Security equipment & the law.

Discodog

I have read the legislation but I am confused over how it effects DIY installations ? An elderly neighbour has asked me to fit a DIY CCTV camera & PIR activated light. I am not a contractor & would be doing this as a favour. Would I be breaking the law & would he ?

C.TECH

Discodog wrote: »

I have read the legislation but I am confused over how it effects DIY installations ? An elderly neighbour has asked me to fit a DIY CCTV camera & PIR activated light. I am not a contractor & would be doing this as a favour. Would I be breaking the law & would he ?

No, not at all.

altor

Discodog wrote: »

I have read the legislation but I am confused over how it effects DIY installations ? An elderly neighbour has asked me to fit a DIY CCTV camera & PIR activated light. I am not a contractor & would be doing this as a favour. Would I be breaking the law & would he ?

It has nothing to do with CCTV at the moment but is expected at the end of the year, although they have being saying that the last couple of years. The whole issue is about receiving payment for the installation.

No payment, no problems.

Discodog

That seems a strange approach. Surely it would be easy for a contractor & client to agree a cash payment - after all the law makes it an offence for the customers as well as the contractor.

altor

Discodog wrote: »

That seems a strange approach. Surely it would be easy for a contractor & client to agree a cash payment - after all the law makes it an offence for the customers as well as the contractor.

Tell that to the PSA

Discodog

It is a pretty unique law because it prevents a person from choosing a contractor of their choice for example someone that they know & trust.

Are there any links to where this law has been discussed as it seems extremely ambiguous & open to interpretation ?

altor

Discodog wrote: »

It is a pretty unique law because it prevents a person from choosing a contractor of their choice for example someone that they know & trust.

Are there any links to where this law has been discussed as it seems extremely ambiguous & open to interpretation ?

Here you go.

Let us know what you think

Discodog

I have looked at the ACT. I was wondering if it had been discussed online ?

altor

Discodog wrote: »

I have looked at the ACT. I was wondering if it had been discussed online ?

The amendment was here.

KoolKid

Discodog wrote: »

It is a pretty unique law because it prevents a person from choosing a contractor of their choice

It only prevents a persons choice if they want to choose an illegal operator.
You could make that argument for any industry that is regulated.

Discodog

Industries are regulated because there is a risk to the general public for example gas explosions. If a customer chooses an alarm installer he alone bears the risk. I see no problem with doormen, security guards etc being registered because they interact with the public. But alarm & CCTV installers have a one to one interaction with the client.

There are bound to be breaches of this law especially where a client has a long term relationship & trust with an installer but is forced to break this by the law. It turns the client into the criminal for making a decision that he should be totally free to make.

KoolKid

Sorry they are not forced into breaking the law, they choose to .The customer chooses to break the law by employing an unlicensed company. The company chooses to break the law by doing work they are not licensed to do. Remember they are also probably not insured for this work and probably not paying tax on it either. Very hard to put illegal activities on your books.
We could list lots of examples of industries that are regulated. I don't see how any of those infringe on my right to choose.

fred funk }{

You have the right to choose. The right to choose from all the licensed installers out there.

Discodog

Well as I am not involved or connected with the industry I suspect that I can appreciate the viewpoint of a consumer. If I know someone personally & trust them then it is my prerogative to choose them to do work for me. Whether they are insured or pay tax is between them & the authorities.

If I want my car serviced I do not have to go to a registered mechanic so why should I be restricted in who installs my alarm ? I can see no public danger in allowing the man of my choice to do the work. He would be working on my property & any "risk" would be totally mine.

I suspect that some of those who support the legislation have a vested interest in that they are now part of a cosy cartel. I also suspect that many small operators have been forced out of business - I seem to recall a few saying so on Liveline when this law was introduced.

But the crazy part is that by criminalising the consumer it makes it incredibly difficult to bring a prosecution as evidence of payment would be key. No consumer is going to "report" an unregistered operator as he too becomes a guilty party. Neither is he going to admit to paying the contractor.

I am not a lawyer but I have studied a fair bit of law & this is the strangest that I have ever seen.

KoolKid

You just are missing the point all the time. Some industries are licenced some are not. If an industry is licenced you must use a licenced company or individual. Thats the law. If you trust someone thats your business but that does not make them above the law. I trust Paddy down the road with my life. If I get sick should he be allowed perform surgery even though he's not a licenced doctor or surgeon?

Discodog

Using Paddy could kill you & he could kill others. It's a ridiculous comparison. I am not denying the law but merely pointing out that some aspects of it are absurd. People tend to obey good law & can easily spot when the wrong law is introduced. I suspect that this law is being broken every day.

I noticed on the other thread the comments about blank bell boxes. If you knock on someone's door & ask who installed his alarm, he will say that he did. He has to say this otherwise he incriminates himself. Any operator can install a system & be totally safe from prosecution provided that there is no proof of payment which makes the law pointless.

The operators who have paid out a fortune to be "legal" have two choices. Lobby for the law to be even more draconian & even less effective or get the unworkable parts removed. I even suspect that 90% of the population do not even know that they commit an offence by using an unlicensed operator.

KoolKid

Discodog wrote: »

Using Paddy could kill you & he could kill others. It's a ridiculous comparison.

Bad electrical work into your alarm could do likewise. Still extreme but possible. Some would argue having 2 pints & driving home is OK & its a silly law , but that could kill someone as well. If breaking a law is unlikely to kill someone does that make it less of an offence?

Discodog wrote: »

I am not denying the law but merely pointing out that some aspects of it are absurd. People tend to obey good law & can easily spot when the wrong law is introduced. I suspect that this law is being broken every day.

It is been broken every day. Thats because its badly policed. People are buying drugs every day & getting away with it. Does that make that ok.

Discodog wrote: »

I noticed on the other thread the comments about blank bell boxes. If you knock on someone's door & ask who installed his alarm, he will say that he did. He has to say this otherwise he incriminates himself. Any operator can install a system & be totally safe from prosecution provided that there is no proof of payment which makes the law pointless.

I agree, Its a massive loophole that needs to be closed

Discodog wrote: »

The operators who have paid out a fortune to be "legal" have two choices. Lobby for the law to be even more draconian & even less effective or get the unworkable parts removed. I even suspect that 90% of the population do not even know that they commit an offence by using an unlicensed operator.

There is no un workable parts, just very bad policing by the PSA & a severe lack of education to the public. The most effective way forward would be to get the insurance company's to insist on this. But it doesn't happen.I and others have reported many people & many cases .Without going into to much detail , I myself sent the PSA proof of an unlicenced company advertising they install alarms, nothing was done. In most instances the PSA seem to do nothing. Look up the Joe Duffy incident..

[Anyway rant over].. I still don't see the justification in the argument that a customer is denied free choice by any regulation.

altor

Discodog wrote: »

The operators who have paid out a fortune to be "legal" have two choices. Lobby for the law to be even more draconian & even less effective or get the unworkable parts removed. I even suspect that 90% of the population do not even know that they commit an offence by using an unlicensed operator.

It should all come down to the PSA. As you have pointed out we have paid our money to work in the industry. It should be up to them to enforce the laws of the land, not us. They are going to have some job enforcing the CCTV licence when that comes into effect and to be honest with the job they are doing on the alarm side of things they should not be allowed bring it in till they have some sort of action that can be taken to prove who installed the system. Another few quid in there pockets is all it is looking like. The funny thing is if I stop paying for my licence they will investigate me to make sure I am not installing. It is well over a year since the last installer was brought to court and convicted for installing alarm systems. That just shows how committed they are.

C.TECH

altor wrote: »

It should all come down to the PSA. As you have pointed out we have paid our money to work in the industry. It should be up to them to enforce the laws of the land, not us. They are going to have some job enforcing the CCTV licence when that comes into effect and to be honest with the job they are doing on the alarm side of things they should not be allowed bring it in till they have some sort of action that can be taken to prove who installed the system. Another few quid in there pockets is all it is looking like. The funny thing is if I stop paying for my licence they will investigate me to make sure I am not installing. It is well over a year since the last installer was brought to court and convicted for installing alarm systems. That just shows how committed they are.

I've often said that the PSA should be run like a union, with every license paying member getting a vote, and the members of the board being elected Installers.

I haven't got all the practicalities of the organisational structure worked out...

but you get the idea.

The PSA gets away with doing things the way they do because we let them.

altor

C.TECH wrote: »

I've often said that the PSA should be run like a union, with every license paying member getting a vote, and the members of the board being elected Installers.

I haven't got all the practicalities of the organisational structure worked out...

but you get the idea.

The PSA gets away with doing things the way they do because we let them.

I agree C.TECH. Unfortunately they are running the show. If the installers had more of a say in this I am sure it would be run differently.

fred funk }{

Make it illegal to sell to anyone without a licence. Then there's no excuses. Every suppliers I know has a stack of blank bell-box lids on the shelf.

KoolKid

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Make it illegal to sell to anyone without a licence. Then there's no excuses. Every suppliers I know has a stack of blank bell-box lids on the shelf.

That is never going to happen. The suppliers will argue that equipment can be bought on the net anyway , so why should they be excluded from selling it.

C.TECH

Actually, we mainly have blank lids on the shelf because a lot of guys use different systems and some don't bother screening, they have stickers, or we may get a new client walking through the door.

While I don't disagree with the idea of using the supply chain as a method of enforcement, you'd have to wonder at that stage 'why pay the PSA?'.

See how easily, within the space of a couple of posts among Installers and Suppliers, the ideas of how to regulate the industry flow forth....now what are the PSA doing again?

oh that's right, they're busy collecting exorbitant license fees from honest Installers.

fred funk }{

I'm sure there is a percentage who use stickers, although I don't know why because they look terrible but going by the amount of blank boxes I see around that percentage must be small.

@koolkid........
Make it illegal to buy it on line too. There are lots of things that are illegal here but can be bought online.

KoolKid

Impossible to police online something that's only relevant to ireland. .
The PSA can't enforce the obvious one's we are telling them about. How can we expect them to police the internet??

fred funk }{

We all know just how useless the PSA are but if something is illegal to import into the country then it's upto customs to police it. I'm not saying it's the only answer but it is one solution.

Jnealon

I'd like to see the psa team up with revenue and audit the suppliers and manufacturers.
Making it an offence to sell to unlicensed installers would be a start.
Sure they might choose to go to alarm supplies etc but it will deter them none the less

altor

It is all well and good blaming the suppliers and the manufacturers but at the end of the day its the legislation that has all the holes in it. They cant be blamed for that. I cant see how the PSA will ever be able to police it in its entirety.

Jnealon

I would like to see them do something instead of sitting on their hands.
They have approached suppliers in the past looking to examine their books but nothing ever came of it

2011

Jnealon wrote: »

I'd like to see the psa team up with revenue and audit the suppliers and manufacturers.

I would not think that there is enough tax evasion from alarm installation work by (licensed and unlicensed) alarm installers to justify the financial costs of a Revenue investigation.

Making it an offence to sell to unlicensed installers would be a start.

The logical conclusion of that argument is that it should be an offense to sell MCB's, sockets, lights etc. to anyone that is not a registered electrical contractor

Manufactures and suppliers will sell to people that pay them money, simple as. Personally I don't blame them for that.

I work in the electrical industry and therefore I am required to have suitable insurance.
This covers me to carry out all forms of electrical design, commissioning and installation work.
In addition I pay tax for every hour that I work.
Therefore I fail to see why Revenue would care if I illegally installed an intruder alarm.
Revenue are in the business of collecting tax, not policing the alarm industry.
For the record I do not install intruder alarms, nor do I intend to.

altor

I agree 2011, it is a waste of time blaming the suppliers. It is not and should not be there job to police the alarm industry.