System Recommendation

MuddyDog

Currently have the Eufy E and it's great. Only thing I'd need on top of it is a properly loud alarm so neighbours etc would hear as the ones in the Eufy youd barely hear it at the other side of the house. I'd also
love my phone to ring rather than simply be notified when the system is armed and is triggered. What system does what the Eufy does as well as the extra things I mentioned? I dont want phonewatch or any of those contract/subscription services. I'd be open to having another system just for the loud alarm/calling my phone if needed.

MuddyDog

Anyone able to give any recommendations?

2011

In my opinion:

Your neighbors will ignore the sound of an alarm just like everyone else does. The important thing is that you are notified that the alarm has been activated, obviously multiple communications paths are best.

The first thing I want from an alarm is for it to be a seriously good deterrent, this is best achieved by having a real working bell box that looks like it is professionally installed. That alone will make many potential intruders think twice. To make it clear that it is a working bell box it should have presence / comfort LEDs. The DIY kits look amateurish and even the casual observer will think that the system is unlikely to work in any real capacity. This should be combined with good lighting (such as Stinel sensor lights) and may also be complemented by CCTV (or even a video doorbell).

The next thing I want from an alarm system is full perimeter protection. This means shock sensors on every accessible entry / exit point. That way an intruder is detected while trying to gain entry rather than after the fact. Intruder alarm systems that depend entirely or mostly on motion detectors will only activate once the intruder is in your home which is a bit too late in my opinion (and the opinion of the vast majority of installers).

The other main issue with being so dependent on motion detectors is that the system has to be disabled when you are in the home which is far from ideal as some opportunists have been known to casually pay people a visit while they are tucked up in bed or are watching TV :eek:

Finally I like the idea of having motion detectors that have cameras built in. That way an alarm activation can be verified by the home owner when not at home.

The whole central station monitoring thing is a con in my opinion. Self monitoring is very cheap or even free with some systems. However with the systems that this service is free you may pay in other ways.

My personal preference is the HKC hybrid system (wired & wireless options available for this) for a number of reasons but there are other professional options out there that will tick all of the boxes for most people.

kub

2011 wrote: »

The whole central station monitoring thing is a con in my opinion. Self monitoring is very cheap or even free with some systems. However with the systems that this service is free you may pay in other ways.

I agreed with every other word in your post there, very well thought out and you are spot on.
However what makes you think that central monitoring is a con please ?

2011

kub wrote: »

I agreed with every other word in your post there, very well thought out and you are spot on.

Thanks dude

However what makes you think that central monitoring is a con please ?

In terms of monitoring my view is that there are 2 main choices:

Option #1: Self monitoring

In the event of an alarm activation the intruder alarm system contacts the home owner and a number of other key holders directly at a cost ranging from free to €5.49 per month. Key holders can then decide how they wish to respond. Key holders may choose to ring the Gardai. However in most cases home owners will choose suitable key holders that are in a position to respond quicker than Gardai. Naturally key holders also have the option of phoning a friend too



Option #2: Central Station monitoring

In the event of an alarm activation the intruder alarm system contacts a central station and then the central station contacts key holders at a cost ranging from well above €5.49 to an extortionate rate per month (I think PhoneWatch are €40 per month :eek:). The central station then has to contact the home owner and key holders, what a waste of time! Key holders can then decide how they wish to respond. If the alarm is verified (2 zones activated within a specified time period) the central station may ring the Gardai. However there is no guarantee that the Gardai turn up within a specified time and they certainly won't appear unless a key holder is present. Also due to a mandatory delay (I think it is 30 seconds but am open to correction) and the requirement for the alarm to be verified it will take longer to contact the Gardai than the self monitored option as these constraints do not apply.

The Gardai are very clear in the Garda Policy on Monitored Alarms that:

No Alarm Installation Company or Monitoring Centre shall, in or on any of their stationery or advertising material, make any reference to An Garda Sh or infer that Garda response will result from all alarm activations.

It is well documented that Gardai are overstretched. As such they should not be relied on to respond any quicker than key holders.

So that is why I think it is a bit of a con

Personally I think that the money saved could be better spent on other security measures such as:

⦁ CCTV (I like Hikvision)
⦁ Security lighting (I like Stinel)
⦁ Multiple communication paths
⦁ Better alarm coverage (perhaps additional PIRs with cameras)
⦁ Descent locks (additional for vulnerable doors and windows).
⦁ Video door bell (I like the Nest Hello)

kub

Thank you.


If a central station receives a verified Intruder Alarm activation, they call the Gardai, that is the whole point of a verified Alarm activation.


We both know of reps from a particular company claiming that there are Garda cars literally on standy at the local station to respond solely to that companies alarm systems :rolleyes:


This is the sort of stuff that The Garda Intruder Alarm policy is attempting to prevent.


So would you feel content so, at home in your bed at 2am and your alarm activates, your phone pings to alert you of same ( assuming you notice this over the racket from your alarm activating.
There are 2 guys trying to get into your home.


Do you still think that professional monitoring is a con ?


I experienced this myself at home here myself, over the years I have had customers telling me how much of a relief it is to hear some trained security guy on the phone in the middle of the night after their alarm activated.
Anyway my own experience was, my alarm went off in the early hours, down i went to the keypad, put in my code, the screen mentioned kitchen area.
Then my mobile phone rang, it was indeed one of the guys in the monitoring station which my alarm is connected to, as i entered the kitchen, i saw a curtain move, i asked the guy on the phone to hold on while explaining what I saw.
He assured me that his other hand was on the direct line to the Garda Control room.
I found the door behind the moving curtain wide open.
I told him so.


Anyway, thankfully i soon established that it was simply a case of the Patio Doors not being locked properly and the wind simply picking up during the night.


It could just as easily have been something else.


See from my point of view, having spent years upon years repairing and servicing systems, fault finding etc, an alarm activation to me is 99.9% a false one, due of course to my work experience.


However it was quite a shock for me to see the curtains move as i entered my Kitchen and the fact I had a trained controller on my phone at that time was far from a Con to me.


We all have our own experiences, that is mine.


Professional monitoring is the best means of notification and that is a fact.

2011

kub wrote: »

Thank you.

No bother.

So would you feel content so, at home in your bed at 2am and your alarm activates, your phone pings to alert you of same ( assuming you notice this over the racket from your alarm activating.
There are 2 guys trying to get into your home.

I would feel far more content with a self monitored alarm in that situation to be honest. Why? Because the other key holders would be aware of the situation before a monitoring station would even have called them. No 30 second delay as is required with the monitored alarm plus no delay in the monitoring station having to call them.

Do you still think that professional monitoring is a con ?

I do, yes. I would have more faith in key holders that I know personally and trust who assure me that they will take action than the Gardai who essentially tell me that they may not have the resources to respond within anything like the same time frame. Needless to say the key holders would call the Gardai too. I should point out that like many in Ireland the nearest Garda station is much further away than the key holders.

kub

2011 wrote: »

I would feel far more content with a self monitored alarm in that situation to be honest. Why? Because the other key holders would be aware of the situation before a monitoring station would even have called them. No 30 second delay as is required with the monitored alarm plus no delay in the monitoring station having to call them.

Just to be correct, it is 20 seconds on an intruder activation, immediate on a Panic activation.
Have all of your keyholders training just like a Garda and in a position to detain and arrest these people? To perhaps call in further assistance should it be required?
Are all of your keyholders on a 24 hour response type arrangement similiar to our Gardai ?
Could your Keyholder recognise known burglars, should they encounter them on the way to the scene of the crime ?
Have your keyholders the power to search any suspects?

2011 wrote: »

I do, yes. I would have more faith in key holders that I know personally and trust who assure me that they will take action than the Gardai who essentially tell me that they may not have the resources to respond within anything like the same time frame. I should point out that like many in Ireland the nearest Garda station is much further away than the key holders.

Is this when you ring the Gardai yourself to ask them to nip around to your place because you got a notification on your phone ?


You are of course aware of the Garda Response Criteria as you posted same previously.
This is all about them being notified by Monitoring Stations of alarm activations that have been installed professionally, are certified to En50131, have a Unique Reference Number and are basically the Gardai doing what they agreed to do by our industry.


I am sorry to say that Intruder Alarm systems, that are not professionally installed, have no certification to En50131 and have no URN and are not connected to a Monitoring Station will not at all receive the same attention as those that do.


Do you think that the Gardai operate like the Fire Brigade and only dispatch resources from the nearest station?


They don't, a patrol car / unit could be anywhere when they receive the call from their control to go to a call.

2011

kub wrote: »

Just to be correct, it is 20 seconds on an intruder activation, immediate on a Panic activation.

Plus the time lost calling key holders.

Have all of your keyholders training just like a Garda and in a position to detain and arrest these people?

They don’t need to be as they will call the Gardai.
But they are quite “handy”. More importantly I would expect them to turn up long before the Gardai.

You know that self monitoring and being able to call the Gardai are not mutually exclusive??

To perhaps call in further assistance should it be required?

All key holders are proficient with a phone.

Are all of your keyholders on a 24 hour response type arrangement similiar to our Gardai ?

We don’t even have a 24 hour Garda station
... and one key holder lives 50m away, the bell box would wake him

It boils down to this:
I don't believe that a Garda response is more likely or will be accelerated just because an alarm is connected to a monitoring station. I also am of the opinion that the Garda policy document I linked to above makes it clear that alarm companies should not make any promises of a superior service on behalf of the Gardai just because an alarm is connected to a monitoring station. It would seem to me that your posts conflict with this.

Other posters can make their own minds up, I'm not going to get into a protracted argument about it.

kub

2011 wrote: »

Plus the time lost calling key holders.

But zero time lost contacting who is most important here and that is The Gardai, all monitoring stations have direct lines to Garda Divisional Headquaters Control Rooms.

2011 wrote: »

They don’t need to be as they will call the Gardai.
But they are quite “handy”. More importantly I would expect them to turn up long before the Gardai.

By resources I mean those at the disposal of an actual Garda on the scene of a possible crime, such as back up, armed support, air units, etc etc.
Time obviously being the most vital thing in such events.


I trust by your " But they are quite “handy”." remark, that you are not suggesting that your keyholders would in anyway physically assault any intruder on your property.
I trust you are aware of the implications this could have on your keyholders should they do that ?
The law is specific to the property owner, a keyholder is not that.


So your keyholders will call The Gardai but after a longer time period than a Central Monitoring station.
Well that nullifies your point above about Central Stations, does it not ?

2011 wrote: »

You know that self monitoring and being able to call the Gardai are not mutually exclusive??

As i mentioned previously, a professionally installed system which has certification to the recognised standard, a Garda URN Number etc will get an appropriate response from the Garda Divisional HQ.

2011 wrote: »

All key holders are proficient with a phone.

Again though, time is crucial.

2011 wrote: »

We don’t even have a 24 hour Garda station
... and one key holder lives 50m away, the bell box would wake him

Perhaps your local station is not open 24 hours, but that does not mean that the Gardai stationed there are not available around the clock.
Most Garda stations in this country are not open 24 hours, but yet the Gardai still offer a 24 hour service regardless of where you are.
Local stations that are not open around the clock are in a group which are in a District, you will find that the District stations are open 24 hours.
My local station is not open 24 hours either but I know that the patrol car stationed there is on the road 24 hours.


Can your keyholder hear your bell box when he is out socialising, away from home, visiting relatives, on holidays etc ?
Or at home with ear phones on listening to music?

2011 wrote: »

It boils down to this:
I don't believe that a Garda response is more likely or will be accelerated just because an alarm is connected to a monitoring station. I also am of the opinion that the Garda policy document I linked to above makes it clear that alarm companies should not make any promises of a superior service on behalf of the Gardai just because an alarm is connected to a monitoring station. It would seem to me that your posts conflict with this.

I see above there the constant word " I "
That is fair enough and they are your personal beliefs, however my back ground as you are probably aware is coming from professional experience.


So would it be fair for me to ask you this, do you think that a Garda unit would arrive at your home quicker if you pressed a Panic Button on a monitored system rather than one that was not monitored ?


Oh with regard to your comment about my posts conflicting with Garda policy, I have yet to meet a Garda Crime Prevention Officer who has the same opinion as you suggesting that monitoring stations are a " con "
That is what we are debating here, I am not trying to sell you a system and coming out with the infamous sales talk that certain companies do.

2011

Sorry Kub but I’m not buying it
I still see it as a con.

As above, I think that the money saved would be better spent on CCTV rather than central station monitoring. I also can’t ignore the fact that a large portion of this fee tends be a commission to the alarm installer. I am sure that this has nothing to do with your interest....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The funny thing is that monitoring stations still depend on key holders that you seem to have so little faith in.....

Also I find the Garda policy linked to above a tad more credible than your view which seems a bit like scaremongering to me.

As can be clearly seen from posters on this forum self monitoring of professionally installed alarms is becoming increasingly popular. Many of the installers I know do little else. Instead of making money from the kick backs from central station monitoring, they charge more for the installs. That is what I did when I was installing lots of alarms. Personally I believe that central station monitoring will continue to decline for domestic premises.

Drifter50

2011 wrote: »

Sorry Kub but I’m not buying it
I still see it as a con.

As above, I think that the money saved would be better spent on CCTV rather than central station monitoring. I also can’t ignore the fact that a large portion of this fee tends be a commission to the alarm installer. I am sure that this has nothing to do with your interest....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The funny thing is that monitoring stations still depend on key holders that you seem to have so little faith in.....

Also I find the Garda policy linked to above a tad more credible than your view which seems a bit like scaremongering to me.

As can be clearly seen from posters on this forum self monitoring of professionally installed alarms is becoming increasingly popular. Many of the installers I know do little else. Instead of making money from the kick backs from central station monitoring, they charge more for the installs. That is what I did when I was installing lots of alarms. Personally I believe that central station monitoring will continue to decline for domestic premises.

Good points made earlier by yourself

However, in a commercial situation the insurance company will require central station monitoring.

Also with installs in the current market, the prices are in a race to the bottom so there is very little margin left for us so the add ons become more important.

Yes of course we receive commission from monitoring centres, after all we are introducing the client so whats wrong with that

2011

Drifter50 wrote: »

Good points made earlier by yourself

Thanks

However, in a commercial situation the insurance company will require central station monitoring.

Agree 100%
I specifically referred to domestic.

We have central station monitoring at work backed up by 24 hour security guards. A very different service.

Also with installs in the current market, the prices are in a race to the bottom so there is very little margin left for us so the add ons become more important.

I see your pint. That is happening in electrical market too. However installers I talk to seem to be very busy. Much of their business is word of mouth. I generally recommend a particular PSA installer because his work is first class and he always deals with queries from the customer. I’m sure I could get someone cheaper but I don’t think it would be worth it.

As part of my job I review and select and recommend electrical contractors during a tender process. I won’t necessarily recommend the lowest bid. If there isn’t money to be made the quality of workmanship will suffer. I am always keen to avoid a race to the bottom.

Yes of course we receive commission from monitoring centres, after all we are introducing the client so whats wrong with that

Not saying it’s wrong, but most of us believe in full disclosure before stating a position of a particular topic. For example if I worked for HKC (I don’t) I should state that before I recommend HKC. So it follows that if an installer is going to strongly argue for central station monitoring they should state that they have a commercial interest up front. When another poster reveals this it undermines their argument. I feel that I have seen commercial alignment influence posts on this forum quite a bit.

Besides I have an aversion to paying for an “introduction” indefinitely

kub

2011 wrote: »

Not saying it’s wrong, but most of us believe in full disclosure before stating a position of a particular topic. For example if I worked for HKC (I don’t) I should state that before I recommend HKC. So it follows that if an installer is going to strongly argue for central station monitoring they should state that they have a commercial interest up front. When another poster reveals this it undermines their argument. I feel that I have seen commercial alignment influence posts on this forum quite a bit.

Besides I have an aversion to paying for an “introduction” indefinitely

So I take it that section of your post is referring to our discussion, I do not work for any monitoring station and of course i have systems connected to them.
Mostly these are commerical systems, like your work one which I find interesting that you do not think that one is a con.
If in your belief that Garda response is that terrible then why don't you have that intruder alarm notifying their phones directly ?
They are after all the exact same Gardai and it is Garda response.


As regards your suggestion of anything underhand going on, some of us have to plan for our retirements with our own resources, from whatever means we can and as a previous poster mentioned prices are decreasing all of the time.

2011

kub wrote: »

So I take it that section of your post is referring to our discussion, I do not work for any monitoring station and of course i have systems connected to them.

As I said:
So it follows that if an installer is going to strongly argue for central station monitoring they should state that they have a commercial interest up front.

Mostly these are commerical systems, like your work one which I find interesting that you do not think that one is a con.

As stated the commercial one is complemented by security guards, so hardly a fair comparison
Can you really not tell the difference?

If in your belief that Garda response is that terrible then why don't you have that intruder alarm notifying their phones directly ?

My belief is what their policy states. I also believe that I don't have a 24 hour Garda station in my town. I don't doubt that the Gardai are stretched, especially in rural areas.

They are after all the exact same Gardai and it is Garda response.

Now you are making my argument for me
Yes, the same Gardai with the same Garda response regardless of whether the alarm is connected to a monitoring station or not.

I suppose you disagree with spending the savings on CCTV too?

kub

So on the domestic front, you have this situation:

2011 wrote: »

They don’t need to be as they will call the Gardai.
But they are quite “handy”. More importantly I would expect them to turn up long before the Gardai.

But at work, that is not good enough and there despite what you said about your wonderful " handy " keyholders :

2011 wrote: »

As stated the commercial one is complemented by security guards, so hardly a fair comparison

Can you really not tell the difference?

That is an absolute farce of a point, you have specifically said that you find monitoring stations a Con.
But there you are now stating that at work, you have your alarm connected to one.
Then rather than your " Handy " keyholders, you have security guards responding with obvious Garda response also.


Your argument there is beyond ridiculous.

2011 wrote: »

As I said:
So it follows that if an installer is going to strongly argue for central station monitoring they should state that they have a commercial interest up front.

More clutching at straws I see.


Do you honestly think that the only reason I recommend professional monitoring is because i only have a vested interest, is it ?


Well I am so sorry to inform you but after working in the industry that I am in for 30 years now, it is my professional experience that has made my mind up that professional monitoring is the best form of notification.


That is in all probablity why your place of employment know better than you in this regard and have professional monitoring.


That is why Insurance companies are insisting on professional monitoring, because it is the best form of notification.

2011 wrote: »

My belief is what their policy states. I also believe that I don't have a 24 hour Garda station in my town. I don't doubt that the Gardai are stretched, especially in rural areas.

Can you please tell me what it is exactly what it is that you expect your local Garda station to do for you during the night when it is closed?


As i have said previously, Gardai arrive to incidents in vehicles, they have their own communications network and are in all probablity the most mobile service in the country


It would not at all surprise me if you think that just because your local Garda station is closed at night, that if you called the Gardai, that there would be no one there :rolleyes:

2011 wrote: »

Now you are making my argument for me
Yes, the same Gardai with the same Garda response regardless of whether the alarm is connected to a monitoring station or not.

This is funny, your system at work is monitored and should fall within the Garda response criteria, so your alarm system will send appropriate signals to acheive that response.


It does not go on holiday, wear ear phones, go to shop, work, the barbers or hairdressers, the bookies, the match etc etc etc


But your " Handy " Keyholder probably does all that and more.

2011 wrote: »

I suppose you disagree with spending the savings on CCTV too?

That is not even worthy of a response now

2011

@ Kub: As this fundamental stuff for a seasoned professional like yourself. I’m sure you know this but I will say it anyway. Different risk profiles require different mitigation measures. At work we pay a substantial fee for professional security personnel to be key holders. They will respond as key holders to an alarm activation. This is part of a range of security measures that we have in place. This is not a domestic service and is not remotely comparable to the normal service offered to homes with central station monitoring no matter how much you try to distrust the facts.

You are living in the past. Time to face the facts, look around you, self monitoring is taking over.
Just look at how many self monitored installations HKC have.

I still believe that the money saved could be better spent on CCTV but you don’t seem to have a view on this

kub

2011 wrote: »

@ Kub: As this fundamental stuff for a seasoned professional like yourself. I’m sure you know this but I will say it anyway. Different risk profiles require different mitigation measures. At work we pay a substantial fee for professional security personnel to be key holders. They will respond as key holders to an alarm activation. This is part of a range of security measures that we have in place. This is not a domestic service and is not remotely comparable to the normal service offered to homes with central station monitoring no matter how much you try to distrust the facts.

You are living in the past. Time to face the facts, look around you, self monitoring is taking over.
Just look at how many self monitored installations HKC have.

I still believe that the money saved could be better spent on CCTV but you don’t seem to have a view on this

Where did I say that CCTV was not worth money ?

You have a personal opinion on a matter which I earn a livelihood from.
I will always give my customers the best security advice that I can, that best advice is always professional monitoring.
Anything else is secondary to that and indeed a compromise. These are the facts here and not personal opinions or indeed vested interests.

I am very much with the times as well, in the field in which I am in, I have to be.

I hope for all involved that your " handy " keyholders do not end up in trouble some day facing some thug attempting to gain access to your home.

2011

kub wrote: »

Where did I say that CCTV was not worth money ?

You know that everyone can read my post above??
It is very clear what I said in relation to CCTV.
That sort of response only undermines your position further.
That would be like failing to declare a financial interest in a service that you promote.

kub

2011 wrote: »

You know that everyone can read my post above??
It is very clear what I said in relation to CCTV.
That sort of response only undermines your position further.
That would be like failing to declare a financial interest in a service that you promote.

Everyone can read your post above?
Is this a stage we are on?
Really I must say if anyone is still bothered to read this thread then they must be bored senseless at this stage

As I said, you carry on with your personal beliefs and opinions whilst I will carry on with my professional facts, the ones I make a living from.

As regards failing to declare a financial interest in something, what business of that is yours ?
Besides for someone who has obviously failed in the profession I am in I wonder have you a chip of some sort on your shoulder ?