I have a monitored burglar alarm system monitored by the above company. After a recent (and routine) service visit by their engineer, we discovered that my system was no longer calling the central monitoring station.

Further investigation revealed that the engineer had been instructed to substitute the number dialled by the alarm panel from the standard Manchester number of 0161 to one commencing 09xxxx.  As my telephone line attached to the alarm has Premium Rate Call Barring, the call did not connect and the engineer had to seek advice.  He returned with the news that ADT had provided a different number, and all was well. That number now turns out to be an 0870 one, still connecting to the same Manchester centre!

In the scale of things, the alarm activation call is seldom longer than 20 seconds, but anyone with an ADT alarm system may find it has been set to dial a genuine PREMIUM rated number without their authority.

You have been warned!

So it now appears that ADT is the latest to join the gravy train, and rip off its customers. So even as your home is being broken into, it's nice to know that you will be paying a premium to let your alarm company know.  

What an absolute disgrace!  

There are a number of websites that post the instruction manuals for ADT alarm systems (Because they really do not want you reprogramming "their" system .... you didn't actually think it was yours, did you?   ) so you might be able to reprogram in the original geographic number instead.

Meanwhile, it is another company that should be informed of the scam (although I suggest they know only too well exactly what they are doing), and (b) pilloried as publicly as possible if they won't change.

More info obtained from the Security company ADT.

The 0906 number is only used on Business premises and NOT Residential - they should have 0870.

If your alarm box calls (on alarm activation or setting ON):-

    a Geo number (20 second call) - 5p (BT minimum charge) [Peak - Off Peak 5.5p]

    an 0870 number (20 second call) - 5p (BT minimum charge) [Peak & Off Peak]

- there's no cost difference during Daytime hours (0600-1800), but Off Peak it's cheaper using the 0870.

If however your Business premises uses the 0906 number, the upto 20 seconds activation call will cost you 10p (@30p/min they advise). Any details on which 0906 is used would be helpful in confirming the charge as they range from 10p upto £1.49 per minute (see  BT Pricing for details).   ;D

I'd challenge ADT if they say that the 0906 code is only used for 'business' customers, not residential.  Their engineers have an online system that allows disconnection from monitoring for testing and requires various installation details, Contract No etc before confirming the correct system is being switched off, by confirming the premises postcode.

Once this is done and the system 'off monitoring', ADT's computer knows I'm a residential user. The remote alarms checklist it reads back to the engineer includes the selection 'Confirm 09 number change'. I would assume they'd say this is a programming error - but the fact you are already paying them quite well to monitor your system on an annual basis, to swap to 0906 is a scandal. I might even be tempted to be charitible and let them away with this, providing I don;t hace to pay the £150pa monitoring fee.

I also gather that many 'business' systems are set up to report each Set/Unset system which would be twice daily, and to a Premium Rate number too.....

I accept for a Residential purposes, the 0870 25 second call is not a real issue, however with broadband being the norm, I wonder what they'll dowhen customers demand IP address reporting rather than the old-tech phone route....

The information I got was from a supervisor at Blackfriars House 01923 823600. He was insistant that 0906 was ONLY for Business, and that it only sent a call when Setting ON, not OFF.

BTW, what was the 0906 number it uses (in full) ??

Sadly, I don't have the full number as it was never successfully dialled from my line (due to the Premium Rate block).  Considering the grief caused by Premium Rate numbers, until OFTEL make it that you have to OPT IN to make such calls, everyone should call and make sure they opt-out!

I've done a company search today and found that a company called ADT has the same registered office as Modern Security Systems (known as Modern Alarms Ltd up to 19 May 1992).

I had business dealings with Modern Alarms in the '80's and gained a negative feeling for the company.  This even carried on when a few years later, the company who installed my system was acquired by Modern Alarms.

As a result of the take-over, I did not go with Modern Alarms but found a different company to maintain my system.

Because of this, I'm not surprised of ADT's actions.

Not only did ADT take over Modern Alarms (who originally had developed the distinctive six-sided bell box), but MA had in fact over-stretched themselves having already taken over British Telecom's ill-fated foray into home security systems with 'Telecom Security'. Shortly after the sale to Modern Alarms and a 100% hike in fees, they were taken over by ADT (owned by Tyco) and all the engineers were either subsumed into the enlarged operation or left.

Tyco, being an americancompany is not slow in finding ways to charge you high fees for its services, so the policy of swapping customers (unasked) to 0906 was a major con.  Their excuse that it was a more efficient system,belied the fact that BT (who provided to lookup tables to where the call SHOULD be delivered) on activation had gone down, so the call went unanswered.  It might save them the bother of reprogramming all their systems and EPROMS come a number change, but I think this is the lesser of two evils, and came at a time Londonors were having yet another number change foisted on them.

http://money.guardian.co.uk/consumernews/story/0,,2056639,00.html

<<
Ben Whitney's father just could not work out why his phone bill was so high. He's retired and recovering from a stroke, so he asked his son to take a look at it. The thing puzzling him most was a 20p or 23p call every day, sometimes twice a day, to an 0906 number at 1.17am each morning. The calls had started months ago, and if they carried on were likely to add £100 a year to his bill.

The calls lasted only a few seconds, but the high cost alerted Mr Whitney to the fact that they must be premiumrate lines. Had some rogue dialler or trojan software hijacked his father's phone? He contacted industry regulator Icstis for help - and was astonished to discover that the premium rate calls were being auto-dialled from the family home's ADT burglar alarm as it made a daily registration contact with the ADT monitoring centre.
Mr Whitney and his father were flabbergasted. The alarm had cost more than £1,000 to install, plus monthly service charges . The last thing his father had expected was another £100 or so a year in premium rate phone calls. "I traced the number via the Icstis website to ADT alarms," says Mr Whitney. " I made some enquiries and was told that this type of ADT alarm has to 'check in' every day by calling in to their system. The units come with an expensive revenue-generating number as default but I was told they can be modified to call a cheaper 0870 number by an ADT engineer."

[...]

ADT's website says: "ADT reserve the right to programme the alarm panel to signal using a premium rate telephone number. An alarm signal takes approximately eight seconds to transmit, therefore the cost of a call is typically a few." Unfortunately, the message stops there. It can be assumed that the missing word is "pence".

There is no indication to customers that the number can be changed to an 0870 number, which would cost 7p a day rather than 23p.

Fortunately for Mr Whitney, an ADT technician popped round to his Sussex home soon after Guardian Money intervened, and his alarm will now call the 0870 number every day.
>>

We have an monitored ADT alarm system and have done so for possibly 6 years now. We pay a monthly fee for their services which initially included the cost of the alarm and installation. after the first 3 years the rental didnt change (even though we had effectively paid for the alarm itself)

Yesterday our cat set the alarm off so we had to call them for a reset code - guess what an 0870 then when we called that it was an 0844 (I did check here but unfortunately of the two 0161 numbers listed - 1 was for engineers only and the other had been discontinued.

When I was forced to call the 0844 I was on hold for nearly ten minutes before I gave up and had to try again this morning.

I object to being forced to call NGN but it is made much worse, when you are put on what seems like a never ending hold cycle.

If I wasn't paying a monthly rental for the service it wouldn't be so bad paying for NGN as I understand they have to make money, but given that I pay a rental each month for their services I don't think I should also have to pay to call them.

Rant Over  ::)

Any commercial operator is entitled to charge what it likes for its services, so long as this is agreed by those who enter into a contract with it.

Is the charge for a 10 minute wait on a call part of the agreed terms?

Although not formally regulated as a "premium rate service", that is what this is.

It is a few years ago and certainly a lot of paperwork since, but I am confident that they were using geographical numbers when I signed the contract.

Like you say they are entitled to charge what they like if it is in the contract - what I am more concerned about is the fact that they do use NGN and then put callers on hold. (I have no idea how long I would have ended up holding for)

This is in effect a stealth tax by companies that already charge you for their services once and then force you to pay when you try to contact them to resolve and issue that has been caused by them in the first place (this doesn't apply to ADT in this instance, as our cat set the alarm off)

But surely if it was in your contract to dial a geographical number and they have not amended the contract to that effect, they must be in breach of your agreement. However I would guess that they did indeed send some blurb and perhaps you did not read it or the print was too small to be able to read it!!!!

I bet if you complained they would say that hey did let you know.

I think like most people I often do not have the time to read the small print of amendments that come through from time to time (from all sources)

There was one time I complained about something (can't remember what it was now) but the woman on the phone quickly pointed out that it was in T's & C's - the trouble is even if we had the time to read such things (I don't) you have to then understand them and then have to dispute them.

the stock answer is sorry sir those are the terms I can't do anything about it - so you have hobson choice either agree to the terms that are so obviously in their favour or take your business elsewhere (although I suspect most T's & C's are written by the same legal eagles) so not much choice really is there  >:(

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 8:58am:

Any commercial operator is entitled to charge what it likes for its services, so long as this is agreed by those who enter into a contract with it.

You seemed to ignore all the points made by the OP that he is already paying a monthly service charge (as my mother does) to ADT for the alarm monitoring service.  It is therefore immoral and reprehensible that ADT tries to earn further hidden revenue that is not up front and not part of people's conscious choice when they opt for the alarm contract with ADT for things like phone calls to customers services and for alarm activations (in the case of my mother's alarm an 0871 number is used if the alarm is set off as it was taken over by ADT from another smaller alarm company.

Your return to your original position when you first appeared on this website that commercial companies can make whatever hidden charges they like via phone calls renders you, as I have always thought you to be from the outset, an unfit person to attempt to lead this campaign (even though that is blatantly what you are now trying to do).  Everyone else in this campaign (and in particular Dave who moderates the forum and spends so much of his free time finding the geographic alternative numbers and maintaining them) is just as opposed to the commercial ripoff lines because all of them involve consumers not realising they are paying an extra charge when they make a phone call.  Your continued suspect views on this point are extremely disappointing.  Perhaps you are in fact a Fifth Column for the opposition within our campaign?

NGMsGhost wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 5:00pm:

Your return to your original position when you first appeared on this website ...

My position that there is nothing unacceptable in principle with premium rate telephone services remains unchanged. I acknowledge that many members do not share this view. Any hidden charge for any service is unacceptable and there are many cases where telephone service providers and users of premium rate services are not sufficiently transparent. In general terms it is the matter of transparency that I would seek to address.

Taking the political angle, in the commercial sphere I believe that regulation should demand transparency about charges for services rather than prohibiting use of the premium rate / revenue sharing mechanism.

My primary campaigning efforts, which I am delighted and keen to see exceeded by others, are focussed on the public sector. It is unacceptable for any service that is thought or said to be taxpayer-funded to benefit from revenue share, as the cost of this must be carried by service users.

I shamelessly aim to apply my energies to those areas where they may have the greatest effect. I encourage others to join me in my efforts and am delighted to work with those who may share common objectives. I have no interest in who is leading; some may be moving more quickly and some may have got further down the road than others, that is all.

Perhaps our biggest difference is that I infer no sinister motivations on the part of those who work for organisations involved in the rip-off.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 8:54pm:

I infer no sinister motivations on the part of those who work for organisations involved in the rip-off.

Which is why you will spiritually never be a true member of this campaign.

All of us who first became united by the discussion forum on this website have always inferred sinister motives in those organisations who are prepared to use covert revenue share numbers for making contact with them.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2009 at 12:10am:

you will spiritually never be a true member of this campaign.

For an understanding of my spiritual position, I can commend the words of John Lennon in "Revolution". I do not share the wholly politically anarchist creed of "Imagine" (why do so many non-anarchists claim to hold to this creed?), but the guy had a lot of things right.

Quote:

We're all doing what we can

The issue is that the telephone in its present form will never be an acceptable method of payment for other goods and services not related to the cost of making telephone calls.

The reasons for this are twofold:-

(a) conventional telephone lines are not configured in such a way as to be secure enough to constitute a payment mechanism as numerous other parties other than the phone line owner have access to them.  This is especially true of 084/7 numbers as they are not classed as Premium Rate numbers so they cannot be barred by the line subscriber.

(b) the bundling of the payment for a service with a phone call is inherently designed to distort consumer choices about how much they are willing to pay for a service.

Payments over the internet overcomes nearly all these difficulties as they can only be made by a payment mechanism owned by the person making the payment and the person is directly aware that they are paying a charge for the good or service they are purchasing.

It is the ability of 084/7 number misusers to hide that that they are making a charge at all to which I vociferously object and I see no difference in that regard in that abuse in terms of whether it is committed by the private or the public sector.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2009 at 12:43am:

The issue is ...

I am broadly in agreement with the points made, however I see the possibility for progress being made by separating out the issues in two respects. Firstly, according to level of agreement that may be readily secured and secondly, according to the practicality of instigating change from the imperfect world in which we find ourselves to the slightly less imperfect world that we may be able to achieve.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2009 at 1:18am:

Firstly, according to level of agreement that may be readily secured

SCV, could you explain what you mean by this?    The levels of agreement between whom, and about what?    Perhaps I am a bit foggy this morning but I cannot work out what you are proposing here.

The greater controls on accessing NTS or PRS to make them acceptable that SCV seems to espouse (such as PIN number protection specific to different users of the phone line in order to be able to access them) could long ago have been introduced if Ofcom had wanted to.

The only reason they are not introduced is because the whole of this industry is reliant on the covert nature of these charges in order to continue to exist.  If the charges were made overt then by and large most people phoning the services would not be prepared to pay the current charges being levied to call these phone numbers and/or political or customer pressure would lead to the abolition of the additional charges.

The 070 hospital bedside phone lines used by Patientline are a case in point.  Ofcom originally proposed moving them to the 06 number range so they could not be confused with mobile phone calls but after Patientline went bust and Hospedia came on the scene Ofcom were told that the whole scam system could not carry on unless patients continued to be deceived about the cost of calling the hospital bedside numbers that was inherent in the use of the 070 range instead of the 09 range on to which calls to bedside hospital phone lines should always have been required to be allocated at the rate that was being charged.

But when Ofcom was told this they soon rolled over and agreed to allow these hospital lines to remain on 070 with no warning to anyone calling of the high cost of the charges or their non inclusion in mobile phone bundled minutes (instead being charged at a very high rate from mobiles).  This proves that the whole 084 087 and 070 industry is reliant on conning the public about the level of phone call charges paid.  I also do not approve of 09 numbers in their current form without further security measures (eg user specific PIN protection and a limit on the value of each individual 09 call and the total daily value of 09 calls that can be made) as they usually seem to rely on distorted consumer choices from individuals when they are drunk or lonely late at night (see Sky channels in the 900 range and the 09 numbers they advertise at £1.50 per minute).  By and large 09 numbers rely on scamming the technically illiterate (most of whom can't afford £1.50 per minute) as most technically literate people would have access to the internet and be able to access the same kinds of services for free or for far much lower amounts of money.

I am all for the free market but only when the market is properly competitive and only when consumers genuinely know what they are required to pay for a good or service before they buy it.  This is why solicitors and their covert methods of billing and failing to keep customers properly updated with total costs during the course of a case again seem to be unfair, immoral and highly anti competitive. >:(

loddon wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2009 at 7:55am:

I am a bit foggy this morning but I cannot work out what you are proposing here.

Introducing spirits at 1:10 am is liable to leave us all a little foggy as we drift into philosophical consideration of what we are about.

In the posting referred to, I was proposing that progress could be made if one breaks down a potentially  highly contentious understanding of what lies behind use of revenue sharing numbers into narrow particular issues that are more likely to attract agreement by all parties.

The principle of the NHS being free at the point of need provides a basis for a ban on use of 084 numbers by NHS providers. This has attracted a sizeable amount of public support and will bear strongly on those from whom we await a decision.

The charges levied by ADT for its services and the way in which they are misrepresented are a serious issue, however one that should perhaps be regarded as separate.

The possibility of a family member making an unauthorised call to a charity donation line or to register a vote in a TV poll is another matter worthy of consideration, but I see this as a quite separate issue. (I cannot recall having ever espoused use of PINs.)

There are some who would be reluctant to put their weight behind a campaign that is intended to remove a vital means of support for the telecommunications industry with the declared objective of causing it to "cease to exist". Seeking to cause a regulator to destroy that which it is established to maintain in the public interest would seem to be a somewhat perverse objective.

I simply wish for us to work together on matters where we have a common interest and objective.

Quote:

It's gonna be alright

Wow Did this thread take a turn to the left

@ rapidremap

...If your alarm system does not have Police response then you do not need the remote reset facility. For systems incorporating confirmation technology, the client at the alarm control equipment may restore unconfirmed alarms conditions without any reference to the Alarm Receiving Centre; refer to clause 10.1 of BS8473: 2006. i.e. only alarms that have been or could have been passed to the police require a remote reset...Its true you can look it up.

I agree that if you are calling a company to resolve an issue that may have been caused by them ie if you have a complaint, you should not have to pay for the privilege. For customer service centres I support the use of geographical numbers, however consider this, the ADT monitoring centre, or any monitoring centre, is not a typical customer service call centre

They are an ALARM RECIEVING CENTRE Their purpose is to monitor and react to signals recieved from your alarm system including life safety alarms such as fire and personal attack/panic alarms and the calls you make to the centre from time to time for administrative issues are not really part of the service you have paid for i.e. the monitoring of your alarm system.

You also are going to get the service you pay for. Consider why you chose to remain with ADT as your supplier? was the price a factor? You want ADT to provide free calls to their monitoring centre? Be prepared to see your monthly subscription increase significantly (you know, so you can contribute towards everyones calls to the monitoring centre) You want ADT to employ enough staff so that your calls can be answered immediatly? How much are you prepared to tag on to your subscription for that? (although Im going to agree with you that 10 min on hold is completely unacceptable)

At least you have a choice to move to an ADT competitor or do without the service they are offering

naysayer wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 4:33am:

Wow Did this thread take a turn to the left

(It is good to bring an old discussion up to date.)

In a week when the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills addresses his party conference as "Comrades" and the newly elected leader of the Labour Party may be expected to use the "S" word in his speech on Tuesday, we are all perhaps swinging to the left. Perhaps the balance will be redressed in Birmingham in seven days time.

Miliband (not the one who is about to retire from politics, but his brother) has sought to separate any move towards fairness and justice from over-radical politics in the way that Lennon did in 1968, and perhaps Brother Vince was doing on Wednesday.

The postings suggest that all of those contributing to this thread share much in common. I hope we all agree that clarity and transparency of the terms of business are the key point being addressed here.

I do not believe that the "right to choose" can be presented as a total panacea, as would be argued by the libertarian right. The perfect market is no less "Imagine"-ary than an anarchistic paradise. We should be discussing how far people need to have things spelled out for them and how they need to be protected against misunderstanding and misuse. I see these however as points of detail, not of political dogma.

naysayer wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 4:33am:

I agree that if you are calling a company to resolve an issue that may have been caused by them ie if you have a complaint, you should not have to pay for the privilege.

Well that seems clear enough so either you must support ADT using an 080 or an 03 number for customers or possibly both (depending where one is calling from - landline or mobile)


Quote:

They are an ALARM RECIEVING CENTRE Their purpose is to monitor and react to signals recieved from your alarm system including life safety alarms such as fire and personal attack/panic alarms and the calls you make to the centre from time to time for administrative issues are not really part of the service you have paid for i.e. the monitoring of your alarm system.

Utter tosh and bunkum.   ADT took over my mother's small independent local alarm company and ADT now both service her alarm and provide the monitoring for it.  The expensive servicing contract is complete nonsense as her alarm type means they make unnecessary servicing visits every 6 months and yet the only servicing that ever takes place is the walk test (which an end user could do themselves to check each detector is still detecting) and changing rechargeable batteries in the main control panel or the two sounders and they all have batteries good for around at least three years life.  The unnecessarily frequent servicing just takes advantage of the fact that at the time her alarm was made the British Standard for alarms hadn't changed to let it be less frequent than every 6 months, even though her mid 90s Scantronic alarm uses quite robust electronics and charging systems.

So my point is that monitoring and servicing are interlinked.  A badly serviced alarm can cause false alarms to the monitoring centre.  So it is rubbish to claim that monitoring can be divided from correct servicing and maintenance (and the latter is an area where mistakes can be made by the alarm company).  Also companies will not monitor alarms that are not also being serviced on a set schedule.  Also ADT try to avoid doing maintenance if the customer doesn't notice.  I was there when my mother's alarm was last "serviced" and both I and my mother could tell one of the two sounder bells was not working as we know the usual sound.  But the ADT guy didn't spot this as he didn't go out and walk around to each alarm as it was sounding as he should have done.  So a replacement sounder would not have been fitted if the customer had not intervened to ensure the ADT person did their job properly.  Speaking of which when I tried to get a fire detector added to my mother's system at what was meant to be an original £75 (the quote from the alarm servicing guy) she was then later visited (when I wasn't there) by a sales guy who tried to claim her whole alarm system was out of date and in need of replacement and her current one couldn't take a fire detector.  

This was a complete lie (as confirmed by the next servicing guy who said her control panel had three free sensor points) but the net result was that she didn't get the fire sensor installed so her home might burn down completely if there is a fire while she is not there.  All because ADT was greedy, as large companies are, and tried to replace a system that worked perfectly well.  Justified cause for complaint and not on an 0844 or 0871 number I would have thought?


Quote:

You also are going to get the service you pay for. Consider why you chose to remain with ADT as your supplier? was the price a factor? You want ADT to provide free calls to their monitoring centre? Be prepared to see your monthly subscription increase significantly (you know, so you can contribute towards everyones calls to the monitoring centre) You want ADT to employ enough staff so that your calls can be answered immediatly? How much are you prepared to tag on to your subscription for that? (although Im going to agree with you that 10 min on hold is completely unacceptable)

So now you do seem to support the scam 0871 number used by ADT for alarm activations and either 0844 or 0871 for manual customers service calls.  The argument you get the service you pay for could be used as an excuse for every £1.50 per minute 09 number in the land.  Whereas in reality those calling 09 numbers are usually going to be drunk, stupid or stealing from the bill payer (sex chat lines) or desperate and/or stealing from the bill payer (technical and legal advice lines).


Quote:

At least you have a choice to move to an ADT competitor or do without the service they are offering

I'm sorry that is totally untrue. I have particularly looked in to getting competitive quotes for alarm  monitoring and it is near impossible.  There is no confuse.com and no comparethemeerkat.com and in fact no one the industry seems to want to allow you to move.  They just want you to remain with them as a captive customer (as you are if you need your alarm monitored) without being able to shop around.

ADT should charge enough for what is anyway an uncompetitive monitoring rate that you cannot shop around on so that there is no need for them to use anything other than standard rated 01, 02 or 03 numbers.  Your argument that you only get what you pay for is a standard card carrying 084/7 number using scammer's approach.

naysayer wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 4:33am:

They are an ALARM RECIEVING CENTRE Their purpose is to monitor and react to signals recieved from your alarm system including life safety alarms such as fire and personal attack/panic alarms and the calls you make to the centre from time to time for administrative issues are not really part of the service you have paid for i.e. the monitoring of your alarm system.

I make two points about the design:

1. Requests to take alarms off watch and put them back on again should be to an automated system, which would significantly reduce the human intervention required at the alarm company's end. Another alternative that should be present in this day is a web interface to do the same thing.

2. Should anyone need to speak to someone in the Alarm Receiving Centre, then the priority of calls should be below that of reacting to alarm calls.


So all in all, your posting is complete drivel. The alarm companies should issue 01/02/03 numbers instead and overtly impose service charges instead of via the rip-off numbers.

Dave wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 9:59am:

So all in all, your posting is complete drivel. The alarm companies should issue 01/02/03 numbers instead and overtly impose service charges instead of via the rip-off numbers.

Hear, hear.  They already charge annual monitoring fees well in to the hundreds of pounds.  To say that this cannot incorporate the cost of one call or less per annum from those customers about an actual alarm activation to the receiving centre is complete and utter nonsense.

Evening all. This is my first post on here....be gentle with me!

Came across this site by accident while trying to find a little bit of history about Modern Alarms.

As you will guess from my user name I work for ADT and as such I thought I'd stick my head above the parapet and defend my company a little.

Firstly we dont use 0906 for residential jobs. Im sure one or two may have been programmed up incorrctly, you can never say never. Like any other company we are only human and we make the odd mistake but if a residetial job is found to be on 0906 it will be changed straight away.

The biggest problems we have with customers phone bills stem from their phone provider. From time to time I come across a customer who has moved from one provider to another and suddenly finds a call on their bill they hadnt seen before. We havent changed anything, its just their new phone provider is just charging more for the call.

Residential systems tend not to send open/close signals, instead they send a 'testcall' at night to let us know they are ok. This is a security measure which allows us to contact the customer and check they are ok if the call fails to come through.

All customers are told about phone chages when they sign up for a contract and we have various types of signaling depending on the the customers requirments. We even use 0800 numbers for a lot of new residential jobs!

Okonski.....
Not picking on you here, but your post stood out. You said....

I'd challenge ADT if they say that the 0906 code is only used for 'business' customers, not residential.  Their engineers have an online system that allows disconnection from monitoring for testing and requires various installation details, Contract No etc before confirming the correct system is being switched off, by confirming the premises postcode.

Once this is done and the system 'off monitoring', ADT's computer knows I'm a residential user. The remote alarms checklist it reads back to the engineer includes the selection 'Confirm 09 number change'. I would assume they'd say this is a programming error - but the fact you are already paying them quite well to monitor your system on an annual basis, to swap to 0906 is a scandal. I might even be tempted to be charitible and let them away with this, providing I don;t hace to pay the £150pa monitoring fee.

I also gather that many 'business' systems are set up to report each Set/Unset system which would be twice daily, and to a Premium Rate number too.....

I accept for a Residential purposes, the 0870 25 second call is not a real issue, however with broadband being the norm, I wonder what they'll dowhen customers demand IP address reporting rather than the old-tech phone route....

The system you refer to is called VRT. We use it to put systems on test so that we can send test signals to Manchester. We use VRT for both comercial and residential jobs but it does not know the difference between the two.
When we have sent the signals through we ring VRT back and its reads out the signals it has recieced....one common signal is "pin 7..CONFIRM". I wonder if this is what you heard as there is nothing on VRT that would make it says 'Confirm 09 number change'

Most commercial systems use different signalling devices to residential ones due to insurance requirments.

They do send open/close signals as you say but if using BT Redcare/ Redcare GSM or one of the IP systems the signal is sent for free anyway due to they work.
As you say, some customers are requesting IP signalling but at the moment it isnt a very big market. We currently have two IP systems, Webway and Chiron which are only available to commercial users at this time.
For security reasons I think that residential systems shouldn't be allowed to have IP signalling.

All alarm companys that provide monitoring use phone lines and their customers will see charges for those calls on their bills. This is not just an ADT thing. It does cost for the call but in fairness it is a small cost to increase the security of your home, and again as I said at the top of the post, it is only ever brought up as a issue when customers move to another provider and the provider increases the charges NOT ADT.

ADT Engineer.

ADT_Engineer wrote on Nov 4^th, 2010 at 9:32pm:

All alarm companys that provide monitoring use phone lines and their customers will see charges for those calls on their bills. This is not just an ADT thing. It does cost for the call but in fairness it is a small cost to increase the security of your home, and again as I said at the top of the post, it is only ever brought up as a issue when customers move to another provider and the provider increases the charges NOT ADT.

Hello and welcome to SAYNOTO0870.COM.

Up until 1 August 2009, the way 0870 numbers operated meant that all users received a subsidy from callers, which is why telephone companies charged more for the calls. As you can see, and as you know, ADT has been using 0870 numbers for many years, and was therefore a user in the days when they carried the subsidy.

Sadly, following these changes, many telephone companies still levy a premium on callers (within their retail prices) even though they no longer pass on a premium when connecting with the receiver's telephone company.

I am quite surprised that ADT has not done what many others have done and simply switched to other premium number ranges, 0844, 0845 or even 0871. As it stays on 0870, it no longer gets subsidy from customers via their telephone bills. This is exactly the same position it would be in if it switched to 03 numbers, but customers wouldn't incur a premium because telcos aren't allowed to charge 03 calls above the price of 01/02 calls on each respective tariff.

So why doesn't ADT simply switch to 03 numbers to alleviate the issue? It wouldn't cost it more and it could be carried out during routine engineer visits.  :-?

Dave wrote on Nov 4^th, 2010 at 9:49pm:

I am quite surprised that ADT has not done what many others have done and simply switched to other premium number ranges, 0844, 0845 or even 0871. As it stays on 0870, it no longer gets subsidy from customers via their telephone bills.

You need have no concerns for the solvency of ADT's finances Dave because my mother's alarm system is with ADT and they have been kind enough to set up any phone calls that are made to notify them of an alarm activation on her system to use an 0871 phone number at 10p per minute at all times without ever seeking her overt permission for doing so.  I happen to know because my mother couldn't account for the 0871 call on her phone bill and wanted to know what it was as she knows that she never rings 0871 numbers herself.

Fortunately however her system only makes a call in the event of an alarm activation as all other activity is logged locally only and the system only needs to make a phone call in the event that the alarm is actually triggered and not cancelled down in the 30 seconds grace period that is allowed for various possible causes of alarm activation.

As for our friendly engineer telling us that many of the very latest ADT systems are using an 0800 number my question to him is why aren't all ADT's systems being reprogrammed to use an 0800 number and a fair rate for the annual alarm monitoring costs charged instead of ADT relying on a hidden revenue stream on incoming phone calls from its customers equipment on its customers phone lines. :o >:(

Certain ADT alarm sysyems  use to incur you the cost of  a daily test call to a 0844 number. Its now been changed to 0800.

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/jessicainvestigates/10500286/My-ADT-alarm-is-charging-me-for-daily-test-calls.html

To arrange the change you have to call a 0844 number. :-?

Or hopefully be knowledgeable enough to come here and find the alternative

:)