Initial installation caused damage to the car which the employees then attempted to blame me for despite there still being wet glue on the broken part. Further investigation revealed they had fitted a system different to that on the receipt in that they had fitted separate immobilizer and alarm unit which require me to have two alarm keys on my keyfob! The unit then failed when out of warranty which was due to it being installed directly under a bonnet vent allowing rain water to enter the unit. Autowatch acknowledged that this was a fault by the installer but Mark the director refuses to accept any responsibility and maintains the installation location is fine despite being in the direct path of any rain. update to this review: Mark the director has now, rather than focusing on my valid customer complaint has instead informed me that he intends to sue me for the review above. he has yet to even view the car yet has decided to deny responsibility and sue the customer for a poor review Some updates to this review in response to inaccurate response from the company. See profile photos for evidence of points below 1) The claim that they did not do the job is completely false. I have a receipt, installation certificate and e-mail chain that proves this is not the case and have been attached to this review 2) The damage to the car was reported at the time to his staff but they dismissed this claiming that I must have broken the part in question. As this was only minor damage and ini the face of their staffs "deny everything" attitude I decided to leave the issue there....but it is a valid thing to include in my review. Photos of damage have been attached 3) The claim of only using one type of glue, for this type of business, is frankly ridiculous and a complete lie. DO you believe it? 4) The claim that the autowatch MD told me that the installation is OK is inaccurate. What the MD told me is that the location would be OK with their new range of sirens that have improved waterproofing however that it wasn't ideal for their old units which did suffer from water ingress. The NEW units have visibly improved water protection where the wires enter the back of the unit and are hence suitable for this location. 5) The commenter is suggesting that I want something for nothing which is not only untrue but also a slur on my character. What I am hoping is that the company behaves reasonably and does not charge me their very high labour costs of £75 for a simple job that would take 30mins maximum for a competent installer. He is also missing the point that it was me that secured the free replacement sounder that Autowatch have now posted directly to me free of charge. The installer has not made this negotiation and they are unwilling to change any of their costs in the way that the supplier of the alarm itself have been. I offered by e-mail to pay £25 fro the labour needed to fit the unit which seems like a reasonable cost for a simple replacement of a sounder that is already fully (and correctly supposedly) installed in the car 6) The claim that my reply was 'My siren packed up and now im pi??ed off' is a complete lie and is without doubt libellous. 7) I have never been asked if the engine bay has been pressure washed or steam cleaned, this is another complete lie. Not only this but if pressure washing is an issue for the siren then by inference the location is not acceptable because if/when I do pressure wash the outside of the car, because the alarm is directly below a vent in the bonnet it is therefore impossible not to blast water into the back of the unit. QED installation location is wrong. 8) The claim that they do not have a director called Mark is a very strange one considering that the first e-mail contact from this company was from a chap referring to himself as "Mark - Director" my initial review actually had an error in that I had called the director Mike. The director took great pleasure in pointing out in his e-mail that they do not have a mike so I edited the review to change this to Mike, he now claims that there isn't a Mike. Go figure!? read more