security system residential
Vivint, according to the agreement, “shall not make any misrepresentations and/or false or misleading statements, directly or by implication, which have the tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers. ” Among the issues cited—which will sound familiar to Palm Coast complainants: the company made claims that it was affiliated with another company or agency when it wasn’t, it made claims that it was upgrading an existing security system when it wasn’t, it’s claimed that an existing security has either gone out of business or merged with another, when that was not the case, and so on. Less than two months earlier, the company agreed to a similar settlement with the Ohio Attorney General’s Office after consumers filed complaints that Vivint claimed, according to BBB documents, “that its home security equipment was free, but failed to disclose the existence or amount of installation, activation and monitoring fees associated with the system. Vivint door to door sales representatives misrepresented the price of continued monthly monitoring fees, made representations that it was providing an upgrade to the consumer’s current home security system; that the consumer’s current security system company was no longer in business; or that Vivint was otherwise part of or authorized to continue monitoring the consumer’s current home security system. ”Mugford provided the city with a list of 13 customers he said Alarmpro “lost due to ViVint and their authorized agent ARM Security causing our customers to break their contracts with Alarmpro, Inc. ” At least two customers have since switched back after checking Vivint’s record.