Government requirements for RCD & smoke alarm testing, WA

[Bruce Varley]

We've just received notification from the management agency for a rental
property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of RCDs and smoke
alarms in rental properties. The notification appears to be on behalf of the
WA government, and states requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of
these safety devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with an
implication that as property lessors, we are more or less obliged to adopt
this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.

Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of periodic
testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need to be done, and
is any fancy gear required? TIA

 

[terryc]

Bruce Varley wrote:

Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of periodic
testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need to be done, and
is any fancy gear required? TIA

As far as I know, SFA.
We had a similar letter, but it was clearly about the agent covering
their arse at our expense from some imaginary future case.

It would be cheaper to just install a new alar each year.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:

We've just received notification from the management agency for a rental
property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of RCDs and smoke
alarms in rental properties. The notification appears to be on behalf of the
WA government, and states requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of
these safety devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with an
implication that as property lessors, we are more or less obliged to adopt
this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.

Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of periodic
testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need to be done, and
is any fancy gear required? TIA

Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html

Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

Sylvia.

 

[Epsilon]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
We've just received notification from the management agency for a
rental property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of
RCDs and smoke alarms in rental properties. The notification appears
to be on behalf of the WA government, and states requirements for
installation and 'maintenance' of these safety devices. Attached to
the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA energy supplier),
offering a service to regularly test them, with an implication that
as property lessors, we are more or less obliged to adopt this
service. Not a good way to keep me on side. Does anyone know what the
actual legal requirement is, in terms of
periodic testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need
to be done, and is any fancy gear required? TIA



Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html

Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they must work
correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the property. The owner
is perfectly free to maintain the devices (ie check that they work
correctly) as they please.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 5/04/2011 6:15 AM, Epsilon wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
We've just received notification from the management agency for a
rental property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of
RCDs and smoke alarms in rental properties. The notification appears
to be on behalf of the WA government, and states requirements for
installation and 'maintenance' of these safety devices. Attached to
the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA energy supplier),
offering a service to regularly test them, with an implication that
as property lessors, we are more or less obliged to adopt this
service. Not a good way to keep me on side. Does anyone know what the
actual legal requirement is, in terms of
periodic testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need
to be done, and is any fancy gear required? TIA



Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html

Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they must work
correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the property. The
owner is perfectly free to maintain the devices (ie check that they work
correctly) as they please.

It looked to me as if there's no penalty for non compliance with the
requirement that they work, only for non-compliance with a rectification
notice.

Sylvia.

 

[Alan]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 21:34:05 +0800, "Bruce Varley" <bv@NoSpam.com>
wrote:

We've just received notification from the management agency for a rental
property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of RCDs and smoke
alarms in rental properties. The notification appears to be on behalf of the
WA government, and states requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of
these safety devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with an
implication that as property lessors, we are more or less obliged to adopt
this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.

Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of periodic
testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need to be done, and
is any fancy gear required? TIA

Looks as if you are required to install them:

http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumerprotection/PDF/Factsheets/FESA_smoke_alarm_fact_sheet_rental_properties.pdf

With a possible fine up to $5,000.00


--
Sell your surplus electronic components at http://ozcomponents.com
Search or browse for that IC, capacitor,
crystal or other component you need.
Or find new components at http://auscomponents.com

 

[Epsilon]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 5/04/2011 6:15 AM, Epsilon wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
We've just received notification from the management agency for a
rental property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of
RCDs and smoke alarms in rental properties. The notification
appears to be on behalf of the WA government, and states
requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of these safety
devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with
an implication that as property lessors, we are more or less
obliged to adopt this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.
Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of
periodic testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need
to be done, and is any fancy gear required? TIA



Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html

Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they must
work correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the
property. The owner is perfectly free to maintain the devices (ie
check that they work correctly) as they please.

It looked to me as if there's no penalty for non compliance with the
requirement that they work, only for non-compliance with a
rectification notice.

Paragraph (a) of the applicable offence provision has a double-barrelled
requirement of installation and compliance with the specific regulation (ie
working correctly). If it doesn't work correctly, there is an offence.

But I assume that the main penalty provision used is where the owner fails
to comply with a notice.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 5/04/2011 2:57 PM, Epsilon wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 5/04/2011 6:15 AM, Epsilon wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
We've just received notification from the management agency for a
rental property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of
RCDs and smoke alarms in rental properties. The notification
appears to be on behalf of the WA government, and states
requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of these safety
devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with
an implication that as property lessors, we are more or less
obliged to adopt this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.
Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of
periodic testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need
to be done, and is any fancy gear required? TIA



Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html

Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they must
work correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the
property. The owner is perfectly free to maintain the devices (ie
check that they work correctly) as they please.

It looked to me as if there's no penalty for non compliance with the
requirement that they work, only for non-compliance with a
rectification notice.

Paragraph (a) of the applicable offence provision has a double-barrelled
requirement of installation and compliance with the specific regulation
(ie working correctly). If it doesn't work correctly, there is an offence.

But I assume that the main penalty provision used is where the owner
fails to comply with a notice.

Proof of the offence under 38L(1) would require a proof that the
requirement to achieve (a) was not met within 14 days. If at some later
time it becomes apparent that the device is not installed, and was never
installed, then the owner will likely be convicted. But if the device is
installed but simply no longer works, then the prosecution would have to
show that it hadn't been working within the relevant 14 days. It would
not be sufficient to show that it is not working at the later time.

Sylvia.

 

[Epsilon]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 5/04/2011 2:57 PM, Epsilon wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 5/04/2011 6:15 AM, Epsilon wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
We've just received notification from the management agency for a
rental property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of
RCDs and smoke alarms in rental properties. The notification
appears to be on behalf of the WA government, and states
requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of these safety
devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with
an implication that as property lessors, we are more or less
obliged to adopt this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.
Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms
of periodic testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What
tests need to be done, and is any fancy gear required? TIA



Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html

Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they must
work correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the
property. The owner is perfectly free to maintain the devices (ie
check that they work correctly) as they please.

It looked to me as if there's no penalty for non compliance with the
requirement that they work, only for non-compliance with a
rectification notice.

Paragraph (a) of the applicable offence provision has a
double-barrelled requirement of installation and compliance with the
specific regulation (ie working correctly). If it doesn't work
correctly, there is an offence.

But I assume that the main penalty provision used is where the owner
fails to comply with a notice.

Proof of the offence under 38L(1) would require a proof that the
requirement to achieve (a) was not met within 14 days. If at some
later time it becomes apparent that the device is not installed, and
was never installed, then the owner will likely be convicted. But if
the device is installed but simply no longer works, then the
prosecution would have to show that it hadn't been working within the
relevant 14 days. It would not be sufficient to show that it is not
working at the later time.

I had in mind reg 38L(3), which will replace the earlier regs.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 5/04/2011 3:52 PM, Epsilon wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 5/04/2011 2:57 PM, Epsilon wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 5/04/2011 6:15 AM, Epsilon wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
We've just received notification from the management agency for a
rental property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of
RCDs and smoke alarms in rental properties. The notification
appears to be on behalf of the WA government, and states
requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of these safety
devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with
an implication that as property lessors, we are more or less
obliged to adopt this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.
Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms
of periodic testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What
tests need to be done, and is any fancy gear required? TIA



Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html

Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they must
work correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the
property. The owner is perfectly free to maintain the devices (ie
check that they work correctly) as they please.

It looked to me as if there's no penalty for non compliance with the
requirement that they work, only for non-compliance with a
rectification notice.

Paragraph (a) of the applicable offence provision has a
double-barrelled requirement of installation and compliance with the
specific regulation (ie working correctly). If it doesn't work
correctly, there is an offence.
But I assume that the main penalty provision used is where the owner
fails to comply with a notice.

Proof of the offence under 38L(1) would require a proof that the
requirement to achieve (a) was not met within 14 days. If at some
later time it becomes apparent that the device is not installed, and
was never installed, then the owner will likely be convicted. But if
the device is installed but simply no longer works, then the
prosecution would have to show that it hadn't been working within the
relevant 14 days. It would not be sufficient to show that it is not
working at the later time.

I had in mind reg 38L(3), which will replace the earlier regs.

OK.

"extent practicable" is a nicely vague term to have in a provision that
creates an offence.

The OP should probably have the alarms tested several times a day until
such time as the tennant refuses to allow it any more.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 6/04/2011 9:44 AM, kreed wrote:

On Apr 5, 3:04 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 5/04/2011 2:57 PM, Epsilon wrote:



Sylvia Else wrote:
On 5/04/2011 6:15 AM, Epsilon wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
We've just received notification from the management agency for a
rental property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of
RCDs and smoke alarms in rental properties. The notification
appears to be on behalf of the WA government, and states
requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of these safety
devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with
an implication that as property lessors, we are more or less
obliged to adopt this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.
Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of
periodic testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need
to be done, and is any fancy gear required? TIA

Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html

Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they must
work correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the
property. The owner is perfectly free to maintain the devices (ie
check that they work correctly) as they please.

It looked to me as if there's no penalty for non compliance with the
requirement that they work, only for non-compliance with a
rectification notice.

Paragraph (a) of the applicable offence provision has a double-barrelled
requirement of installation and compliance with the specific regulation
(ie working correctly). If it doesn't work correctly, there is an offence.

But I assume that the main penalty provision used is where the owner
fails to comply with a notice.

Proof of the offence under 38L(1) would require a proof that the
requirement to achieve (a) was not met within 14 days. If at some later
time it becomes apparent that the device is not installed, and was never
installed, then the owner will likely be convicted. But if the device is
installed but simply no longer works, then the prosecution would have to
show that it hadn't been working within the relevant 14 days. It would
not be sufficient to show that it is not working at the later time.

Sylvia.

How it really works is that they just charge the person regardless.
Faced with the prospect of spending around $10,000 on legal fees for
representation, even if they win, they are likely better off
financially just pleading guilty.

One doesn't have to have legal representation, and for a potential $5000
fine, it might not be inappropriate for the reasons you give. If the
required evidence is not available, a plea of not-guilty will likely see
the prosecution dropped - eventually.

Sylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Apr 5, 3:04 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 5/04/2011 2:57 PM, Epsilon wrote:



Sylvia Else wrote:
On 5/04/2011 6:15 AM, Epsilon wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
We've just received notification from the management agency for a
rental property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of
RCDs and smoke alarms in rental properties. The notification
appears to be on behalf of the WA government, and states
requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of these safety
devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with
an implication that as property lessors, we are more or less
obliged to adopt this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.
Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of
periodic testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need
to be done, and is any fancy gear required? TIA

Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html

Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they must
work correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the
property. The owner is perfectly free to maintain the devices (ie
check that they work correctly) as they please.

It looked to me as if there's no penalty for non compliance with the
requirement that they work, only for non-compliance with a
rectification notice.

Paragraph (a) of the applicable offence provision has a double-barrelled
requirement of installation and compliance with the specific regulation
(ie working correctly). If it doesn't work correctly, there is an offence.

But I assume that the main penalty provision used is where the owner
fails to comply with a notice.

Proof of the offence under 38L(1) would require a proof that the
requirement to achieve (a) was not met within 14 days. If at some later
time it becomes apparent that the device is not installed, and was never
installed, then the owner will likely be convicted. But if the device is
installed but simply no longer works, then the prosecution would have to
show that it hadn't been working within the relevant 14 days. It would
not be sufficient to show that it is not working at the later time.

Sylvia.

How it really works is that they just charge the person regardless.
Faced with the prospect of spending around $10,000 on legal fees for
representation, even if they win, they are likely better off
financially just pleading guilty. Charges are largely laid based on
this factor in other matters but If they have legal aid, or are a
legal professional themselves, it seems to be different.

 

[Helmut]

On 6/04/2011 11:26 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 6/04/2011 9:44 AM, kreed wrote:
On Apr 5, 3:04 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 5/04/2011 2:57 PM, Epsilon wrote:



Sylvia Else wrote:
On 5/04/2011 6:15 AM, Epsilon wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
We've just received notification from the management agency for a
rental property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of
RCDs and smoke alarms in rental properties. The notification
appears to be on behalf of the WA government, and states
requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of these safety
devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with
an implication that as property lessors, we are more or less
obliged to adopt this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.
Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of
periodic testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need
to be done, and is any fancy gear required? TIA

Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html

Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they must
work correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the
property. The owner is perfectly free to maintain the devices (ie
check that they work correctly) as they please.

It looked to me as if there's no penalty for non compliance with the
requirement that they work, only for non-compliance with a
rectification notice.

Paragraph (a) of the applicable offence provision has a
double-barrelled
requirement of installation and compliance with the specific regulation
(ie working correctly). If it doesn't work correctly, there is an
offence.

But I assume that the main penalty provision used is where the owner
fails to comply with a notice.

Proof of the offence under 38L(1) would require a proof that the
requirement to achieve (a) was not met within 14 days. If at some later
time it becomes apparent that the device is not installed, and was never
installed, then the owner will likely be convicted. But if the device is
installed but simply no longer works, then the prosecution would have to
show that it hadn't been working within the relevant 14 days. It would
not be sufficient to show that it is not working at the later time.

Sylvia.

How it really works is that they just charge the person regardless.
Faced with the prospect of spending around $10,000 on legal fees for
representation, even if they win, they are likely better off
financially just pleading guilty.

One doesn't have to have legal representation, and for a potential $5000
fine, it might not be inappropriate for the reasons you give. If the
required evidence is not available, a plea of not-guilty will likely see
the prosecution dropped - eventually.

Sylvia.

Unfortunately most investors who rent out houses do so via a private
Company. As I understand corporate law, a company may well be a separate
legal entity but unlike people, companies are forbidden from
representing themselves in court. It is mandatory to engage a lawyer to
represent a company. so in response to this thread...

By all means maintain your own smoke alarms but be aware the onus for
the continual working is on the property owner. Tenants have been known
in the past to remove batteries from smoke alarms to enjoy a joint or
two in the comfort of their lounge room.

Once done, the owner is responsible for NOT having a functional smoke
alarm, not the tenant who disarmed it. It is indeed cheaper to just pay
the fine by default than engage a solicitor and a barrister to defend
the matter.

HH

 

[Epsilon]

Helmut wrote:

On 6/04/2011 11:26 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 6/04/2011 9:44 AM, kreed wrote:
On Apr 5, 3:04 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 5/04/2011 2:57 PM, Epsilon wrote:



Sylvia Else wrote:
On 5/04/2011 6:15 AM, Epsilon wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
We've just received notification from the management agency
for a rental property we own, regarding installation and
maintenance of RCDs and smoke alarms in rental properties.
The notification appears to be on behalf of the WA
government, and states requirements for installation and
'maintenance' of these safety devices. Attached to the forms
is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA energy supplier), offering a
service to regularly test them, with an implication that as
property lessors, we are more or less obliged to adopt this
service. Not a good way to keep me on side. Does anyone know
what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of periodic
testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need to
be done, and is any fancy gear required? TIA

Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html

Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance
or testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they
must work correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the
property. The owner is perfectly free to maintain the devices
(ie check that they work correctly) as they please.

It looked to me as if there's no penalty for non compliance with
the requirement that they work, only for non-compliance with a
rectification notice.

Paragraph (a) of the applicable offence provision has a
double-barrelled
requirement of installation and compliance with the specific
regulation (ie working correctly). If it doesn't work correctly,
there is an offence.

But I assume that the main penalty provision used is where the
owner fails to comply with a notice.

Proof of the offence under 38L(1) would require a proof that the
requirement to achieve (a) was not met within 14 days. If at some
later time it becomes apparent that the device is not installed,
and was never installed, then the owner will likely be convicted.
But if the device is installed but simply no longer works, then
the prosecution would have to show that it hadn't been working
within the relevant 14 days. It would not be sufficient to show
that it is not working at the later time. Sylvia.

How it really works is that they just charge the person regardless.
Faced with the prospect of spending around $10,000 on legal fees for
representation, even if they win, they are likely better off
financially just pleading guilty.

One doesn't have to have legal representation, and for a potential
$5000 fine, it might not be inappropriate for the reasons you give.
If the required evidence is not available, a plea of not-guilty will
likely see the prosecution dropped - eventually.

Sylvia.

Unfortunately most investors who rent out houses do so via a private
Company.

Cite evidence, please.

As I understand corporate law, a company may well be a
separate legal entity but unlike people, companies are forbidden from
representing themselves in court.

What law does that?

It is mandatory to engage a lawyer
to represent a company.

What law does that?

so in response to this thread...

By all means maintain your own smoke alarms but be aware the onus for
the continual working is on the property owner.

Depends on what that means. It is nor that explicit in the law.

Tenants have been
known in the past to remove batteries from smoke alarms to enjoy a
joint or two in the comfort of their lounge room.

If that happens, the properrty owner will clearly not be liable.

Once done, the owner is responsible for NOT having a functional smoke
alarm, not the tenant who disarmed it.

Depends on what that means.

It is indeed cheaper to just
pay the fine by default than engage a solicitor and a barrister to
defend the matter.

That may be so in any minor criminal matter, and is therefore not
particularly relevant in this thread.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 7/04/2011 4:03 PM, Helmut wrote:

On 6/04/2011 11:26 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 6/04/2011 9:44 AM, kreed wrote:
On Apr 5, 3:04 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 5/04/2011 2:57 PM, Epsilon wrote:



Sylvia Else wrote:
On 5/04/2011 6:15 AM, Epsilon wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 4/04/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:
We've just received notification from the management agency for a
rental property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of
RCDs and smoke alarms in rental properties. The notification
appears to be on behalf of the WA government, and states
requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of these safety
devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with
an implication that as property lessors, we are more or less
obliged to adopt this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.
Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of
periodic testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests
need
to be done, and is any fancy gear required? TIA

Regarding installation

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html


Regaring maintenance

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html


Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they must
work correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the
property. The owner is perfectly free to maintain the devices (ie
check that they work correctly) as they please.

It looked to me as if there's no penalty for non compliance with the
requirement that they work, only for non-compliance with a
rectification notice.

Paragraph (a) of the applicable offence provision has a
double-barrelled
requirement of installation and compliance with the specific
regulation
(ie working correctly). If it doesn't work correctly, there is an
offence.

But I assume that the main penalty provision used is where the owner
fails to comply with a notice.

Proof of the offence under 38L(1) would require a proof that the
requirement to achieve (a) was not met within 14 days. If at some later
time it becomes apparent that the device is not installed, and was
never
installed, then the owner will likely be convicted. But if the
device is
installed but simply no longer works, then the prosecution would
have to
show that it hadn't been working within the relevant 14 days. It would
not be sufficient to show that it is not working at the later time.

Sylvia.

How it really works is that they just charge the person regardless.
Faced with the prospect of spending around $10,000 on legal fees for
representation, even if they win, they are likely better off
financially just pleading guilty.

One doesn't have to have legal representation, and for a potential $5000
fine, it might not be inappropriate for the reasons you give. If the
required evidence is not available, a plea of not-guilty will likely see
the prosecution dropped - eventually.

Sylvia.

Unfortunately most investors who rent out houses do so via a private
Company. As I understand corporate law, a company may well be a separate
legal entity but unlike people, companies are forbidden from
representing themselves in court. It is mandatory to engage a lawyer to
represent a company. so in response to this thread...

In at least some jurisdictions that's true as far as civil proceedings
go. But for criminal proceedings in Western Australia, it's expressly
contradicted:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cpa2004188/s152.html

"(1) A corporation may appoint an individual, who need not be a legal
practitioner, to be its representative in proceedings before the court."

Sylvia.

 

[terryc]

Helmut wrote:

Tenants have been known
in the past to remove batteries from smoke alarms to enjoy a joint or
two in the comfort of their lounge room.

Once done, the owner is responsible for NOT having a functional smoke
alarm, not the tenant who disarmed it.

That is the advantage of having amains powered one. Takes some disarming
and the tenant is going to have to come up with a good story o get their
arse out of the sling.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/04/2011 1:14 AM, terryc wrote:

Helmut wrote:
Tenants have been known in the past to remove batteries from smoke
alarms to enjoy a joint or two in the comfort of their lounge room.

Once done, the owner is responsible for NOT having a functional smoke
alarm, not the tenant who disarmed it.

That is the advantage of having amains powered one. Takes some disarming
and the tenant is going to have to come up with a good story o get their
arse out of the sling.

The regulation could be construed as requiring that the owner check from
time to time that the tenant hasn't disconnected it.

Sylvia.

 

[Dennis]

I had an electrician install some GPOs, lights and a ELCBR for the lights at
our place this week. When giving us the sign off certificate he told us he
was supposed to do a full inspection of the premises electrical installation
and safety test (in addition to the earth leakage test he did on the new
GPOs/Lights).

I was hurrying him up and basically tossed him out as I needed to go out
myself.

Is this true or was he scouting for some more work??

 

[terryc]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 8/04/2011 1:14 AM, terryc wrote:
Helmut wrote:
Tenants have been known in the past to remove batteries from smoke
alarms to enjoy a joint or two in the comfort of their lounge room.

Once done, the owner is responsible for NOT having a functional smoke
alarm, not the tenant who disarmed it.

That is the advantage of having amains powered one. Takes some disarming
and the tenant is going to have to come up with a good story o get their
arse out of the sling.

The regulation could be construed as requiring that the owner check from
time to time that the tenant hasn't disconnected it.

Contributory negligence. End of story.
Any other claim is just make work from legal parasites.

 

[Epsilon]

terryc wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 8/04/2011 1:14 AM, terryc wrote:
Helmut wrote:
Tenants have been known in the past to remove batteries from smoke
alarms to enjoy a joint or two in the comfort of their lounge room.

Once done, the owner is responsible for NOT having a functional
smoke alarm, not the tenant who disarmed it.

That is the advantage of having amains powered one. Takes some
disarming and the tenant is going to have to come up with a good
story o get their arse out of the sling.

The regulation could be construed as requiring that the owner check
from time to time that the tenant hasn't disconnected it.

Contributory negligence.

No such animal in the criminal law.

End of story.

Quite so. But quite wrong.

Any other claim is just make work from legal parasites.

No doubt.