Government requirements for RCD & smoke alarm testing, WA

[Helmut]

On 7/04/2011 5:53 PM, Epsilon wrote:

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.

I last owned property in WA in 2003. I'm fairly sure the laws governing
rental properties would have changed since then.

In Queensland I'm liable for smoke detectors that stopped working
because tenants had removed the batteries. Trying to fight the issue
would have cost me 5x the cost of shutting up and paying up. To avoid
further litigation and a possible fight with my insurers in the case of
a fire... I'd jump at the offer from a third party to take over
responsibility for maintaining the blasted things.

The owner's liability doesn't stop at installing smoke alarms... Despite
what many might think/hope or believe. This is most likely why the firm
offering frequent checks and maintenance of smoke alarms is prospering.
How they offset the the issue of liability would (I guess) be the deal
breaker.

HH

 

[Epsilon]

Helmut wrote:

On 7/04/2011 5:53 PM, Epsilon wrote:
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.

I last owned property in WA in 2003. I'm fairly sure the laws
governing rental properties would have changed since then.

In Queensland I'm liable for smoke detectors that stopped working
because tenants had removed the batteries.

Strictly, you are wrong. On your claim, you would be liable from the moment
that the tenant removed the batteries. That is not so.

Trying to fight the issue
would have cost me 5x the cost of shutting up and paying up.

That's a different matter.

To avoid
further litigation and a possible fight with my insurers in the case
of a fire... I'd jump at the offer from a third party to take over
responsibility for maintaining the blasted things.

That in no way removes any obligations from you.

The owner's liability doesn't stop at installing smoke alarms...
Despite what many might think/hope or believe. This is most likely
why the firm offering frequent checks and maintenance of smoke alarms
is prospering. How they offset the the issue of liability would (I
guess) be the deal breaker.

They don't. It's just a way for property owners to get someone to do the
maintenance check. It doesn't do anything positive for the property owner
if things go wrong.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/04/2011 3:33 PM, Helmut wrote:

On 7/04/2011 5:53 PM, Epsilon wrote:
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.

I last owned property in WA in 2003. I'm fairly sure the laws governing
rental properties would have changed since then.

In Queensland I'm liable for smoke detectors that stopped working
because tenants had removed the batteries. Trying to fight the issue
would have cost me 5x the cost of shutting up and paying up.

The law in Queensland relating to smoke alarms seems to be more sensible
than that in WA, in that it doesn't assume that tennants are incapable
of looking after a smoke alarm.

I can see nothing that would make the owner liable where a tenant has
removed the batteries.

The tennant would have committed an offence by removing the batteries,
though.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/farsa1990210/s104rh.html

The tendency for people to cop a fine rather than defending cases like
this just encourages the authorities to initiate proceedings on spurious
grounds.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/04/2011 12:59 PM, Dennis wrote:

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??

Definitely not true. Report him.

Sylvia.

 

[Epsilon]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 8/04/2011 3:33 PM, Helmut wrote:
On 7/04/2011 5:53 PM, Epsilon wrote:
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.

I last owned property in WA in 2003. I'm fairly sure the laws
governing rental properties would have changed since then.

In Queensland I'm liable for smoke detectors that stopped working
because tenants had removed the batteries. Trying to fight the issue
would have cost me 5x the cost of shutting up and paying up.

The law in Queensland relating to smoke alarms seems to be more
sensible than that in WA, in that it doesn't assume that tennants are
incapable of looking after a smoke alarm.

I can see nothing that would make the owner liable where a tenant has
removed the batteries.

The tennant would have committed an offence by removing the batteries,
though.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/farsa1990210/s104rh.html

The tendency for people to cop a fine rather than defending cases like
this just encourages the authorities to initiate proceedings on
spurious grounds.

Are you suggesting that those authorities are capable of reasoned thought?

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/04/2011 6:29 PM, Epsilon wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 8/04/2011 3:33 PM, Helmut wrote:
On 7/04/2011 5:53 PM, Epsilon wrote:
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.

I last owned property in WA in 2003. I'm fairly sure the laws
governing rental properties would have changed since then.

In Queensland I'm liable for smoke detectors that stopped working
because tenants had removed the batteries. Trying to fight the issue
would have cost me 5x the cost of shutting up and paying up.

The law in Queensland relating to smoke alarms seems to be more
sensible than that in WA, in that it doesn't assume that tennants are
incapable of looking after a smoke alarm.

I can see nothing that would make the owner liable where a tenant has
removed the batteries.

The tennant would have committed an offence by removing the batteries,
though.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/farsa1990210/s104rh.html


The tendency for people to cop a fine rather than defending cases like
this just encourages the authorities to initiate proceedings on
spurious grounds.

Are you suggesting that those authorities are capable of reasoned thought?

Oh, perhaps, up to the level of "We can issue fines, and there's no
downside, so we do."

Sylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 8/04/2011 3:33 PM, Helmut wrote:



On 7/04/2011 5:53 PM, Epsilon wrote:
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.

I last owned property in WA in 2003. I'm fairly sure the laws governing
rental properties would have changed since then.

In Queensland I'm liable for smoke detectors that stopped working
because tenants had removed the batteries. Trying to fight the issue
would have cost me 5x the cost of shutting up and paying up.

The law in Queensland relating to smoke alarms seems to be more sensible
than that in WA, in that it doesn't assume that tennants are incapable
of looking after a smoke alarm.

I can see nothing that would make the owner liable where a tenant has
removed the batteries.

The tennant would have committed an offence by removing the batteries,
though.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/farsa1990210/s104rh...

The tendency for people to cop a fine rather than defending cases like
this just encourages the authorities to initiate proceedings on spurious
grounds.

Sylvia.

I have property in QLD, the owner is only liable to test the alarm at
the start of a tenancy (and possibly a lease renewal)
Other than that - the tenant is responsible for checking and changing
the battery while they are in the unit.

We had mains powered alarms installed (the agent had it done) and
these still require the battery check by law.
The mains powered ones, I checked them and they do continuously
"chirp" if the battery is removed and the mains is available.

 

[Dennis]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:907uvaFb3kU2@mid.individual.net...

On 8/04/2011 12:59 PM, Dennis wrote:
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??



Definitely not true. Report him.

Sylvia.

Not worth reporting him, it'd be my word against his & he likely suggest I'd
misunderstood. Nice to know its not a requirement.

 

[atec77]

On 8/04/2011 7:43 PM, kreed wrote:

The law in Queensland relating to smoke alarms seems to be more sensible


I have property in QLD, the owner is only liable to test the alarm at
the start of a tenancy (and possibly a lease renewal)
Other than that - the tenant is responsible for checking and changing
the battery while they are in the unit.

We had mains powered alarms installed (the agent had it done) and
these still require the battery check by law.
The mains powered ones, I checked them and they do continuously
"chirp" if the battery is removed and the mains is available.


All correct

and you realise by trying to reason with syliva she will drag you down
to her level of stupidity ?
If you won't answer her the rest of us don't see her shite

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Helmut]

On 8/04/2011 10:56 PM, atec77 wrote:

On 8/04/2011 7:43 PM, kreed wrote:


The law in Queensland relating to smoke alarms seems to be more sensible


I have property in QLD, the owner is only liable to test the alarm at
the start of a tenancy (and possibly a lease renewal)
Other than that - the tenant is responsible for checking and changing
the battery while they are in the unit.

We had mains powered alarms installed (the agent had it done) and
these still require the battery check by law.
The mains powered ones, I checked them and they do continuously
"chirp" if the battery is removed and the mains is available.


All correct
and you realise by trying to reason with syliva she will drag you down
to her level of stupidity ?
If you won't answer her the rest of us don't see her shite

The issues raised with this subliminal insult reach far further than
just denying someone the right to post in this public forum. They head
towards vilification of another poster so you might enjoy what you seek
to deny Sylvia.

By suggesting on one hand that a long standing regular here should be
ignored so that you can enjoy the facility you seek to deny her is an
attempt to force your ideas on others. An attitude hardly likely to win
you any followers.

Live and let live. You might find more people will consider your posts
as 'useful' if you did. Right now I'd be inclined to see you as a
newsgroup vandal rather than a worthwhile contributor. Activity like
yours is what has degraded newsgroups in general to a level as close to
the gutter as it can get.

HH

 

[atec77]

On 9/04/2011 11:06 AM, Helmut wrote:

On 8/04/2011 10:56 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 8/04/2011 7:43 PM, kreed wrote:


The law in Queensland relating to smoke alarms seems to be more
sensible


I have property in QLD, the owner is only liable to test the alarm at
the start of a tenancy (and possibly a lease renewal)
Other than that - the tenant is responsible for checking and changing
the battery while they are in the unit.

We had mains powered alarms installed (the agent had it done) and
these still require the battery check by law.
The mains powered ones, I checked them and they do continuously
"chirp" if the battery is removed and the mains is available.


All correct
and you realise by trying to reason with syliva she will drag you down
to her level of stupidity ?
If you won't answer her the rest of us don't see her shite



The issues raised with this subliminal insult reach far further than
just denying someone the right to post in this public forum. They head
towards vilification of another poster so you might enjoy what you seek
to deny Sylvia.

By suggesting on one hand that a long standing regular here should be
ignored so that you can enjoy the facility you seek to deny her is an
attempt to force your ideas on others. An attitude hardly likely to win
you any followers.
oh ggf

don't like it plonk me as I will you in a second

Live and let live.
bullshite

You might find more people will consider your posts

as 'useful' if you did. Right now I'd be inclined to see you as a
newsgroup vandal rather than a worthwhile contributor. Activity like
yours is what has degraded newsgroups in general to a level as close to
the gutter as it can get.

HH

--
X-No-Archive: Yes