ADT Security System www.adt.co.uk Review

Watch this item
2.8 stars
Average rating for this product is: 2.8 out of 5

From 3 ratings and 18 reviews

Thumb up 50% of users recommend this product

Rate it Now:

Click on the stars above to rate this product:

Tweet This Item

aelwell's Review of ADT Security System www.adt.co.uk

Overall Rating

0 stars
  • Value for money
    0 stars
Good Points

Latest technology.
Name-recognition.


Bad Points

Long contracts.
Customer service.


General Comments

In September of 2006, I received an expired ADT refund check. By the time I received this check (which was sent to the wrong address by ADT), it was no longer valid, so I proceeded to contact ADT to discuss the re-issuance of this check. I was advised that I would need to send the check back to ADT, and upon receipt, would be issued a new check. I scanned a copy of the check and proceeded to send it back to ADT. After a few months, I felt as if I had waited long enough for the check, and proceeded to contact ADT to follow up on the missing check. Upon speaking to ADT, I was advised that the check had not been sent out, but that a new check would be sent immediately, and would be received within 7 to 10 business days. Still, having some faith in "the system", I waited a while for the check, thinking that ADT's processing department(s) were just slow. After months with no check, I contacted ADT again, inquiring about the status of the check. This time, I was told the check had not been sent, but was assured that it would be sent immediately, and that I could expect a check within 7 to 10 business days (yes, I'm a sucker). Again, I waited for the check, which I never received, and contacted ADT again. This time (April 23rd - nearly 8 months since my original request for a $100 check re-issue), I was told that ADT Kansas City would have to handle the check issuance. The folks at ADT Kansas City told me that they didn't know anything about it, and that it would have to be issued by the refunds department. At this point, I requested to speak to the Service Coordinator of the Kansas City ADT (who has been the only competent and helpful person I've met at ADT in the last 6 months). She was able to contact one lady who claimed the check had been sent to Missouri collections, and that there was nothing I could do except logon to the Missouri Unclaimed Property website. This was not true, as the monies owed by ADT were not listed on the Missouri website. Another person was contacted, and I was conferenced in on the phone call. This person (I believe in a tax or refund department), told us that the check had been sent to Missouri unclaimed property as well. I refused to believe that this was the case, and I proceeded to call the state of Missouri to discuss my dilemma. I was told by the State Treasurer's office that assets are not typically sent to collections until they have been inactive/unclaimed for more than 5 years. In my case, it had been less than a year since the refund had expired, so I began to doubt the story I had been told by ADT. I proceeded to inquire about the unclaimed property process, and was told that most large companies submit a "batch" of assets to unclaimed property each fall, around October or November. In 2006, ADT had submitted approximately 5000 assets on their unclaimed report, which were manually inserted into the unclaimed property databases by the end of January, 2007. After finding this information, I obtained the contact information for ADT and their refund/tax department. I then spoke to someone at ADT - KC, and told her that I did not believe the money had already been sent to Missouri, but that I suspected it was somewhere at ADT. I gave the phone number, but she never received a response from them. On the morning of Tuesday, April 24th, at approx 10:00am CDT, I received a call from the refunds department, and I was forced to enter the vicious circle again. This time, I was told that I should have received a letter from Legal on my initial request, which would have to be returned to ADT before a check would be re-issued. I advised that I had never received a letter, nor had I ever been told by the Refunds department that I had to do anything except wait for the check. This time around, Nancy told me that I would have to send a form into the Tax Department, requesting that they release the funds (which were placed in queue for release to Missouri Unclaimed Property in November of 2007), so rather than simply sending me my 100 bucks, they told me that I would have to buy a stamp, send them a form, and then wait up to 60 days for my money. If (this is a huge "if") they truly do what they say, I may actually have my 100 bucks by the end of June, 2007.

If this is how a company treats a small matter (such as a $100 refund), I dread to think how they handle the rest of their business. I would trust the security of my home and my family to a herd of cattle before placing my trust in ADT.


Remember - all reviews on Review Centre express the reviewer's opinion, not necessarily ours.
If you disagree with a review then please let us know by writing a review of your own or adding a comment.

Tweet This Review

aelwell's review has yet to be rated - Be the first!

How helpful did you find this review?


Members' Comments onaelwell's Review

  • aelwell Rank: Lance Corporal on 4th May 2007

    Follow-up to my original comments:

    After submitting a complaint to the Florida Better Business Bureau, I received a call from ADT's Customer Retention department (around 4/29). I was told that, despite the information I had received from other departments at ADT, my refund had, in fact, been sent to Missouri Unclaimed Property. Knowing this was not the case, I contacted my local ADT representative (in KC), and today (5/3) received a call from another Customer representative stating that my refund check would be over-nighted to my residence. They could not confirm the amount of the refund, but advised it would be received by 5/4.

    Note to self: The better business bureau (www.bbb.com) truly is a consumer advocate (or at least has more "muscle" than the consumer).