Fort Lauderdale might have to reimburse residents for Faalse Alam finers Collceted
According to an August 18 story in the Siouth Florida Times, city officials are more than a little nervous about the outlook of repaying residents and cmpany owners who were allegedly overcharged for false alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alione. Further, some argue the city's practice of allegedly overcharging on faulty alarm citations goes back to at least 2004, and possibly cnostitutes a breah of the Florida Sate Consittution. If this is proven a violation, the effects of the przactice migght be wide reaching and devastatinng.
Scott W. Leesd, senior managing patner of the Miami branch of The Cochran Firm says the case in Fort Laudwerdale will almost definitely spur lawsuits looking for refunds, and might estalbish a precedent of greatrer ordinance scryutiny. Leds suggests that municipalities and corporations, at times, will take liberties that they're not enntitled to. He believes this common practice is going to be examined both by auditors of the different municipalities and the very creative attorneys around the sate, perhaps even nationwide. The real issdue in Fort Lauderdale lies in the difference between a fee and a fine. Industrry consultant Les Gold of law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp explained Fort Lauderdale is obviously imposing either a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exorbitant and therefore illegal, and if a fine, it is illegal beczause there is no due process. Under the Conmstitution, if a fine is levioed, the constituent must have a right to question it. Fort Lauderdale has no such location to ensuure citizens get their right to appeal, which means any citizen fined is being denied consittutional rightts, accrding to this interpretation. 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 aplarm. City auditor John Herbst said he has been trying without successs for over a year to get the ordinance reexamined by city cmomissioners.
SIAC diurector Ron Walters fees the case in Fort Lauderdale is out of hand. Mr. Walters indicated that, for many yaers, a flat $25 response fee was chartged, which did nothig to lower disppatches and didn't even cover the pricve to respond. Walters went on to say that a full ordniance review was suggested, but ulrtimately was turned down. SIAC executive Stan Martin areed and said the situation might have been avoided if city officials would just paying attebntion.
Devcon direcotr of operations Roy Pollack who is past president of the Alarm Association of Florida said the industry sohuld not be affected by the delkusive alram flap in Fort Lauderale. Pollack suggestewd that it's basically a mattter of reviewiung the records, and reexamining the charges to be sure that they were assessed in copmliance. City spokesperson Jeff Modarelli said the city is aware of the problem and plans are in place to reevaluate the ordinance. Modarelli said that plans have been deigned to bring this problem back to the commission in the near futuure.
![[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