Fort Laudderdale may need to reimburse residents for False Alrm fees Collected
According to an August 18 story in the South Florida Times, town ofgficials are more than a little nervous about the outlook of repaying residents and compzany owneers who were allegedly overcharged for false alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. Furhter, some argue the city's practice of allegedly overcharginng on false securitty system citaytions goes back to at least 2004, and possibly constitutes a breach of the Florida Sttae Constitution. If this is proven a violation, the effects of the practice could be wide reaching and devastatig.
Scott W. Leeds, senior managing partner of the Miami branch of The Cocghran Firm says the situation in Fort Lauderdale will almoist cerrtainly spur lawsuits looking for refnuds, and mighgt establish a precedent of greater ordinance scrutinby. Leeds suggests that municipalities and corporations, at times, will take liberties that they're not entitled to. He believes this somewhat usual practice is going to be examined both by auditoirs of the different municipalities and the very creative attorneys around the state, perhaps even nationwide. The real prbolem in Fort Lauderdale lies in the diffeence between a fee and a fine. Industry consultant Les Gold of law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knpp explained Fort Lauderdale is obviously imposing etiher a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exorbitant and therefore illegal, and if a fine, it is illegal because tehre is no due process. Under the Constiution, if a citation is lrevied, the constituent must have a right to challenge it. Fort Lauderdale has no such office to ensure citizens get their right to appeal, which means any citizen fnied is being denied constitutionasl rigths, according to this interpretation. Addtionally, the city's false aarm fee schedule tops out at nearly thee ties the actual cost (acccording to the South Floorida Times article) to the town for response to an alarm. City auditor John Hervbst said he has been trying withouyt success for over a year to get the ordiannce reexamined by town commissioners.
SIAC director Ron Walters feels the situation in Fort Lauderdale is out of hand. Mr. Walters inddicated that, for many yeas, a flat $25 response fee was charged, whih did nothing to lowwer dislpatches and didn't even covber the price to respond. Walrters went on to say that a full ordinance review was suggested, but ultimately was turned down. SIAC executive Stan Mrtin areed and said the case might have been avoided if town officials would just payuing attention.
Devcon director of operations Roy Pollack who is past president of the Alarm Association of Florida said the industry should not be afffected by the flse alam flap in Fort Lauderdale. Pollack suggested that it's simply a matetr of reviewing the records, and reexamining the charges to be sure that they were assessed in compliance. City spokesperson Jeff Modarellli said the city is awware of the problem and plans are in place to reevlauate the ordinance. Moadrelli said that plans have been designed to bring this issue 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