|
Posted by Frank Olson on March 27, 2008, 1:38 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Jim Rojas wrote:
> A company as large as Brinks resorting to taking on authorized dealers
> must be in a huge financial worry. Think about all the problems
> associated with these type of individuals.
>
> I am not saying there is anything wrong with it. It's just that Brinks
> is too set in their ways to make this a viable option.
>
> I have heard the horror stories from a few authorized dealers out there.
> Everything from no funding to holdbacks and chargebacks due to customers
> inability to pay many months down the line. Let's face it. The customer
> passes credit, pays the install fee, etc. Why should the dealer then be
> held responsible for the customer paying for whatever time limit Brinks
> sets?
They shouldn't, but you have to agree that it's a "two way" street. The
dealer is "piggy-backing" on a company with a recognized "name" in the
industry. The problem is that unless the dealer has a good deal of
clout (multiple offices in less populous centers), a company like Brinks
can "set the tune they dance to" with little or no regard.
> It is ridiculous. Then by contract the dealer is forbidden to
> salvage the deal or even take the customer back and keep it an in house
> account. After the chargeback, Brinks is then free to sign the customer
> back up at a lower rate...Watch your ass authorized dealers. Tactics
> like this will bankrupt you in no time.
Since they "own the paper", there's not much the dealer can do. They're
calling the shots. I'm not taking sides on this issue because I can see
both views. There are ways to make things better, but both partners to
the contract must be able to sit down and work to the "common good".
>
> I do think that alarm contract law needs to be changed.
I don't think there's anything specifically WRONG with most alarm
service agreements. I just think terms like cancellation clauses,
ownership and specific liabilities should be highlighted.
> Customers that
> don't realize that they don't own Brinks equipment is totally
> unacceptable.
They should be given the opportunity to read the fine print (that's not
always possible with some "pushy" salesman). Some states/provinces
employ a "cooling off" period of a few days which allows the consumer to
investigate the deal a little further and cancel without obligation. I
think the cancellation procedure should be simplified and made less
onerous on the customer.
> Plain english law and larger fonts must be used. Portions
> in the contract like equipment ownership issues should be initialed by
> all parties to make the contract valid.
The customer should initial a section detailing this. The service
charge rate should also be detailed (including after hours service terms).
>
> ... Does
> anyone have any ... opinions regarding this?
Just two. Brinks Badda Bad. Jim gGGoood.
| 
XML site map