your state has a consumer protection office and contact them. Also the Better Business Bureau may help.

Lou

[Dan]

Thanks, Lou

Dan

[dadiOH]

Yes. OP said,

"They are billing us for the remainder of the term, nearly $700. Needless to say, I would prefer not to pay for service we will not be using."

See?

To OP: my best advice is to tell them to go take a flying one.

[trader4]

And now you got me really laughing. You believe and find credible what Angela Davis has to say about our court system? Why not just ask Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez?

As for the question at hand, it appears to me that Dan came here asking a very simple and relevant question. And that was whether anyone had any direct experience dealing with this company in a similar situation. Which is valid, because if he knows the company has settled for say 1/2 with others in a similar situation, that's very useful to know. Apparently, no one has the experience.

[George]

Why would the AG be interested?

The usual deal with the "big box" alarm companies is that they advertise "protect your house and family for $99". Obviously they can't do that so they require that you enter a contract so that you actually pay for the system over the contract term. Nothing illegal about that. The contract contains specific language that needs to be fulfilled. In this case they want to be paid to cover the deferred cost of the installation.

[George]

But what did the company do wrong? He didn't pay for the alarm up front (thats the "all this for $99 commercial") so the deal is that he has to pay for the deferred installation cost over the 3 year contract period.

[dpb]

Individually, he isn't -- the point is whether the AG's _office_ has had enough complaints there's been a general action or ruling that makes such cancellation clauses illegitimate in OP's state.

--

[dadiOH]

As OP explained later in the thread, he was a renter and the alarm system was in place when he rented. He has been paying only for service and has no obligation to pay for future service that is not rendered. Any unfulfilled obligation to the alarm company for installation lies with whoever arranged for installation originally.

[dpb]

I didn't say the company did anything wrong -- OP asked for options to try to minimize his out-of-pocket cancellation charges. I told him where there might be some relief _IF_ (and that's the proverbial "big if") there had been some judgment in his state that the particular form of cancellation clause had been deemed excessive previously or wasn't compliant w/ state law/regulation. Some have been, whether this particular one has or not would be the question. It's a faint hope, for OP, certainly. The contract terms weren't supplied so whether it is actually a deferred installation charge or not isn't known for sure--reasonable hypothesis, certainly.

I also told OP I figured he was stuck but that was really only way he could likely hope for a basis on which to try to refuse to pay. Otherwise, about his only hope is the option of trying to see if they'll accept a partial payment or get the successor tenant to pick it up for him (but that undoubtedly wouldn't get him relieved from the obligation only have the other guy pay it for him as long as he so chose to do so).

--