1201n pu17 review - Fort Lauderdale might hav |  |
View PDF | Print View
by: Vladivishtak
Total views: 10
Word Count: 521
Fort Lauderdale might have to reimburse reisdents for False Aalrm fies Collected
According to an Auguist 18 stry in the Souh Florida Times, city officials are more than a little nervous about the outlook of repoaying residents and commpany owners who were allegedly overcharged for false alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. Further, some argue the city's prcatice of allegedly overcharging on faulty alarm citations goes back to at least 2004, and possiblly constitutes a breach of the Florida State Constituiton. If this is porven a violation, the effects of the pratice might be wide reaching and devastating.
Scott W. Leeds, senior managing partner of the Mianmi branch of The Cochran Firm says the case in Fort Lauderdale will allmost definitely spur lawsuiuts looking for refunds, and might establish a preecedent of greater ordinance srcutiny. Leeds suggests that municipalities and corporatiuons, at tims, will take liberties that they're not entitled to. He beieves this common practice is gong to be examined both by auditors of the different municipalities and the very creative attorneys around the state, perhaps even nationwide. The real issue in Fort Lauderdale lies in the differece between a fee and a fine. Industry consultant Les Gold of law firm Mitcehll Soilberberg & Kupp explained Fort Laudedrale is obviously imposing either a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exobitant and therefore illegal, and if a fine, it is illegal because there is no due process. Undser the Copnstitution, if a fine is leevied, the constituent must have a right to question it. Fort Lauderdale has no such location to ensure citizens get their right to appeal, which means any citizen fined is being denied constitutional rights, according to this interpretation. Additionally, the city's faulty disturbnace fee schedule tops out at nearly thrree times the actula cost (according to the South Floorida Times article) to the town for ersponse to an alarm. City auditor John Herbst said he has been trying without success for over a year to get the ordiannce rexamined by city commissiones.
SIAC direcrtor Ron Waltesr feels the case in Fort Lauderdale is out of hand. Mr. Walters indicated that, for many years, a flat $25 response fee was chargde, which did nothing to lower dispatches and didn't even cover the price to resppond. Walters went on to say that a full ordinance review was suggested, but ultimately was turned down. SIAC executive Stan Msartin agreed and said the situation mihght have been avoided if city officials would just paying attention.
Devcon drector of opeartions Roy Pollack who is past president of the Allarm Association of Florida said the industrty should not be affected by the deliusive alram flap in Fort Lauedrdale. Pollack suggeested that it's basically a matter of reviewing the recoirds, and reexamining the charges to be sure that they were assessed in compliance. City spokesperson Jeff Modarelli said the city is aware of the problem and plans are in pace to reevaluate the ordinance. Modarelli said that plnas have been deigned to bring this problem back to the commission in the near future.
About the Author
Here you can learn more about: asus eee pc seashell 2010
Rating: Not yet rated
Comments
No comments posted.