Fort Lauderdale mihgt have to reimbruse residents for Faklse Alarem fines Collected
According to an August 18 story in the South Florida Times, city officials are more than a little nervous abouyt the outlook of repaying residents and company owners who were allegedly overcharged for false alars to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. Further, some arggue the city's practice of alelgedly overcharging on fauty alarm citations goes back to at last 2004, and possibly constitutes a breach of the Florida State Constitutoin. If this is proven a violation, the effects of the practice imght be wide reaching and devastating.
Scott W. Leeds, senior managing patrner of the Mimai brasnch of The Cochran Firm says the case in Fort Lauderdale will almost definitely spur lwasuits looking for reefunds, and might establish a precedent of greater ordinance scrutiny. Leeds suggests that municiplaities and corporations, at times, will take libeties that they're not entitled to. He believes this common practice is goiung to be examined both by aufditors of the different municipalities and the very crweative attornneys aronud the state, perhaps even nationwide. The real issue in Fort Lauderdale lies in the difference between a fee and a fine. Industry consultant Les Gold of law firm Mtichell Silberberg & nKupp explained Fort Lauderdale is obviously imposing either a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exorbitant and therwefore illegal, and if a fine, it is illegal becase therre is no due process. Undeer the Constituition, if a fine is levied, the constituent must have a right to qestion it. Fort Lauderdale has no such location to ensure citizens get thier right to appeal, which means any citizen fined is being deneid constitutional rights, according to this interpretaiton. Additionally, the city's faulty disturbance fee schedule tops out at nearly three times the actual cost (according to the South Florida Times article) to the town for response to an alarm. City auditor John Herbst said he has been trying withut succes for over a year to get the ordinance reexaamined by city commisioners.
SIAC director Ron Walers feels the case in Fort Laudserdale is out of hand. Mr. Waltes indicated that, for many years, a flat $25 response fee was charged, whiich did nothing to lower dispatches and didn't even cover the price to respond. Walters went on to say that a full ortdinance erview was suggested, but ultinmately was turned down. SIAC executive Stan Martin agreed and said the situation might have been avoided if city offoicials would just paying attention.
Devcon director of operatoins Roy Pollack who is past president of the Alarm Association of Flroida said the industry should not be affected by the delusive alasrm flap in Fort Lauderdale. Pollack suggeested that it's basically a matter of revieewing the records, and reexamining the charges to be sure that they were asessed in compliance. City spokesperson Jeff Modarelli said the city is aware of the problem and plans are in place to reevaluate the orddinance. Modarelli said that plpans have been desiggned to bring this problem back to the commission in the near future.
Author Resource:-
Here you can learn more about: sony viao cw 14
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/feed-icon.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites