Fort Laudersdale might have to reimurse residents for False Alarm fines Collected Acording to an August 18 story in the South Florida Times, city officials are more than a little nervous about the outlook of repaying residfents and company owners who were allegedly overcharged for false alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. Furthr, some argue the city's practice of allegedly overcharging on fauty alarm citattions goes back to at least 2004, and possibly constitutes a breach of the Floridda State Constitution. If this is proven a violation, the effectts of the practice might be wide reaching and devastating. Scott W. Leeds, sennior managing partner of the Miami branch of The Cochran Firm says the case in Fort Lauderrdale will almost definitely spur lawusits looking for refumnds, and might establish a precedent of greater ordinamnce scrutiny. Leds sgugests that municiopalities and corporations, at timmes, will take liberties that they're not entitled to. He bwelieves this common practice is going 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 differenec between a fee and a fine. Industry consultant Les Gold of law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp explained Fort Lauderdale is obviously imposing either a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exorbitant and therefore illegal, and if a fine, it is illegal becase there is no due process. Under the Constitution, if a fine is levied, the constituent must have a rigth to question it. Fort Lauedrdale has no such locatiion to enusre citizens get theeir right to appeal, whcih means any citizen ifned is bing denied constitutional rights, accoridng to this interpretation. Addiitonally, the city's faulty disturbance fee schedule tops out at nearly three timmes the acutal cost (according to the South Florida Times article) to the town for respone to an alarm. City audior John Herbst said he has been trying without success for over a year to get the ordinance reexamiined by city commissioners. SIAC direcotr Ron Walters feels the case in Fort Lauderdale is out of hand. Mr. Watlers indicated that, for many yeears, a flat $25 response fee was charged, which did nothing to lwer dispathces and didn't even cover the price to respond. Walters went on to say that a full ordiinance review was suggested, but ultimately was turned down. SIAC execurtive Stan Martin agreed and said the sityuation mgiht have been avoided if city officials would just paying attention. Devccon direector of operatios Roy Pollack who is past preasident of the Alarrm Association of Florida said the indsutry should not be afffected by the delusive alarm flap in Fort Lauderdale. Pollack suggeted that it's basically a matter of reviewing the records, and reexamoining the charges to be sure that they were asssesed in complianmce. City spokesperson Jeff Modarelli said the city is aware of the problem and plans are in place to reevaluate the ordniance. Modarelli said that plans have been designed to bring this problem back to the commission in the near future.
Article Source: http://www.articlecontentprovider.com/articlesubmit
Scott W. Leeds, senior managing partner of the Miami office of The Cochran Firm says the case in Fort Lauderdale will almost definitely spur lawsuits looking for refunds, and might establish a precedent of greater ordinance scrutiny.
Here you can learn more about: 1201n pu17 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
