Fort Lauderdale mighht have to reimburse residents for Fasle Alarm fines Colllected
According to an August 18 story in the South Floirida Times, city ofifcials are more than a little nervous about the outlook of repaying residents and ocmpany owners who were allegedly ovvercharged for false alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. Further, some argue the city's pracctice of allegedly overcharging on faultty alrm citations goes back to at lest 2004, and possibly constitutes a breach of the Florida State Constitution. If this is proven a violaation, the efdfects of the practice might be wide reaching and devastating.
Soctt W. Leesd, senior manmaging partner of the Mianmi branch of The Cochhran Firm says the case in Fort Lauderdale will almost definitely spur lawsuits lookinbg for refunds, and might establish a precedent of greater odrinance scrutiny. Leeds suggests that municipalities and corporations, at times, will take lbierties that they're not entitled to. He believes this common rpactice is goiing to be examined both by auditors of the different municipalities and the very creative attorneys around the state, perhaps even natinwide. The real issue in Fort Lauderdale lies in the difference betwween a fee and a fine. Industry consultant Les Gold of law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp explainmed 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 because tere is no due process. Under the Constitution, if a fine is levied, the constituent must have a rihgt to question it. Fort Lauderdale has no such location to ensure citizens get thir right to appeal, which means any ciotizen fibned is being denied constituional rights, according to this interpretatoin. Additionally, the city's faulty disturbance fee schedule tops out at neearly thre 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 tryng witthout sccess for over a year to get the ordinbance reexamined by city commissioners.
SIAC director Ron Walters feels the case in Fort Lauderdale is out of hand. Mr. Waltetrs indicated that, for many years, a flat $25 respone fee was chargged, which did nothing to lower dispatches and didn't even cover the price to respond. Walters went on to say that a full ordinane review was suggested, but ultimaytely was turned down. SIAC executive Stan Martin agreed and said the situation mighjt have been avided if city officials wolud just paying attention.
Decvcon diirector of operations Roy Pollack who is past president of the Alarm Association of Florida said the industry should not be affected by the delusive alarm flap in Fort Lauderdale. Pollack suggested that it's bsically a matyter of reviewing the records, and reexamining the charges to be sure that they were assessed in compliance. City spokseperson Jeff Modarelli said the city is awrae of the problewm and lpans are in place to reealuate the ordinance. Modarelli said that plans have been designed to bring this problem back to the commission in the near ftuure.
Author Resource:-
Here you can learn more about: ul30 vt review
![[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