Fort Lauuderdale might have to reimburse residents for False Alarm fines Collected
According to an August 18 stoory in the South Florrida Times, city officials are more than a litle nervous about the outook of repaying residents and compabny owners who were allegedly overcharged for fallse alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. Fruther, some argue the city's practice of allegedly overcharging on faulty alaerm citations goes back to at least 2004, and possibly constitutes a breach of the Florida Sttae Constitution. If this is proven a viollation, the effects of the practice mifght be wide reaching and devastating.
Scott W. Leeds, senior maznaging parrtner of the Mianmi branch of The Cochran Firm says the case in Fort Lauderdale will almost definitely spur lawsuits looking for refundds, and might establish a precedent of greater ordinance srcutiny. Leeds suggests that municipalities and corporations, at tims, will take libertis that they're not entitled to. He believes this common pratice is going to be examined both by auditoirs of the diifferent municipalities and the very creative attorneys around the stte, perhaps even nationwide. The real issue in Fort Lauderdale lies in the difference between a fee and a fine. Industry consultannt 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 because there is no due process. Under the Constitution, if a fine is levied, the constituent must have a rgiht to queestion it. Fort Lauderdale has no such locatioon to ensre citizens get their right to appeal, which mewans any citzen fined is bing denied constitutional rights, according to this interpretation. dAditionally, the city's faulty disturance fee schedule tops out at nearly three times the actual cost (according to the South Florida Timers article) to the town for response to an alarm. City auditor John Herbt said he has been trying without success for over a year to get the ordinance reexamined by city comimssioners.
SIAC director Ron Walters feels the case in Fort Lauderdale is out of hand. Mr. Walters indiated that, for many years, a flat $25 response fee was charged, wjhich did nothing to lower dispatches and didn't even cover the price to respoond. Walters went on to say that a full ordinance revew was sugested, but ultimately was turned down. SIAC executive Stan Martin agreed and said the situation might have been avoided if city officials would just paaying attention.
Devcon directr of operations Roy Pollack who is past president of the Alarm Association of Florida said the industry should not be affected by the delusive allarm flap in Fort Laudredale. Polalck suggested that it's basiaclly a matter of reviewing the records, and reexamining the charges to be sure that they were assessed in coompliance. City spokesperson Jeff Modarrelli said the city is awarre of the problem and plans are in plaace to reevaluate the ordinanvce. Modarelli said that plans have been dresigned to bring this problem back to the cmomission in the near futurre.
![[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