ADT Always There, Even when they aren’t suppose to be.

One wouldn’t expect a reputable security company of such gross negligence as being accomplices to alleged breaking and entering, alleged trespassing and maybe even damage to property. I struggle to comprehend how a company that the general public hire to provide protection and security could be guilty of indiscretions of this nature. As one Richards Bay property owner experienced, this scenario isn’t only possible but has occurred in blatant circumstances leaving the professionalism of ADT Security country wide under scrutiny.

The property in question was rented out to a local Richards Bay Resident from June 2013 to November 2016. During the lease period the tenant contracted ADT directly to install an alarm system in the unit. According to the owner, he was not informed of this by neither the tenant nor by ADT. As the lease ended on the 30 November 2016, the owner had all the locks to the unit changed on the 1 December 2016.

On the 22 December 2016, the tenant went to the unit illegally with ADT to remove the alarm system. According to an official statement from ADT Richards Bay, upon finding that the locks had been changed the tenant broke the locks and entered the unit with ADT who removed the alarm system.

The owner approached ADT Richards Bay who after lengthy discussions eventually provided the owner an official statement of the events having witnessed the alleged break in.

Ironically, the incident was captured on security camera.

The Woodenspoon summary

  1. ADT sign contract with a tenant at a leased residential property where they install an alarm unit.

ADT have no option on the form to indicate that the unit is leased. They have no internal process to verify the lease with the owner or to notify the owner that they are installing equipment on he’s permises.

  1. The tenant’s lease expires on the 30 November 2016 and he requests that ADT move the alarm unit to he’s new premises.

Again ADT does not verify this with the owner.

  1. Upon the expiration of the lease the owner changes the locks on he’s unit.
  2. The tenant having vacated the premises on the 30 November 2016 returns to the unit on the 22 December 2016 to remove the alarm unit. He is accompanied by ADT.

ADT, aware that the tenant is moving premises does not verify that any info with the owner or rental agent before trespassing.

  1. The tenant breaks the garage door lock with a tool handed to him by the ADT employee. ADT enters the unit with the tenant to remove the alarm unit.

The fact that the tenant breaks the lock still doesn’t “alarm” the security company of the seriousness of the situation. Not only do they witness the break in, they assist him with tools and then enter the unit with the tenant.

  1. ADT and the tenant leave the unit.

The Woodenspoon Positive Suggestion.

ADT should include an internal verification process to ensure that their client , which often is the tenant, is actually legally occupying the premises.

ADT should ensure they receive either a direct or indirect approval from the owner to install and remove equipment.