Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

PW Demonial system - deactivate one PIR on system

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    KoolKid
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭KoolKid


    It is a requirement of EN50131 that the engineer can not access the system without the user turning on their access from the keypad.


  • Options
    #33
    amadablam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭amadablam


    KoolKid wrote: »
    It is a requirement of EN50131 that the engineer can not access the system without the user turning on their access from the keypad.

    That's interesting to know, I guess most users wouldn't be up to speed on things like this and probably aren't in a position to question or challenge it.

    If phonewatch is ever going to be challenged on details like this, I am guessing it will have to come from industry.


  • Options
    #34
    KoolKid
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭KoolKid


    So are you saying that the engineer accessed the panel without you enabling engineer access??
    If so then your alarm does not conform to EN50131. This alone should be grounds for a removal of the system with a full refund.
    I would be looking for this and a full explanation in writing.


  • Options
    #35
    amadablam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭amadablam


    KoolKid wrote: »
    So are you saying that the engineer accessed the panel without you enabling engineer access??
    If so then your alarm does not conform to EN50131. This alone should be grounds for a removal of the system with a full refund.
    I would be looking for this and a full explanation in writing.

    He came in with a hand held terminal and went around the house and did an inspection but I cant say I saw him use the panel. He relocated the PIR and did any operation he needed (as far as I could see) on the handheld then phoned into PW while testing the alarm at which point I was outside the house.

    according to their website, they state:

    'PhoneWatch Ltd. Private Company Limited by Shares. Registered in Dublin. Registration Number 162566.
    PhoneWatch intruder alarms systems are certified to EN 50131-1:2006. PhoneWatch is licensed and accredited by the Private Security Authority, PSA licence no:00621.'


  • Options
    #36
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,546 ✭✭✭kub


    KoolKid wrote: »
    So are you saying that the engineer accessed the panel without you enabling engineer access??
    If so then your alarm does not conform to EN50131. This alone should be grounds for a removal of the system with a full refund.
    I would be looking for this and a full explanation in writing.

    Brilliant, well done KK :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,546 ✭✭✭kub


    amadablam wrote: »
    He came in with a hand held terminal and went around the house and did an inspection but I cant say I saw him use the panel. He relocated the PIR and did any operation he needed (as far as I could see) on the handheld then phoned into PW while testing the alarm at which point I was outside the house.

    according to their website, they state:

    'PhoneWatch Ltd. Private Company Limited by Shares. Registered in Dublin. Registration Number 162566.
    PhoneWatch intruder alarms systems are certified to EN 50131-1:2006. PhoneWatch is licensed and accredited by the Private Security Authority, PSA licence no:00621.'


    So at no time did he request your input?


  • Options
    #38
    amadablam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭amadablam


    kub wrote: »
    So at no time did he request your input?

    Nope.

    I gave him access to my property and showed him the location of the components in question and he relocated them and also saw fit to change the location of the monitors smoke detector as he felt it wasnt best located but, No, at no time did he request my input to anything and he relocated the PIR.

    Then he said he had to set the alarm off, take fresh images and he would call into PW and ensure everything is ok.

    When he was done I signed an electronic signature outside his van and he left.


  • Options
    #39
    KoolKid
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭KoolKid


    If that panel does not require your code to access engineer mode or settings then it does not conform to EN50131.
    I would be doing as I said above. You employed them to install a system that conforms to EN50131 grade 2.
    If you have en50131 on your insurance policy this could even invalidate your insurance cover in the event of a claim.
    I would also recommend you make a complaint regarding this matter to the PSA and their certification body. I believe it's the NSAI.


  • Options
    #40
    amadablam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭amadablam


    Would he have needed to access the panel to physically relocate the PIR and Smoke detector once the alarm was disarmed? Are they supposed to be tamper proof?


  • Options
    #41
    KoolKid
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭KoolKid


    Engineer mode would disable the tampers. But he should not be able to get into engineer without you inputting your user code.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    amadablam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭amadablam


    KoolKid wrote: »
    Engineer mode would disable the tampers. But he should not be able to get into engineer without you inputting your user code.

    Interesting so from what I can see, I dont have a user code and the PIR are tamper free :( Its worse this system sounds every minute!


  • Options
    #43
    KoolKid
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭KoolKid


    I am not saying that there are no tampers. The tamper would not activate because the system was in engineer mode. The thing is the engineer should not have been able to access the engineer mode and disable the tampers without you granting engineer access from the keypad.
    Likewise your user code should give you access to a menu to grant and revoke this access.
    Not having the right to block engineer access is a breach of EN50131 standard IMO.


  • Options
    #44
    amadablam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭amadablam


    Know what you are saying now.

    From what I see, I have no power to block or access anything other than the basis arming functions . Phone watch are the only ones with control other than my arm / disarm code and remote arm/disarm and app arm/disarm


  • Options
    #45
    KoolKid
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭KoolKid


    Yes.If thats the case that is not right & I can not see how the system can conform to EN50131


  • Options
    #46
    Sequence 365
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭Sequence 365


    KoolKid wrote: »
    What arrogance from a lad who is basically fobbing you off with a lot of lies.
    I would do 2 things.
    Call back and ask to speak with his supervisor and make a complaint regarding his manner and about him giving you false information.
    Start the process again and put the request in writing.
    Actually, 3 things...
    Call Joe Duffy, or at least threaten it.

    I would call to their office in Sandyford


  • Options
    #47
    KoolKid
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭KoolKid


    I wouldn't recommend making any more phone calls . Do it all by email. Make them put their answers in writing.writing. Otherwise you will just have different people giving you different answers & excuses.


  • Options
    #48
    Evolution1
    Registered Users Posts: 855 ✭✭✭Evolution1


    Its up on the PW site that they can remotely access your system while you're at work.


  • Options
    #49
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,546 ✭✭✭kub


    So that is engineers access without your knowledge or permission.
    Therefore according to their website they are admitting that their systems do not comply with EN50131.
    I suppose when your company is as big as theirs, little things like European standards are just pesky little things that get in your way when you are busy spending millions on marketing to keep the revenue rolling in.


  • Options
    #50
    altor
    Registered Users Posts: 11,715 ✭✭✭✭altor


    kub wrote: »
    Hi OP, I have never had the 'privilege' of working on one of these panels, but if you find you are getting no where with PW here is the manufacturers details.

    Honeywell Security Group
    Newhouse Industrial Estate
    Motherwell
    Lanarkshire
    ML1 5SB
    United Kingdom
    Tel:+44 (0) 1698 738200

    Sector have shares in honeywell. The system they use is coded for P.W. so even if you buy another panel the sensors wont work. Only way into the panel is by access through the programmer keypad. Again only if you have the proper one to connect to the panel and receive the code which is a rolling code to allow access.

    www.altor.ie



  • Options
    #51
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,546 ✭✭✭kub


    altor wrote: »
    Sector have shares in honeywell. The system they use is coded for P.W. so even if you buy another panel the sensors wont work. Only way into the panel is by access through the programmer keypad. Again only if you have the proper one to connect to the panel and receive the code which is a rolling code to allow access.

    So the owners of Phonewatch are also shareholders of the manufacturer. No wonder the system is so custom built and they are now giving them away 'free'.
    So what you are saying is, even if one of their customers wanted another company to take over the system, that basically the client will have to get a whole new alarm system?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    altor
    Registered Users Posts: 11,715 ✭✭✭✭altor


    kub wrote: »
    So the owners of Phonewatch are also shareholders of the manufacturer. No wonder the system is so custom built and they are now giving them away 'free'.
    So what you are saying is, even if one of their customers wanted another company to take over the system, that basically the client will have to get a whole new alarm system?

    Sector are using that system in different countries and yes, it is custom designed for them only. No other company will be able to take it over as its locked down to them only. Its a basic version of the Domonial system made by Honeywell. No outputs, nothing.

    www.altor.ie



  • Options
    #53
    amadablam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭amadablam


    altor wrote: »
    Sector are using that system in different countries and yes, it is custom designed for them only. No other company will be able to take it over as its locked down to them only. Its a basic version of the Domonial system made by Honeywell. No outputs, nothing.

    I am looking to get a new system to replace this and was wondering if anything is salvageable? Painful to have paid so much for the system if it's unusable and a new one needs to be completely installed to avail of cheaper monitoring too.


  • Options
    #54
    KoolKid
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭KoolKid


    Nothing.
    Its a start from scratch I'm afraid. The only thing salvageable is the experience and knowledge you gained .


  • Options
    #55
    amadablam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭amadablam


    KoolKid wrote: »
    Nothing.
    Its a start from scratch I'm afraid. The only thing salvageable is the experience and knowledge you gained .

    Lesson learned the hard way. Paid a lot more than they are offering it to customers now too. No one could pay the monthly price for the service they are providing. Utterly disgusted :(


Advertisement