Taxpayers Foot The Bill For False Alarms

» 15 Comments | Post a Comment

CENTRAL OHIO—Security alarms screech into the night, but when police arrive, there’s no crime. You may be the one footing the bill.

NBC 4 got answers on why some false alarm fees aren’t being paid.

By the city of Columbus’ count, African Auto Sales and Body Shop on East Hudson Street had 33 false-alarm calls in 12 months.

In fact, African Auto owes more money for false alarms than any other Columbus business: $30,700.

It’s a staggering amount for a company that nearly went out of business last year.

The owners said they couldn’t afford it—even if they wanted to pay—but they don’t think they should be charged in the first place.

“It’s not fair. It’s not fair, and nobody’s going to stay in there and wait until the police,” co-owner Hamza Mohamed said.

Mohamed said thieves constantly target the business, sneaking in to steal tire rims and costly car parts, including more than 30 catalytic converters.

By the time police respond, though, the thieves are gone, and the police bill them as much as $800 for each false alarm.

“We’ve tried to schedule hearings for these folks. They didn’t respond so we have no choice but to turn that over to a collections agency,” said Sharon Gadd. Gadd is the license manager for the city’s department of public safety.

Gadd told NBC 4 the city is willing to dismiss false-alarm charges if there’s a good reason and documentation such as a police report for an attempted break-in.

African Auto has not been filing that documentation, and Gadd said the owners have made it worse by ignoring the fees, leading to extra debt-collection charges.

“They do not get out of paying by just simply not responding,” Gadd said.

African Auto isn’t alone in failing to pay.

Columbus resident Charlie Downing owes $13,000 for false alarms. When we spoke to him off camera, he blamed his former alarm company in refusing to pay.

Gadd said Downing hasn’t returned calls or answered the door when city workers and police came by.

“We are in discussions with the city attorney’s office based on his financial condition, whether we’ll be able to collect that amount,” Gadd said.

There are the companies that owe money but are out of business.

Such as Nytek Auto on Mock Road.

It’s been closed for four years.

The company owes the city $8,400 for false alarms.

Casa Fiesta Mexican Restaurant on Dublin-Granville Road owes $7,500. It’s closed.

Sammy’s New York Bagels is closed, too.

Combined, the three companies owe the city more than $24,000.

The city still is pursuing the money through collection agencies.

In total, the city still has about $300,000 in false-alarm fees that are delinquent from dozens of companies.

Four months ago, African Auto disconnected its alarm from the police. Even so, at some point, it will have to settle its $30,000 tab with the city.

“That’s a lot of money. It’s too much, too much,” Mohamed said.

“Taxpayers are paying every time police and fire respond to that user’s alarm system. We’re all paying for that,” Gadd said.

For additional information, stay with NBC 4 and refresh nbc4i.com—Where Accuracy Matters.
To submit a story idea or news tip, e-mail .
MORE: NBC 4 Local News | Local Crime News
NBC 4 SPORTS: Sports News, Video
NBC 4 POLITICS: Headlines, Interactives & Video

Advertisement

 
View More: taxpayer,special reports,patrick preston,false alarms,city of columbus,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by ulrichst on July 06, 2009 at 10:23 pm

Yes, the true transgressor is the user of the service, who is a client of the provider. Compare the two situations and it becomes clear.

1) You punish the user. The user refuses to pay. The city does not receive the fee and wastes resources trying to recover it.

2) You punish the provider, who is more able to pay. The provider looks into whether it was a false alarm or not. If it was, it improves its product. If not, it takes issue with the user. The user refuses to pay. The provider threatens to end service and/or send to collections agency. The provider begins protecting itself in user agreements and/or educating clients about the repercussions of not filing a police report.

The point is, the service provider is more able to FIX the problem, whether it is the alarm or the user. Looking at this from a cost-cutting perspective, the city’s only option in cutting the costs associated with the problem is to not punish the user or not directly respond to alarms. The alarm company is able to either fix the alarm or end service.

Flag Comment Posted by Jaguar on July 06, 2009 at 9:16 pm

Imagine yourself as an owner, CFO or stockholder of the alarm company.
I doubt the case would go to court were an attempt made on the alarm company.
The true transgressor is the USER of the service, NOT the PROVIDER.

Punishing the provider could justify punishing ANY innocent provider whenever ANY user of its service transgressed while using.

————————————————————
ulrichst 06 July 2009 Mon. 21:40
“Would you rather the alarm company experience increased overhead, passing those onto customers… or your city government experience increased overhead, passing those onto taxpayers (you)?“

Flag Comment Posted by ulrichst on July 06, 2009 at 8:40 pm

Would you rather the alarm company experience increased overhead, passing those onto customers… or your city government experience increased overhead, passing those onto taxpayers (you)?

Flag Comment Posted by Jaguar on July 06, 2009 at 8:27 pm

ulrichst [U] 06 July 2009 Mon. 20:32

U: “If they truly believe that thieves are sneaking in to steal things, they should be filing police reports.“

JAG: Correct and shame + $ on them if they don’t!
—-

U: “... and they don’t, the bill should be sent to the alarm company.

JAG: I respectfully disagree. Were that to occur, the time/personnel cost would add to the overhead of the alarm company.

The responsible folks with alarms would be paying for that added cost, due to the negligence or indifference of those who did not report or respond appropriately.

Flag Comment Posted by ulrichst on July 06, 2009 at 7:32 pm

If they truly believe that thieves are sneaking in to steal things, they should be filing police reports. Police patrols are determined by the number of reports filed in an area. The more reports they fill, the more often police will patrol the area, the quicker they can respond to an alarm, the more likely the alleged thief will be caught.

Otherwise, it is a finger-pointing match between the business/homeowner and the alarm company: who should foot the bill?

If it is made clear to the business/homeowner that they should file a report and they don’t, the bill should be sent to the alarm company. At that point, the alarm company can take up the issue with the business/homeowner.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Consumer Info & Money Saving Tips

Advertisement