Yale Premium Alarm Hsa6400 Wirefree Alarm Kit

[alumni]

Ask yourself why Yale don't trust it
....and more importantly, the Insurers of the installation companies.

 

[JohnD]

Hello, Alumni.

I see you too don't want to talk about the (im)probability of the event postulated.

As I said, the two big advantages of a DIY wireless system like the Yale are that it is cheap and that the householder can easily install it himself in an hour or so

If those two key advantages are not vital to the householder, he can buy a more secure system for more money.

Do you disagree?

 

[mdf290]

Ask yourself why Yale don't trust it
....and more importantly, the Insurers of the installation companies.

Yale DO trust it thats why they sell box after box of the stuff. If they thought for one minute they would fail a legal challenge it simply would not be on the market.

The insurers don't trust it because it's a DIY product that could therefore be incorrectly installed by someone who does not know what he is doing.


Also since the homeowner has access to the log it and the clock settings it cannot be relied upon to prove whether the alarm was set or not at the time of a burglary. Basically the insurers do not have the opportunity to get the proof they need to wrigggle out of paying a claim so they won't approve rhe system.

 

[bernardgreen]

I see you too don't want to talk about the (im)probability of the event postulated.

which was

Would you care the estimate the chances of two signals, each of a fraction of a second, occurring at exactly the same time, and both from devices close enough to be heard by the Yale receiver?

The chance of two sensors being triggered at the same time is extremely small. No one is denying that. (but see below) What JohnD is apparently un-aware off or is choosing to ignore or deny is the fact that
other alarm sensors are not the only sources of signals
that can and will prevent activation signals from reaching the siren.

Before you press the point any further about the chance of two sensors blocking each other please do some research in to what other equipment can legally and compliantly transmit on the radio channel, then research what is on sale that transmits in a non compliant mode. Only when you have this information can you start to evaluate the risks of an activation signal not reaching the siren.

You should also consider getting an off air monitor to discover what is being transmitted on the channel.

Ask yourself why a broad band router must be at least a metre away from the panel's ( or siren's ) receiver. Why is this necessary when the router does not transmit on the frequency the alarm system uses.

If you ignore all other equipment that uses the same radio channel then you are correct, the chance of activation signal being lost because two alarm sensors transmit at the same time is extremely small.

You may ignore transmissions from other equipment but the receivers cannot ignore them. It will react in some way to all radio signals that are above its threshold. Most low cost receivers receiving signals from more than one transmitter will mix the signals and create scrambled messages which the panel or siren cannot decode.


Can two sensors transmit at the same time.

I recall a thread on this forum where some "expert" did advise not to have a PIR looking at a door that had a contact fitted as there was a chance that opening the door would trigger the PIR and its transmission would be at the same time as that of the contact and this might be why the alarm was not seeing the door being opened.

 

[alumni]

Ask yourself why Yale don't trust it
....and more importantly, the Insurers of the installation companies.

Yale DO trust it thats why they sell box after box of the stuff. If they thought for one minute they would fail a legal challenge it simply would not be on the market.

The insurers don't trust it because it's a DIY product that could therefore be incorrectly installed by someone who does not know what he is doing.


Also since the homeowner has access to the log it and the clock settings it cannot be relied upon to prove whether the alarm was set or not at the time of a burglary. Basically the insurers do not have the opportunity to get the proof they need to wrigggle out of paying a claim so they won't approve rhe system.

So says the 'diy installer' conveniently missing out the technical reasons.

 

[bernardgreen]

Yale DO trust it thats why they sell box after box of the stuff. If they thought for one minute they would fail a legal challenge it simply would not be on the market.

Provided the equipment complies with the requirements imposed on equipment using the licence exempt radio frequency it would be very difficult to make sucessful challenge. It is the buyer / users responsibility to ensure his needs are fulfilled by the equipment he selects.

The insurers don't trust it because it's a DIY product that could therefore be incorrectly installed by someone who does not know what he is doing.

Or by someone who does not know the limitations of equipment using a licence exempt radio frequency.

Basically the insurers do not have the opportunity to get the proof they need to wrigggle out of paying a claim so they won't approve rhe system.

If they wanted to wriggle out of paying they would "approve" systems they knew they could find fault with and then use those faults as the reason to not pay.

You may find that they recommend systems that are more robust in their communication protocols than the average DIY installed alarm appears to be in order to better protect their customers. The insurance underwriters employ very knowledgable technical people to assess the equipment used by the people and property they are insuring.

 

[mdf290]

If they wanted to wriggle out of paying they would "approve" systems they knew they could find fault with and then use those faults as the reason to not pay.

You put that in as a joke right?

Insurers are quite within their rights in the case of a claim where an alarm is a part of the insurance contract to have the alarm log interogated to see whether the alarm was set or not at the time of the break in...

since allthough the yale stores this information it cannot be properly verified as the user can change the system time settings it cannot be used as evidence. A yale user can in effect claim the alarm was set to the insurance company and they have no way of proving that it was not.

This advantage to the homeowner obviously does not sit well with insurance underwriters.

 

[mdf290]

Yale DO trust it thats why they sell box after box of the stuff. If they thought for one minute they would fail a legal challenge it simply would not be on the market.

Provided the equipment complies with the requirements imposed on equipment using the licence exempt radio frequency it would be very difficult to make sucessful challenge. It is the buyer / users responsibility to ensure his needs are fulfilled by the equipment he selects.

You could if you wish Bernard make a simple claim under the sale of goods act ref 'fitness for purpose'.

All you would need to do is install a yale alarm following the manufacturers instructions and then set the alarm and enter the home . . .

If the alarm did not activate then you would have a sure fire claim which would be enough to ensure Yale were forced to pull all the product from the shelves....

.. are you feeling lucky?

 

[bernardgreen]

I wouldn't waste my time doing that. If the alarm failed to respond I would have to prove that at the time there was no other transmitter active on that frequency. Without that as a proven fact the manufacturers can say that their equipment complied with the regulations and that I was at fault for selecting equipment that could not be ensure to work in the presence of other legally operated equipment on that radio channel.

On the other hand if a supplier had stated to me either verbally or in writing and as part of a contract to supply and/or instal the equipment that when set the alarm would without fail respond to an intruder irrespective of other use of the radio channel then I would stand a very good chance of making a sucessful claim against that supplier.

I have personal experience of this sort of commercial activity when a systems integration company included equipment in a system and as part of the contract gave information to the customer which contradicted information in the licence regulations to which the equipment had been designed and built. That systems integration company lost a lot of money as a result of " errors " in their marketing of equipment they had not manufactured. The manufacturers were absolved of any liability as their equipment complied with regulations and had been mis-sold by the systems integrator. The equipment in question had been designed by one of my colleagues. The narrative included comment that the customer was also partly to blame for not taking account of the regulations to which the equipment had been designed.

 

[JohnD]

Bernard you are still on about the theoretical possibility of an interfering signal. You started out trying to frighten the poster by making a vague hint that his Yale system woukd stop working if his neighbour bought one. When we look at the combination of circumstances this would need, we see it is an absurd suggestion, such a weak argument that you evade trying to justify it.

 

[bernardgreen]

the theoretical possibility of an interfering signal.

If you tell a person that the performance or function of a system using a licence exempt wireless frequency is not liable to be degraded by interference then you are issuing mis-leading information.

Instead of giving "advice" based on (apparently only) one experience of installing a system you need to read factual information about interference. Ofcom being the first place to look.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bi...-tech-info/interface-requirements/IR_2030.pdf

Search this document for the frequency and look at the regulations. For example equipment using 433.05 to 434.79 MegHertz can transmit for 10% of the time. How long is 10% ? it could be an hour provided that transmitter does not transmit again for 9 hours. Not the short blip that you appear the believe is the only interference that an alarm system may have to cope with.

 

[mdf290]

You are completely wasting your time now Bernard because what you actually seem to be honing in on is whether when someone chooses to buy a particular item they are informed of the possibility of the system not working under particular circumstances.

If the system becomes 'jammed' then there are instructions within the manual to deal with that scenario and an explanation that inteference could cause false alarms.

There is an algorithmn appropriate to it which I forget at present but it is something like x amount of signals within x timeframe.

This is to prevent the system alarming every time a transient signal caused a disruption.

What you actually seem to be saying is that people promoting the systems be that via the shelf on a store or by the offering of an installation service do not adequately explain the potential system deficiences...

I cannot say whether the information being within the manual rather than outside the box constitutes a failure to inform.
What I would say is that anyone buying the system and then reading the information and deciding the system would not meet their needs would be happily given a refund.

If you are actually infering that persons deliberately withold that information then that is quite a claim.

Where is your proof?

 

[alumni]

Bernard.
Just remember, when the subject of insurance and installers came up last time, takeouts claimed he was fully insured to fit, specify alarm systems when all he had was basic PL cover. Claimed that's all he needed.

 

[JohnD]

the theoretical possibility of an interfering signal.

If you tell a person that the performance or function of a system using a licence exempt wireless frequency is not liable to be degraded by interference then you are issuing mis-leading information.

Don't be silly Bernard.

You know very well that what I have said is
- The Yale is cheap to buy and easy to install
- The probability of an interfering signal, at the very moment than a burglar breaks in to your home, is very small
- the householder can buy a better and more expensive system if he wants to and can afford it.

On the question of Probability, you were apparently too embarrassed to respond to my question.

If we want to talk about "misleading information" then we can start with yours:

You may buy the wireless system and install it and it works fine. Then a neighbour buys the same system and there are two alarms using the same radio channel to communicate from sensors to control panel and/or siren.

Scaremongering nonsense.

 

[mdf290]

Bernard.
Just remember, when the subject of insurance and installers came up last time, takeouts claimed he was fully insured to fit, specify alarm systems when all he had was basic PL cover. Claimed that's all he needed.

In actual fact he would be able to tell you he also has efficiacy cover included (but with a £2500 excess)