Programmed obsolescence in smoke alarms?

[Rod Speed]

"Peter" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:710336588445075792.608657someone-microsoft.com@us.Usenet-News.net...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjoan5Ffe91U1@mid.individual.net...
On 8/02/2015 4:13 PM, Peter wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Added aus.legal

On 8/02/2015 1:51 PM, Peter wrote:

http://www.mfb.vic.gov.au/Community-Safety/Home-Fire-Safety/Smoke-Alarms.html


To my mind, that page grossly misstates the obligations of the
landlord
and tenant as regards smoke alarms. In particular, the notion that the
tenant has to inform the landlord if the smoke alarm battery is
running
down (leading to intermittent chirping) is quite absurd.

The cited section of the law

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rta1997207/s68.html

only requires that the landlord keep the premises in good repair. The
landlord would no more be required to replace smoke alarm batteries
than
they would be required to replace clock batteries if a clock happened
to >>> be installed.

Sylvia.

I think you would have to look a little deeper than that.
A smoke alarm is covered by the BCA, fire safety orders and relevant
acts.
A battery in a clock is not.
A smoke alarm is considered an essential fire safety measure.
A clock is not.
I have heard of people that live in larger apartment buildings that are
not
permitted to even change the batteries.

It's conceivable (just about) that there might a strata rule for a
specific building that imposes such a restriction. I do not believe it's
generally true.

My guess is the justification for
this is the risk to other tenants should the alarm fail.

Likely minimal, unless the building has totally inadequate fire
protection > between units.

Nope, there is still significant risk to other tenants even
if that is done the way it is legally required to be.

Much of that is fire ratings which done mean that
the fire can not get out of the unit where the fire
occurs, JUST that say the doors out of it must be
able to withstand a fire for a specified time. Its
still possible that another tenant who can not
get out of the building for some reason may
still be affected because others assumed that
everyone was out when they weren't etc.

I wouldn't be surprised that most fire related
deaths in apartments were due to the smoke.

Yes, but that is often because those who end up dead
who arent in the unit that caught fire either couldn’t
or chose not to leave the building for some reason.

I wouldn't want to be sleeping a floor
or two above an apartment on fire.

With reasonably modern buildings with concrete floors
between the floors, that isn't normally a problem as
long as you can get out when your own alarm goes off.

 

[Pelican]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjojjjFhcg7U1@mid.individual.net...

On 8/02/2015 6:11 PM, Pelican wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjo393Fdrd1U1@mid.individual.net...
Added aus.legal

On 8/02/2015 1:51 PM, Peter wrote:

http://www.mfb.vic.gov.au/Community-Safety/Home-Fire-Safety/Smoke-Alarms.html



To my mind, that page grossly misstates the obligations of the
landlord and tenant as regards smoke alarms. In particular, the notion
that the tenant has to inform the landlord if the smoke alarm battery
is running down (leading to intermittent chirping) is quite absurd.

The cited section of the law

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rta1997207/s68.html

only requires that the landlord keep the premises in good repair. The
landlord would no more be required to replace smoke alarm batteries
than they would be required to replace clock batteries if a clock
happened to be installed.

The more precise legislation is Part 12 of the Building Regulations
2006, which makes it reasonably clear that the landlord is responsible
for smoke alarms and their maintenance -
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/br2006200/.

However we have

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/br2006200/s1201.html

(2) This Subdivision does not apply to a smoke alarm installed in a
sole-occupancy unit in a Class 1b or 2 building or a Class 4 part of a
building.

And

http://www.insulation.com.au/_literature_61009/BCA_Classes_of_Buildings

which makes a block of units a class 2 building.

Subdivision 2 sits strangely with subdivision 1. It's not entirely clear
whether they're meant to be alternatives, or whether subdivision 2 is
meant to impose additional obligations on owners of building built before
1 July 1994. I'm inclined to the former view.

There are two sets of building rules that operate in parallel, but apply
different rules at different times. They are the Australian Building Code
(ABC) (a sub-set is the National Construction Code) which is now available
on-line, the national code, and the various State/Territory building codes.
The national code typically operates prospectively, with the local codes
providing local rules until they catch up with the national code. The
installation of smoke alarms is included in the building codes, national
and/or local, with different rules dealing with different cases, mainly
depending on when the building was constructed. Maintenance, as far as I
can see, may have not been a burning issue (!) at the beginning of the focus
on smoke alarms.

The objective is to get to the stage where smoke alarms are universally
required in residential buildings, either hard-wired or with a long-term
non-replaceable battery (ie you replace the smoke alarm after x years).
Until then, the rules are local. This seems to be the position in
Victoria -
http://www.vba.vic.gov.au/consumer-resources/building/pages/smoke-alarms .
I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there isn't
a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a landlord who
chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjolv9FhtsuU1@mid.individual.net...

On 8/02/2015 7:32 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjodmrFg22fU2@mid.individual.net...
On 8/02/2015 5:17 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjo393Fdrd1U1@mid.individual.net...
Added aus.legal

On 8/02/2015 1:51 PM, Peter wrote:

http://www.mfb.vic.gov.au/Community-Safety/Home-Fire-Safety/Smoke-Alarms.html




To my mind, that page grossly misstates the obligations of the
landlord and tenant as regards smoke alarms. In particular, the notion
that the tenant has to inform the landlord if the smoke alarm battery
is running down (leading to intermittent chirping) is quite absurd.

The cited section of the law

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rta1997207/s68.html

only requires that the landlord keep the premises in good repair. The
landlord would no more be required to replace smoke alarm batteries
than they would be required to replace clock batteries if a clock
happened to be installed.

Wrong, because while the clock isn't legally required, the smoke
alarm is.

So, run me through the line of reasoning that shows that the landlord
is responsible for replacing the batteries.

I JUST commented your completely irrelevant line about the clock.

Not that you will - you never do provide supporting argument.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying
thru your teeth with what I have posted today alone.

A simply "no" would have sufficed.

No it would not have. There is no point whatever
in running you thru any line of reasoning which
had absolutely NOTHING to do with the point
I was making that YOUR stupid claim about clocks
is completely and utterly irrelevant to what was
being discussed.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/02/2015 9:14 PM, Pelican wrote:

. I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners when
it comes to things like smoke alarms?

Sylvia.

 

[Pelican]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjovj1Fkc05U1@mid.individual.net...

On 8/02/2015 9:14 PM, Pelican wrote:

. I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners when it
comes to things like smoke alarms?

Maybe not, but the idea is probably to minimise the total effort involved.
A check on the smoke alarm at the time of a periodic inspection by the
landlord is more likely to achieve what is required than leaving it to a
tenant.

 

[Peter]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 8/02/2015 9:14 PM, Pelican wrote:

. I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners when it
comes to things like smoke alarms?

Sylvia.

My guess...
It is the landlords responsibility to provide a safe and maintained
residence.
The smoke alarm is an essential fire safety measure.
Insurance could also be another influence.

--

 

[Pelican]

"Peter" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:979956079445088431.227486someone-microsoft.com@us.Usenet-News.net...

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 8/02/2015 9:14 PM, Pelican wrote:

. I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners when it
comes to things like smoke alarms?

Sylvia.

My guess...
It is the landlords responsibility to provide a safe and maintained
residence.

Yes.

> The smoke alarm is an essential fire safety measure.

Very likely.

> Insurance could also be another influence.

No doubt.

But, in Victoria, the law seems not as clear as in other places about who
should check the smoke alarm and, if necessary, replace a battery. It
should be the landlord, but it should be clear.

 

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote

Pelican wrote

I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than
owners when it comes to things like smoke alarms?

What matters is that the law does require landlords to do
more than it requires tenants to do, for whatever reason.

 

[Phil Allison]

Peter Jason wrote:

Surely there are smoke alarms that run on mains power?

** But you cannot rely on that source so they all have batteries.

Lithium cells with a 10 year plus life expectancy are common in AC smoke alarms.

The replacement life of such alarms is also 10 years.



.... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Surely there are smoke alarms that run on mains power?


**Of course. That does not mean that they do not need to be changed
regularly or checked for operational status. IME: Mains operated models
are the least reliable.

** Yep - they rely on a metallised film cap of about 0.47uf as the AC supply dropper.

Although the cap is rated for 250VAC use ( class x1 or X2) l0 years is a long time to expect one to last.

If the cap fails open ( the usual failure) the alarm will start beeping, very slowly to indicate that it is running on the back up battery.


..... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/02/2015 4:00 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Pelican wrote

I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners when
it comes to things like smoke alarms?

What matters is that the law does require landlords to do more than it
requires tenants to do, for whatever reason.

It's clear the the landlord has to install smoke alarms, and replace
them if informed that they're faulty.

I'd say it remains very much in question whether the landlord has a
legal obligation to test smoke alarms while a property is tenanted, much
less replace batteries.

Sylvia.

 

[Peter Jason]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:50:26 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 9/02/2015 4:00 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Pelican wrote

I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners when
it comes to things like smoke alarms?

What matters is that the law does require landlords to do more than it
requires tenants to do, for whatever reason.

It's clear the the landlord has to install smoke alarms, and replace
them if informed that they're faulty.

I'd say it remains very much in question whether the landlord has a
legal obligation to test smoke alarms while a property is tenanted, much
less replace batteries.

Sylvia.

Surely there are smoke alarms that run on mains power?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 9/02/2015 11:40 AM, Peter Jason wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:50:26 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 9/02/2015 4:00 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Pelican wrote

I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners when
it comes to things like smoke alarms?

What matters is that the law does require landlords to do more than it
requires tenants to do, for whatever reason.

It's clear the the landlord has to install smoke alarms, and replace
them if informed that they're faulty.

I'd say it remains very much in question whether the landlord has a
legal obligation to test smoke alarms while a property is tenanted, much
less replace batteries.

Sylvia.

Surely there are smoke alarms that run on mains power?

**Of course. That does not mean that they do not need to be changed
regularly or checked for operational status. IME: Mains operated models
are the least reliable.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[Peter Jason]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:49:09 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 9/02/2015 11:40 AM, Peter Jason wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:50:26 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 9/02/2015 4:00 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Pelican wrote

I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners when
it comes to things like smoke alarms?

What matters is that the law does require landlords to do more than it
requires tenants to do, for whatever reason.

It's clear the the landlord has to install smoke alarms, and replace
them if informed that they're faulty.

I'd say it remains very much in question whether the landlord has a
legal obligation to test smoke alarms while a property is tenanted, much
less replace batteries.

Sylvia.

Surely there are smoke alarms that run on mains power?


**Of course. That does not mean that they do not need to be changed
regularly or checked for operational status. IME: Mains operated models
are the least reliable.

Well, if it's,like the police state here, a visit from the authorities
to check the fire extinguishers is compulsory. Here, the tenant
pays.
A similar system might be started for smoke alarms, and the cost
imbedded in the rates/insurance bill.

 

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Pelican wrote

I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable
than owners when it comes to things like smoke alarms?

What matters is that the law does require landlords to do
more than it requires tenants to do, for whatever reason.

It's clear the the landlord has to install smoke alarms,

In fact everyone does now.

> and replace them if informed that they're faulty.

What they are required to do is more than that in some jurisdictions.

I'd say it remains very much in question whether the landlord
has a legal obligation to test smoke alarms while a property
is tenanted, much less replace batteries.

The landlord is required to replace batterys in
SA unless the rental agreement says otherwise.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:rf0gdapkdll0hfjcnhbja5g109gflnulgs@4ax.com...

On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:50:26 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 9/02/2015 4:00 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Pelican wrote

I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners when
it comes to things like smoke alarms?

What matters is that the law does require landlords to do more than it
requires tenants to do, for whatever reason.

It's clear the the landlord has to install smoke alarms, and replace
them if informed that they're faulty.

I'd say it remains very much in question whether the landlord has a
legal obligation to test smoke alarms while a property is tenanted, much
less replace batteries.

Surely there are smoke alarms that run on mains power?

Yes, but they aren't necessarily legally mandated in rental propertys.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/02/2015 3:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Pelican wrote

I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners
when it comes to things like smoke alarms?

What matters is that the law does require landlords to do more than
it requires tenants to do, for whatever reason.

It's clear the the landlord has to install smoke alarms,

In fact everyone does now.
and replace them if informed that they're faulty.

What they are required to do is more than that in some jurisdictions.
I'd say it remains very much in question whether the landlord has a
legal obligation to test smoke alarms while a property is tenanted,
much less replace batteries.

The landlord is required to replace batterys in SA unless the rental
agreement says otherwise.

Cite?

Sylvia.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjr5e7F77ouU1@mid.individual.net...

On 9/02/2015 3:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Pelican wrote

I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners
when it comes to things like smoke alarms?

What matters is that the law does require landlords to do more than
it requires tenants to do, for whatever reason.

It's clear the the landlord has to install smoke alarms,

In fact everyone does now.
and replace them if informed that they're faulty.

What they are required to do is more than that in some jurisdictions.
I'd say it remains very much in question whether the landlord has a
legal obligation to test smoke alarms while a property is tenanted,
much less replace batteries.

The landlord is required to replace batterys in SA unless the rental
agreement says otherwise.

Cite?

http://www.realestate.com.au/blog/the-what-why-how-for-smoke-alarms-in-rental-properties/

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/02/2015 6:33 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjr5e7F77ouU1@mid.individual.net...
On 9/02/2015 3:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Pelican wrote

I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If
there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners
when it comes to things like smoke alarms?

What matters is that the law does require landlords to do more than
it requires tenants to do, for whatever reason.

It's clear the the landlord has to install smoke alarms,

In fact everyone does now.
and replace them if informed that they're faulty.

What they are required to do is more than that in some jurisdictions.
I'd say it remains very much in question whether the landlord has a
legal obligation to test smoke alarms while a property is tenanted,
much less replace batteries.

The landlord is required to replace batterys in SA unless the rental
agreement says otherwise.

Cite?

http://www.realestate.com.au/blog/the-what-why-how-for-smoke-alarms-in-rental-properties/

That's not a cite. That's just someone else stating the same thing.
Where's the law on which statement is based?

Sylvia.

 

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Pelican wrote

I can't find a rule requiring landlords to check the things If
there
isn't a rule, I imagine that things might be made difficult for a
landlord who chose not to bother, given the widespread publicity.

Is there any reason to regard tenants as less capable than owners
when it comes to things like smoke alarms?

What matters is that the law does require landlords to do more than
it requires tenants to do, for whatever reason.

It's clear the the landlord has to install smoke alarms,

In fact everyone does now.

and replace them if informed that they're faulty.

What they are required to do is more than that in some jurisdictions.

I'd say it remains very much in question whether the landlord has a
legal obligation to test smoke alarms while a property is tenanted,
much less replace batteries.

The landlord is required to replace batterys in SA unless the rental
agreement says otherwise.

Cite?

http://www.realestate.com.au/blog/the-what-why-how-for-smoke-alarms-in-rental-properties/

That's not a cite.

Corse it is.

> That's just someone else stating the same thing.

Wrong, as always. They must have got that from somewhere,
they are very unlikely to have just pulled that very specific
qualification about SA out of thin air.

> Where's the law on which statement is based?

Go and look for yourself, we're not your servants.