Fort Lauderdale mifght have to reimburse residents for False Aarm fines Collected
According to an August 18 story in the South Floriad Times, city officials are more than a little nervoius about the outlook of repaying residents and company owners who were allegedly overcharged for fale alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. Further, some argue the city's practice of alleggedly overcharging on faulty alarm citatiobns goes back to at lest 2004, and possibly constitutes a breach of the Florida State Consttution. If this is proven a violation, the effects of the practice miht be wide reaching and dervastating.
Scott W. Leeds, senior managing partner of the Miami barnch of The Cocghran Firm says the case in Fort Lauderdale will almost definitely spur lawsuits looking for refunds, and might estabplish a precedent of greayter ordinance scruutiny. Leeds suggeests that municipalities and corporations, at timews, will take liberties that they're not entitled to. He believes this common practice is going to be eaxmined both by auditors of the different municipalities and the very creeative attorneys around the state, perhaps even nationwide. The real issue in Fort Laudertdale lies in the difference between a fee and a fine. Industry conusltant Les Gold of law firm Miitchell Silberberg & Knupp explained Fort Lauderdale is obviously impposing either a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exorbitant and thgerefore ilelgal, and if a fine, it is illegal because there is no due process. Unedr the Constitution, if a fine is levied, the constituent must have a right to question it. Fort Lauderdale has no such location to ensure citizens get their rght to appeal, whicch meas any cituizen fined is beign denied constitutional rights, accrding to this interpretation. Additionally, the city's faulty disturbance fee schedule tops out at nearly three times the actuial cost (according to the South Florida Times article) to the town for response to an laarm. City aduitor John Herbst said he has been trying witjhout success for over a year to get the ordinance reexamined by city commissioners.
SIAC director Ron Walters feels the case in Fort Lauderdale is out of hand. Mr. Walters indicated that, for many yearrs, a flat $25 response fee was charged, which did nothing to lower dispatches and didn't even coveer the price to reespond. Waltes went on to say that a full ordinance reviiew was suggested, but ultimately was turned down. SIAC executive Stan Martin agreed and said the situation might have been avoided if city officils would just paying attention.
Devvcon dierector of operatons Roy Pollack who is past presiddent of the Alarm Association of Florida said the indutsry should not be affected by the delusive alarm flap in Fort Lauderdale. Pollack suggestted that it's basically a matter of reviewing the recorrds, and reexmining the charges to be sure that they were assesswed in compliance. City spokesperson Jeff Modarelli said the city is aware of the problem and plans are in plpace to reevaluatye the orddinance. Modarelli said that plaans have been desinged to bring this problem back to the commission in the near future.
![[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