ADT’s Negligence Cost Us

I am writing to lodge a serious formal complaint regarding ADT’s shocking negligence, failure to respond to a legitimate security concern, and overall poor service — all of which directly resulted in our business being ****** twice and losing approximately R90 000 worth of stock.

On the 1st of March, we contacted ADT to report suspicious individuals lingering outside our business premises. We clearly explained that we suspected these individuals were planning something, even though we could not yet confirm it. We asked ADT to please keep an eye on the area and increase patrols until we were certain there was no threat.

ADT’s response was unbelievable. Your operator told us that ADT “does not deal with suspicion” and therefore could not assist. This alone is shocking for a company that claims to prevent crime and protect communities.

Just two days later, on the 3rd of March at around 01:00 AM, our business was ******.

The alarm went off the moment the ********s entered, which scared them away at first. However, when the ADT responder arrived, he did not even bother to check the premises. CCTV footage clearly shows that our outside door had been tampered with — something he would have easily noticed if he wasn’t sitting in his car on his phone, passing by as if he was not even on duty.

Because ADT failed to inspect the premises properly, the ********s once again took advantage of this negligence. Knowing there was no real monitoring or patrolling, they returned shortly afterward and stole products worth ±R100 000 without any difficulty.

At this point, we see absolutely no point in having this security company, especially in Soweto where crime happens at any time and vigilance is critical.

What is even more disturbing is that after losing so much stock, the only response we received from ADT was “sorry.” Even now, your team is still not performing proper checks or monitoring the premises.

This level of neglect is not only unprofessional — it is dangerous.

We demand the following:

1. A full investigation into the call centre agent who dismissed our warning about suspicious individuals. 2. An investigation into the responder who failed to conduct a site check on 3 March. 3. The complete incident report for that night, including response times and actions taken. 4. A written explanation of ADT’s policy regarding suspicious activity reports. 5. Assurance of corrective action and accountability. 6. A formal written response from ADT management.

Your negligence enabled ********s to return and execute a major *******. This could have been prevented had our initial warning been taken seriously or had the premises been checked properly.

We expect urgent and meaningful action from ADT.