Re: Burglar Alarm

[Dave Plowman]

Are you saying they've refused to replace a faulty PIR, for example? Cos I've got the feeling we're not getting the whole story here...

[Andrew McKay]

Okay, found it. Had to search a bit though :)

Sounds to me as though you may have had a dodgy control unit, as all clues lead back to that.

From memory the PIRs derive their power from the control unit, so just maybe if the power supply back there is playing up it could cause PIRs and so on to fail. Plus it is the common element for every component.

I don't recall that you changed the control unit so maybe that's worth checking out?

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our web site at

[Andrew McKay]

I won't pretend to be an expert with these matters. However my experience suggests that if you want a full no questions asked refund then materials need to be returned in A1 condition, with original packaging, etc.

Now in your case you'd installed the system and the packaging was no longer available, plus the PIR had been physically changed from its shipped configuration (as you needed to do).

I think Maplins were probably entitled to try and help resolve the problems rather than offer a full money back. I'm not saying for a moment that you shouldn't have eventually got your money back, but you do have to give them a reasonable chance to resolve the problems.

I suppose the issue is whether the "reasonable chance" was completed or not. We'll never know :)

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our web site at

[Peter Parry]

Not really. If he had rejected the goods within a very short time (typically one or two weeks) he might have been. The onus would of course be on the user to prove there was a pre-existing fault at the time of sale in this case. This right of rejection has been in the Sales of Goods act for many years.

Since 31 Mar the amendments to the Sales of Goods act have brought in an extra right to repair or replacement in consumer cases for faulty goods with a presumption that the fault was pre-existing if purchased in the preceding 6 months. Under the new amendments there is no right to a refund unless repair or replacement is impossible or impractical and if a refund is made it can be abated to take into account the time the owner has had use of the goods.

The new rights only apply if the purchaser is dealing as a consumer. If the goods were purchased as a business to business transaction they do not apply.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Actually, even those don't do a lot.

I talked to tehinsurance company, and they said that ubnless I was prepared to set it every night before going to betd, fasten all ground floor windows etc etc, they would offer o premium reductiobn.

I pointed out that in the unlikely event of anyone coming near the house, the sound of the car and/or the crunching of gravel would undoubtedly wake me up, since out here its as quiet as the grave from

11pm onwards. This however cut no ice as they say.

I think a distinction needs tobe made about burglar alarms. They hav as far as I can tell several functions

(i) Reducing insurance premiums. Its like those stupid window locks you can break with one hand. They are completely useless except to reduce our premium. AS LONG AS YOU MAKE SUE YOU GO ROUNFD AND LOCK THEM ALL BEFOTRE YOU CALL THE POLICE. This is very important. Never mind that they jemmied open the window anyway, just as long as the locks were in place...

(ii) Deterring burglars. Here its more a question of having somethibg that looks like it moght caise someone to take the number of the car parked in the drive if it went off. A big false bell unit on te outside is enough to do this mostly.

(iii) slowing burglars down. This has been identified ss teh single most effective way of reducing theft - make it hard and time consuming to get at teh valuables. I.e. bolt down your compuyer, put expensive stuiff in locked steel carese - anything that takes an exta minute to open will add protection.

Burgalr alarms do nothing here.

(iv) Catching burglars. Here alarms are totally ineffective: They will be gone before anyone takes note of yet another 3 a.m alarm vbekll, if indeed anyone bothers. Likewise call outs to police etc are always far too late to be of any value in anything. MUCH nbetter to have a security camnm system, and online internet connection, and stream videos snaps to a remorte server.

I'd say the presence of a cam - dummy or otherwise - is a far greater deterrent than a conventional alarm system as well....

[Martin]

See previous post!

[geoff]

In message , Brownie writes

Or make them think that there is something worth stealing in the house

I don't think that this is true - look at all the police cameras around, how the police video protest marchers and football supporters. (However, by law, you can send in a letter and £10 asking for the footage they have of you, which means that they have to blank everyone else's face out)

What about tourists taking videos etc ... No, I think you must be wrong there

Except that anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between most dummy cameras and real ones - for example, our local magistrates court has a couple of dummy cameras and big signs advertising "CCTV cameras in operation" - lying bastards !

[John]

CCTV - is that the system that takes fuzzy pictures of the top of hooded heads?

[Owain]

"Brownie" wrote | "geoff" wrote | > >I said in my original post the sight of an alarm will deter many | > >burglars as they will go to an easier house | > Or make them think that there is something worth stealing in the house | That used to be the case when only 'wealthy' people had them. Nowadays | anyone can afford them and they are on any house and despite your | alternative thoughts are a known deterrant. Ask a burglar.

It has been said that yours should never be the first nor the last house in the street to get an alarm.

| > I don't think that this is true - look at all the police cameras around, | They are filming in public places. I don't know the exact law, but I think | filming someone on private property without their knowledge is an | infringement of Human Rights and Data Protection hence the signs.

Individuals aren't bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. I have heard that filming on private property for domestic purposes (i.e. not shopping centres etc) isn't covered by the requirements under the Data Protection Act to register with the Information Commissioner and erect warning signs - but anyone relying on this should check the DPR / IC website for the CCTV code of practice.

| > Except that anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between | > most dummy cameras and real ones - for example, our local magistrates | > court has a couple of dummy cameras and big signs advertising "CCTV | > cameras in operation" - lying bastards ! | Well I agree with that to some extent as some are obviously dummy cams but I | have seen many that look real or can't even be seen.

An established technique is to have a couple of visible dummy cameras, and covert working ones.

Owain

[Peter Parry]

You need to read the very tortuous wording of the amendment to see that in most cases under the new amendments this isn't the case. Note condition 48C(2) and its reference to 48B(3)

"48C Reduction of purchase price or rescission of contract (1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may- (a) require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods in question to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or (b) rescind the contract with regard to those goods, if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied. (2) The condition is that- (a) by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or (b) the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer. (3) For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him."

"48B(3) The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is- (a) impossible, or (b) disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or (c) disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below."

In other words you cannot demand a refund (or partial refund) under the new amendments if the supplier is offering repair or replacement.

You can of course still seek the old remedy (and the one which still applies in business to business transactions) of seeking "compensation". In this case, as with rejection, the onus is upon the purchaser to demonstrate the fault was pre-existing - the 6 month rule does not apply.

Only for the first 6 months and only if you are relying upon the new amendments. If you are rejecting the goods or seeking compensation the situation remains as it always has been.

This has always been the case. The new amendments changed nothing in this respect and the SOG act doesn't mention 6 years. The 6 years commonly quoted out of context refers to the Statute of Limitations which, for a long time, has said you cannot bring a case under the SOG after 6 years has elapsed. There is no right to a "6 year warranty" and no requirement for 6yrs of durability.

as its been in place since about 1950 I can't think why.

explains it all.

[Frisket]

(I'll look up the URL later if req'd) but the implication from the OP was that it was a new system that was faulty on installation. Richard

[Dave Plowman]

But he installed it himself, and 99% of alarm faults are due to poor installation.

[547]

Hello,

Providing you sell it honestly as "faulty" or "not working" !