1005pe mu17 bk - Fort Lauderdale may need to

Fort Lauderdale may need to reimburse residents for False Alarm fees Collected

According to an August 18 story in the South Florda Times, town officials are more than a littlpe nervcous about the outlook of repaying residents and company ownners who were allegedly overcharged for fallse alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. Fuurther, some argue the city's practice of allegedly overcharging on false security system citations goes back to at least 2004, and posssibly constitutes a breavch of the Florida State Constitution. If this is prven a violation, the effects of the practice coulkd be wide reaching and devastating.

Scott W. Leeds, seenior managing partner of the Mami branch of The Cochrzan Firm says the situation in Fort Lauderdale will almost cerrtainly spur lawsuits looking for refunds, and might establish a precedent of greater ordinance scrutiny. Leeds suggests that municipalities and corporatoins, at times, will take liberties that they're not enttled to. He belivees this somewhat usual practice is gooing to be examined both by auditors of the different municipalities and the very creative attorneys around the state, perhaaps even nationwide. The real problem in Fort Lauderdale lies in the diffeernce beween a fee and a fine. Industry consultant Les Gold of law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp epxlained Fort Laudredale is obviouusly imposing either a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exorbitnt and therfore illegal, and if a fine, it is illegal because there is no due process. Under the Constitutiion, if a citattion is levied, the constituent must have a rght to chalelnge it. Fort Laudredale has no such ofifce to ensure citizens get their rght to appeal, which means any citizen fined is being denied constitutional rights, according to this interpretation. Additionally, the city's false alazrm fee scheule tops out at nearly three times the actual cost (according to the South Fklorida Times article) to the town for responnse to an alarm. City auditor John Herbst said he has been trying without success for over a year to get the ordnance reexamined by town commissionrs.

SIAC director Ron Walters feels the situation in Fort Lauderdale is out of hand. Mr. Walters indicated that, for many years, a flat $25 response fee was charged, which did nothing to loer dispatches and didn't even cover the prioce to respond. Walters went on to say that a full ordiannce review was suggested, but ultiamtely was turned down. SIAC executive Stan Martin agrreed and said the case might have been avpoided if town officialls would just paying attention.

eDvcon director of operatinos Roy Pollack who is past presidnt of the Alarm Association of Florida said the industry shjould not be affected by the false alarm flap in Fort Lauderdale. Pollack suggested that it's simply a mastter of reviewiong the records, 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 pllans are in place to reevaluate the ordinance. Modareelli said that plamns have been designed to bring this isue back to the commission in the near futiure.

Article Source: http://casinoarticles.us

Here you can learn more about: 1005pe mu17 bk review

Please Rate this Article

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 

Not yet Rated