Security First, Inc.

Greetings,Here is SFI's response (there is also a signed copy, attached):
22DEC
Re:
*** Revdex.com complaint response
To whom it may concern,
Please see SFI’s comments to each of the
customer’s points taken directly from the complaint letter.
Our responses in green are points where we agree, and the ones in red are the ones where we don’t
Original complaint letter from ***:
We inquired about purchasing a video
security system for outside our home for the entire frontage of the property
because of theft and property damageTrue
We explained that the system needed to show
facial recognition because if needed we would be presenting it in courtFalse, SFI has no record of those specific instructions on the signed
contract
Additionally, One of us has visual problems
and the video system would record what she is unable to fully see. False, we’re not
completely sure what this means
We were sold a system that we were told
would meet everything we discussedFalse, they were
sold a system that is reflected on the signed contract. SFI has no additional information as to what
the client expected to see
Additionally questions were asked about the
service contract and were told everything would be covered including batteries,
yearly checks of the cameras and DVR and replacement or repair would be covered True, if the equipment failed
due to wear-and-tear. It didn’t
We were told the DVR would have a DVD
burner for the ease for us to use for the purpose of keeping for a baof
incidentsThe DVR did not have a DVD burner as sold,
it uses USB for data recovery
However, after the installation of the
system the images from the cameras were blurry and called the next day about it
in addition to the the placement of the DVR in the living room was so loud we
couldn't hear our TVSFI refocused the cameras the
following day, which is for a fresh installation. SFI also relocated, at no extra charge, the
DVR to under the floor below the TV so the fan noise was not noticeable. The DVR was originally sold to go below the
television so the customer could use the TV as the monitor, as well. The customer had no complaint about the
system for three years after the installation after the cameras were focused
and we moved the DVR
We also found a problem with the DVR later
on and was told it had to go out for service because we jammed the doorThe DVD tray was not jammed; it was unavailable on the model
they bought The manufacturer had
changed the design to accommodate USB drives to make copying video easier. When we sent the DVR back to get a DVD burner
installed, the company informed us of the platform change. The entire industry had moved away from DVD
burners because of compatibility problems.
USB storage is now the preferred method of saving video
We were without a DVR for over months
only to find out the DVR door wasn't jammedIt wouldn't open because it didn't
have a DVD burner in it as was told it would have We have no
record of the service period lasting months, but it was over three years ago
when it happened. SFI also explained the shift in paradigm
relating to the DVD burner and USB storage.
We explained that the USB platform was actually an upgrade and DVD
burners are no longer available in DVR’s
Security First Incalso tried to charge us
for a service call when coming out the next day after installation to focus the
cameras and the DVR issueThis was an error by our
bookkeeper. Ultimately, we cancelled the
charges. The customer was fine with all
of this for three years
We had to fight to get addendum's added to
the contract because of what we were told was covered and they were now trying
to charge us and for the DVR we were told we would receive at the time of sale
was not what we receivedSFI believes we have explained
our stance on this point, sufficiently, in previous comments in this response.
Security First Inchas been contacted over
and over again about the lack of focus on the cameras and all they would do is
come out and try to refocus the cameras and state that is the best they could
do and would have the office contact us which never happenedFalse, we have no record of being contacted “over and over again”
There was an occasion were we had to
present in court evidence of an incident that occurred and we were informed by
the Judge that he couldn't clearly make out the facial features of the person
and we lost the case SFI empathizes with the former client, but the client was
offered an upgraded IP based product at the time of sale They elected to buy the
model they did because of the cost of the upgraded model was much higher; it
was more expensive and the version they ultimately purchased was less
expensive
We contacted Kim who we always spoke with
at Security First and informed her the outcome of the court case and once again
we were told that someone would come out to refocus the cameras and we again
requested that MrK*** contact us however that never took placeWe have no record of this discussion
We finally contacted the manufacturer of
the cameras and found out the equipment sold to us does not have the capability
of facial recognition and what we had only has the capacity of object
recognitionFacial recognition technology is very expensive and was never even
a part of the discussion. Again, SFI offered the client the option to upgrade to IP based
technology at the time of sale in which would have provided clearer images
in HD clarity. The client decided to
invest in the upgrade and decided to purchase the DVR specified on the signed
contractThe signed contract doesn’t mention anything about facial recognition
technology or an IP HD level platform
Kim at Security First was contacted and
informed what we found out from Honeywell and asked again that we get a call
from MrK***The subscriber was operating on
assumptions at this point. The contract
clearly shows what they purchased and paid for in
It was now after complaining time and time
again about the cameras that Security First are stating that the equipment they
sold to us did what the cameras were suppose to do and now want something else
True. There were
many unfounded complaints which SFI tried to help the customer with by getting
the most out of the system the bought, according to the signed contract from
Nothing, from cameras with facial
recognition, or the DVR with a DVD burner in it did we receive. True, the
customer didn’t purchase those items as is reflected in the signed contract
from
Additionally Security First tried charging
us for a service calls when the CCTV System (video/camera system) was included
in the service contractWe have no record of this, but additional
service may have been deemed above and beyond the scope of the
installation. More clarification is
needed regarding this broad statement. SFI received many calls after the system was paid for and
installed, according to the signed contract from 2012, to re-aim the cameras
because the customer changed their minds as to the required view. We did it for no charge and suggested they
purchase a service contract to help pay for future requests, which they did
We had to fight for and finally had an
addendum added on November 9,so as not to have any further issuesSFI participated in no fight with the client
Also, we were told all batteries would be
coveredHowever, when reading the reverse side of the contract we pointed out
that it states the batteries were not coveredWe were told that they were and
we insisted that since it stated on the reverse side that they weren't we
wanted it noted on the contract since we were being told verbally the batteries
would be covered but that is opposite to what the contract statesThere is no record of what was “told” to the client. SFI heard their concern and gladly provided
an addendum to reflect their wishes. We
are unclear why there is an issue with this point. The contract was agreed upon and signed in
Furthermore, Security First did not keep
its contractual agreement in the maintenance inspection of the CCTV system in
May and Security First Incwas sent a letter regarding their violation of
the contractThe customer is responsible to schedule the
routine maintenance and inspection with SFI.
SFI will perform the inspection when the customer contacts us in order
to avoid conflicts in schedules. Had we received such a request, we would have gladly completed
the inspection as we do for all of our other customers
Security First decided to no longer provide
monitoring services for our home security as of September 30, We had
paid to August 31, for the services and instead of dealing with the issue
of the security cameras their out was to drop usBy 2015, after three years of dealing with outrageous claims and
requests, SFI decide that we were at an impasse with this customer and we
decided to discontinue our relationship with them. SFI continued service, free of charge, for an
extra month after the cancellation to make it easier on the customer to find a
new vendor without having to sacrifice security in the interim. We feel as though we went above-and-beyond in
this instance while trying to accommodate the customer. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out
We even question if they were monitoring
because on September 22,the system was disconnected and we never were
contacted or the police sent because there was a problem and could be a breech
to the system. We have records to prove that we were monitoring them for that
period. However, we cannot vouch for the
work done by the subsequent vendor who provided services for them after we
discontinued our relationship
Complaint Background:
Product/Service: Video Surveillance System
Purchase Date: 5/14/
Problem Occurred: 5/31/
Model: *** ***)***
Account Number: ***
Order Number:
Talked to Company: 5/31/
Talked to Company (2nd): 6/12/
Talked to Company (3rd): 9/21/
Name of Salesperson:
Kevin Q***
Purchase Price:$
Disputed Amount:$
Desired Outcome/Settlement:
We are seeking a total refund the purchase price of $for the CCTV
system The client got what the signed contract from called for. plus service contract
fees from June 1,through August 31,The
subscriber signed for, paid for and maintained these services, so no refund is
in order.
Additionally instead of Security First
addressing the issue they decided to end our home security monitoring causing
us financial hardshipSFI could not come to an amicable
solution with the subscriber, so we decided to cut our losses, which caused us
financial hardship
We had to hire another company and pay for
an entire system in order to have the maintenance contract which cost us
another $plus and increase in monitoring and maintenance of $
monthly.SFI does not control other
companies’ pricing structures.
Desired Settlement:
Refund
The client signed for and got exactly what
they paid for in according to the contranct. Unfortunately, the system did not perform to
their liking, but it worked exactly how it was designed to work. The customer even used the system with no valid
complaint for the period between and 2015.
A refund of anything after paying for it according to a contract three
years hence is not something SFI believes it is required to fulfil. SFI did the work as specified in an expeditious,
professional, and workmanlike manner. Any
further action regarding this account will not be forthcoming
Thank you
Stephen K***
President

Greetings,
Here is SFI's response (there is also a signed copy, attached):
height="73">
22DEC
Re:
*** Revdex.com complaint response
To whom it may concern,
Please see SFI’s comments to each of the
customer’s points taken directly from the complaint letter. Our responses in green are points where we agree, and the ones in red are the ones where we don’t
Original complaint letter from ***:
We inquired about purchasing a video
security system for outside our home for the entire frontage of the property
because of theft and property damageTrue
We explained that the system needed to show
facial recognition because if needed we would be presenting it in courtFalse, SFI has no record of those specific instructions on the signed
contract
Additionally, One of us has visual problems
and the video system would record what she is unable to fully see. False, we’re not
completely sure what this means
We were sold a system that we were told
would meet everything we discussedFalse, they were
sold a system that is reflected on the signed contract. SFI has no additional information as to what
the client expected to see
Additionally questions were asked about the
service contract and were told everything would be covered including batteries,
yearly checks of the cameras and DVR and replacement or repair would be covered True, if the equipment failed
due to wear-and-tear. It didn’t
We were told the DVR would have a DVD
burner for the ease for us to use for the purpose of keeping for a baof
incidentsThe DVR did not have a DVD burner as sold,
it uses USB for data recovery
However, after the installation of the
system the images from the cameras were blurry and called the next day about it
in addition to the the placement of the DVR in the living room was so loud we
couldn't hear our TVSFI refocused the cameras the
following day, which is for a fresh installation. SFI also relocated, at no extra charge, the
DVR to under the floor below the TV so the fan noise was not noticeable. The DVR was originally sold to go below the
television so the customer could use the TV as the monitor, as well. The customer had no complaint about the
system for three years after the installation after the cameras were focused
and we moved the DVR
We also found a problem with the DVR later
on and was told it had to go out for service because we jammed the doorThe DVD tray was not jammed; it was unavailable on the model
they bought The manufacturer had
changed the design to accommodate USB drives to make copying video easier. When we sent the DVR back to get a DVD burner
installed, the company informed us of the platform change. The entire industry had moved away from DVD
burners because of compatibility problems.
USB storage is now the preferred method of saving video
We were without a DVR for over months
only to find out the DVR door wasn't jammedIt wouldn't open because it didn't
have a DVD burner in it as was told it would have We have no
record of the service period lasting months, but it was over three years ago
when it happened. SFI also explained the shift in paradigm
relating to the DVD burner and USB storage.
We explained that the USB platform was actually an upgrade and DVD
burners are no longer available in DVR’s
Security First Incalso tried to charge us
for a service call when coming out the next day after installation to focus the
cameras and the DVR issueThis was an error by our
bookkeeper. Ultimately, we cancelled the
charges. The customer was fine with all
of this for three years
We had to fight to get addendum's added to
the contract because of what we were told was covered and they were now trying
to charge us and for the DVR we were told we would receive at the time of sale
was not what we receivedSFI believes we have explained
our stance on this point, sufficiently, in previous comments in this response.
Security First Inchas been contacted over
and over again about the lack of focus on the cameras and all they would do is
come out and try to refocus the cameras and state that is the best they could
do and would have the office contact us which never happenedFalse, we have no record of being contacted “over and over again”
There was an occasion were we had to
present in court evidence of an incident that occurred and we were informed by
the Judge that he couldn't clearly make out the facial features of the person
and we lost the case SFI empathizes with the former client, but the client was
offered an upgraded IP based product at the time of sale They elected to buy the
model they did because of the cost of the upgraded model was much higher; it
was more expensive and the version they ultimately purchased was less
expensive
We contacted Kim who we always spoke with
at Security First and informed her the outcome of the court case and once again
we were told that someone would come out to refocus the cameras and we again
requested that MrK*** contact us however that never took placeWe have no record of this discussion
We finally contacted the manufacturer of
the cameras and found out the equipment sold to us does not have the capability
of facial recognition and what we had only has the capacity of object
recognitionFacial recognition technology is very expensive and was never even
a part of the discussion. Again, SFI offered the client the option to upgrade to IP based
technology at the time of sale in which would have provided clearer images
in HD clarity. The client decided to
invest in the upgrade and decided to purchase the DVR specified on the signed
contractThe signed contract doesn’t mention anything about facial recognition
technology or an IP HD level platform
Kim at Security First was contacted and
informed what we found out from Honeywell and asked again that we get a call
from MrK***The subscriber was operating on
assumptions at this point. The contract
clearly shows what they purchased and paid for in
It was now after complaining time and time
again about the cameras that Security First are stating that the equipment they
sold to us did what the cameras were suppose to do and now want something else
True. There were
many unfounded complaints which SFI tried to help the customer with by getting
the most out of the system the bought, according to the signed contract from
Nothing, from cameras with facial
recognition, or the DVR with a DVD burner in it did we receive. True, the
customer didn’t purchase those items as is reflected in the signed contract
from
Additionally Security First tried charging
us for a service calls when the CCTV System (video/camera system) was included
in the service contractWe have no record of this, but additional
service may have been deemed above and beyond the scope of the
installation. More clarification is
needed regarding this broad statement. SFI received many calls after the system was paid for and
installed, according to the signed contract from 2012, to re-aim the cameras
because the customer changed their minds as to the required view. We did it for no charge and suggested they
purchase a service contract to help pay for future requests, which they did
We had to fight for and finally had an
addendum added on November 9,so as not to have any further issuesSFI participated in no fight with the client
Also, we were told all batteries would be
coveredHowever, when reading the reverse side of the contract we pointed out
that it states the batteries were not coveredWe were told that they were and
we insisted that since it stated on the reverse side that they weren't we
wanted it noted on the contract since we were being told verbally the batteries
would be covered but that is opposite to what the contract statesThere is no record of what was “told” to the client. SFI heard their concern and gladly provided
an addendum to reflect their wishes. We
are unclear why there is an issue with this point. The contract was agreed upon and signed in
Furthermore, Security First did not keep
its contractual agreement in the maintenance inspection of the CCTV system in
May and Security First Incwas sent a letter regarding their violation of
the contractThe customer is responsible to schedule the
routine maintenance and inspection with SFI.
SFI will perform the inspection when the customer contacts us in order
to avoid conflicts in schedules. Had we received such a request, we would have gladly completed
the inspection as we do for all of our other customers
Security First decided to no longer provide
monitoring services for our home security as of September 30, We had
paid to August 31, for the services and instead of dealing with the issue
of the security cameras their out was to drop usBy 2015, after three years of dealing with outrageous claims and
requests, SFI decide that we were at an impasse with this customer and we
decided to discontinue our relationship with them. SFI continued service, free of charge, for an
extra month after the cancellation to make it easier on the customer to find a
new vendor without having to sacrifice security in the interim. We feel as though we went above-and-beyond in
this instance while trying to accommodate the customer. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out
We even question if they were monitoring
because on September 22,the system was disconnected and we never were
contacted or the police sent because there was a problem and could be a breech
to the system. We have records to prove that we were monitoring them for that
period. However, we cannot vouch for the
work done by the subsequent vendor who provided services for them after we
discontinued our relationship
Complaint Background:Product/Service: Video Surveillance SystemPurchase Date: 5/14/2012Problem Occurred: 5/31/2012Model: *** ***)***Account Number: ***Order Number: Talked to Company: 5/31/Talked to Company (2nd): 6/12/2012Talked to Company (3rd): 9/21/2012Name of Salesperson:
Kevin Q***Purchase Price:$1978.00Disputed Amount:$1978.00Desired Outcome/Settlement:
We are seeking a total refund the purchase price of $for the CCTV
system The client got what the signed contract from called for. plus service contract
fees from June 1,through August 31,The
subscriber signed for, paid for and maintained these services, so no refund is
in order.
Additionally instead of Security First
addressing the issue they decided to end our home security monitoring causing
us financial hardshipSFI could not come to an amicable
solution with the subscriber, so we decided to cut our losses, which caused us
financial hardship
We had to hire another company and pay for
an entire system in order to have the maintenance contract which cost us
another $plus and increase in monitoring and maintenance of $
monthly.SFI does not control other
companies’ pricing structures.
Desired Settlement:
Refund
The client signed for and got exactly what
they paid for in according to the contranct. Unfortunately, the system did not perform to
their liking, but it worked exactly how it was designed to work. The customer even used the system with no valid
complaint for the period between and 2015.
A refund of anything after paying for it according to a contract three
years hence is not something SFI believes it is required to fulfil. SFI did the work as specified in an expeditious,
professional, and workmanlike manner. Any
further action regarding this account will not be forthcoming
Thank you
Stephen K***
President

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
 
We are rejecting the response from First Security and have sent via fax on December 25, 2015 at 12:39am our reasons and sent documentation totaling 36 pages to [redacted] at ###-###-####.  We also requested a call from [redacted]  that our fax was received.
Regards,
[redacted] & [redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted] 
We are rejecting the response from First Security and have sent via fax on December 25, 2015 at 12:39am our reasons and sent documentation totaling 36 pages to [redacted] at ###-###-####.  We also requested a call from [redacted]  that our fax was received.Regards,
[redacted] & [redacted]