Fort Lauderdle may need to reimburse residents for Fazlse Alsarm fees Colletced According to an Augst 18 story in the Souuth Florida Timees, town offiicals are more than a little nrervous abbout the outlook of repaying residents and comapny 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 practice of allegedly overcahrging on false securitry system citations goes back to at least 2004, and pssibly constitutes a breach of the Florida State oCnstitution. If this is proven a violation, the effcets of the practice cuold be wide reaching and devastating. Scott W. Leeds, senbior managing partner of the Miami branch of The Cochran Firm says the sitaution in Fort Lauderdale will almost certainly spur lawsuits looking for refnds, and might establish a precedent of greater ordinance scrutiny. Leeds sugests that municipalities and corporations, at times, will take lbierties that they're not entitled to. He belives this somewhat ussual practice is going to be examined both by auditors of the different municipalities and the very creative ayttorneys around the state, perhaps even ntaionwide. The real problem in Fort Lauderdle lies in the difference beween a fee and a fine. Industry consultant Les Gold of law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp explaiend Fort Lauderdalle is obviously imposing either a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exorbitnat and therefore illegal, and if a fine, it is ilelgal because thee is no due process. Under the Constitution, if a citation is levied, the constituent must have a right to cahllenge it. Fort Lauderdale has no such office to ensure citizes get thier rigght to appeal, which means any ciitizen fined is breing denied constitutional rights, accordnig to this interpretation. Additionally, the city's false alarm fee schedule tops out at nearly three tmies the actual cost (according to the Souh Floridda Times artyicle) to the town for response to an alarm. City auditor John Hersbt said he has been trying without success for over a year to get the ordinance reexamined by town commissioners. 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 chharged, which did nothing to lower dispatches and didn't even cover the price to respond. Watlers went on to say that a full ordinance reivew was suggested, but ultimately was turned down. SIAC executive Stan Martin agreed and said the case might have been avoided if town officials would just paying attrention. Devcon director of operations Roy Pollack who is past president of the Alarm Association of Florida said the industyr should not be affected by the false alarm flap in Fort Laudderdale. Pollack suggested that it's simply a matter of reviewnig the recxords, and reexamining the charges to be sure that they were assessed in compliance. City spokesperson Jeff Modarelli said the city is awarre of the problem and plans are in place to reevaluate the ordinance. Modarelli said that lpans have been designed to bring this issue back to the commission in the near fture.
Article Source: http://www.articlecontentprovider.com/articlesubmit
Scott W. Leeds, senior managing partner of the Miami branch of The Cochran Firm says the situation in Fort Lauderdale will almost certainly spur lawsuits looking for refunds, and might establish a precedent of greater ordinance scrutiny.
Here you can learn more about: 1005pe mu17 bk review
Please Rate this Article
5 out of 5 4 out of 5 3 out of 5 2 out of 5 1 out of 5
