House Sitters best practice

Hi, what’s the way to let house sitter have security clearance while they are responsible for the house? I know how to set them up as temp users with their own timeboxed code. But during that window, they will be the ones to deal with the house. We will be gone and possibly unreachable. They need to be able to talk to central station if they accidentally false alarm. Calling us will not help! Can we set up a dedicated secret word for each user?

1 Like

OK, so far is turning out to be not good.

Called central station operator, they said you cannot set a different verbal passcode for each user. This makes no sense at all. They said they could not do it either, I would have to talk to the main office. And the main office could not talk to me by phone, so they will (someday) email me.

Researching online, this ADC article says I can manage these myself, but apparently Surety doesn’t implement them, because neither the web instructions or app instructions work.

Surely I’m not the only one to want whoever has panel disarm and arm rights to be able to manage false alarms? And, since I can manage users, user access windows, and user disarm codes, I must also be able to access those user’s unique passphrases.

If you are looking to make someone a monitoring account contact, to be called via the central station, you can add them to your call list via System Manager.

There is no way to set a contact to be temporary, or during specific times however. You will need to add/remove the contact manually.

Instructions on how to create a contact can be found here:

Called central station operator, they said you cannot set a different verbal passcode for each user.

That is incorrect. You absolutely can give individual contacts their own Verbal Passwords. Monitoring operators cannot make changes to your account contact list or passwords, you would do this yourself via the Professional Monitoring tab in**System Manager.**

And the main office could not talk to me by phone, so they will (someday) email me.

AvantGuard would not be emailing you directly, Surety is the main office in this case. Sounds like you may have spoken with a new operator. Was this during an alarm event, or did you call the monitoring station directly?

Researching online, this ADC article

We do not, Monitoring contacts, passwords, and call order are managed via System Manager.

Thank you for the info, I found all the points you made above! I now have a custom access rights and passphrase for each user. Good first step!

Next thing they should fix is: while we can manage arm code and access window from the app, we can’t manage the call authority or passphrase from that interface. Right now the second half of the access rights is hidden in an entirely different interface, without even any pointers to it.

I know that the monitoring and adc and surety are all different companies, but the fact that this is a mess on the back end need not be a mess on the user side too, with some extra effort on the dev side.

From a user perspective, whoever makes the product we buy (ultimately adc) should tie all the components together so, when we buy one thing, we can use one product: manage everything from one app, interact with one support system and one call center, and with one login.

Not only should there not be three separate management locations needed for all moving parts (three web interfaces three different logins, and an app) but the app should not have some components that can’t be managed and require the web site; or the reverse like exists now too.

Thanks again for the help, Tyler!

All service billing, plan changes, and 24/7 monitoring account features/changes are handled via the Surety login.

Alarm.com features and remote control of the alarm system/video is handled through the Alarm.com login.

but the app should not have some components that can’t be managed and require the web site; or the reverse like exists now too.

Agreed, this has been brought up to them in the past regarding a variety of differences. Sometimes these changes get implemented but not always, and not frequently enough imo.