- Report: #718914
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: ADT Home Security
ADT Home SecurityInternet, Florida United States of America
ADT Home Security taxi cab Unfair and Unjust Implementing of Virginia State Codes and Regulation Internet, Florida
y question is Virginia DCJS and ADT Security Company has a personnel or private business relationship with each other?
The following is VA Code and Regulations for Electronic Security (ES) Business and their employees:
Private Security Services Code - 9.1-138 - 9.1-180
Regulations Relating to Private Security Services - 6 VAC 20-171-10 to 6 VAC 20-171-560
Apparently these codes and regulations do not apply to ADT Security, because VA DCJS is allowing ADT phone sales personnel from their office located in Florida to sale security systems without being register with VA DCJS. If I was an owner of an electronic security company I would like to see if I can do the same exact way that ADT is doing it, or to see if the state is giving unfair advantage to ADT.
I am making an assumption with the following statement. That is, the way they have sanctioned it is by allowing the ADTs installers that are registered both as an ES Technician and ES Representative with VA DCJS to write up the contract that was sold over the phone, then installs or activates the end user security system. Then, the phone sale individual that sold the security system from ADT receives the commission for that sale.
The ADT phone sales personnel have been given the authority from ADT officers to use the different companys security programs, such as MasterMind, Copper, Carms, Admin, and etc. These programs allow the sales personnel to see the private information of a business and residential end users. The private information would be; the type/level of security system and the placement of the security detection units at any previous or new ADT customer sites, secret passwords, even perhaps credit card or bank account information, payment history, and customers contact list. With the above programs, a strayed employee can then use the info themselves for fraudulent intentions or pass it on. The VA DCJS was empowered to enforce the codes and regulations which were set up to reduce this possibility of fraudulent use of end users private information and to keep convicted criminals out of the electronic security industry.
If VA DCJS is allowing this to occur with ADT, it is an unfair practice to their own employees located in Virginia and for other private security companies that is in compliant with the VA DCJS Code while competing and conducting business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. There should be no secret agreement and a public announcement should have been made to include the ruling of the judgment of the apparent charges and changes so that all security business can heed the VA Code and Regulations to the benefit of Virginia and Her citizens and under the same set standards for all said concerns.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/18/2011 08:28 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/ADT-Home-Security/Internet-Florida-/ADT-Home-Security-taxi-cab-Unfair-and-Unjust-Implementing-of-Virginia-State-Codes-and-Regu-718914. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.