Im not interested how much it costs (Monitoring fees, extra components etc. etc.) I just want to know opinions, what is best? A monitored security alarm or a bells only alarm?
Thanks, Please answer ASAP!
What is best for my home? Monitored or Bells Only burglar alarm?
6 Responses for “What is best for my home? Monitored or Bells Only burglar alarm?”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
Advertisement
Home security has to be a top priority.
I have had a monitored system for quite a number of years, although perhaps not the top level.
However, the system is monitored 24/7 when my home is unoccupied and is reliable. There are some systems which also monitor for fire etc which is obviously beneficial.
System maintenance charges are quite reasonable, and some systems check and can rest (where necessary) remotely, in the event of accidental activation.
The advantage of a monitored system is that in the event of a burglary, the system alerts the monitoringg station before the bell is sounded.
The downside to a system which is not monitored is that in the event of a fault, the bell may ring, but if this is a recurring fault neighbours might ignore it and perhaps complain to the local authority on the grounds of excessive noise.
If you don’t care about costs and extras, obviously having it monitored is better than not having it monitored.
Get advice from a professional burglar: http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Superthief-John-MacLean/dp/0425056457/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1325092026&sr=8-2
Bear in mind that you are trying to buy protection and they are selling equipment and service. So you really need to think it through. For example, the bell is called an annunciator, same as the bell in a boutique that rings when you enter the store. So what you need to think about is how much damage the burglar has to do before he qualifies to ring the bell. The book will tell you some other things you will want to know. Like how a burglar can open your front door faster without a key than you can with it.
If you have it monitored by which I assume you mean a direct link to the police station or security firm then you should pay less house insurance.
I’m not sure how necessary it is though. Obviously if you are in a high risk area and are away from home or the house is empty a lot then it could be a good idea. On the other hand some of the bell ones are so noisy that not only do they alert the whole neighbourhood but are pretty deafening so most burglars will scarper PDQ.
The police will also get fed up if the system develops a fault and keeps going off – I think you may only be allowed so many call outs.
Which ever system you go for it’s a good idea to have a service/maintenance agreement.
If money is no object then monitored is the answer.
That said, who responds? You can now have a monitored alarm that is key holder only, no police.
No alarm is ever "connected to the police station" they stopped that years ago.
For it to have police response you have to have keyholders and it must be maintained by an approved company.
Also the bells are instant in 99% of alarms, less damage that way. As for being cheaper on the insurance, forget it. Insurance co may give 10% off, but the cost of installation and annual fee, makes it not worth it.
Get monitored and don’t tell the insurance co.
i would definitely say ctv monitored, as you would have proof, of what, when, and who, on tape.
you could all ways put up a dummy bells alarm outside your property to further deter buglers.