Programmed obsolescence in smoke alarms?

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/02/2015 4:36 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.

Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

Sylvia.

 

[Pelican]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjsv92FmlcqU1@mid.individual.net...

On 10/02/2015 4:36 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.


Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

He has looked, but he can't find the answer. I have looked, but I can't
find a good answer. My guess is that you have also looked, but can't find a
satisfactory answer.

 

[Rod Speed]

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

Rod Speed wrote

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.

They could well have misunderstood
the significance of what they read.

Then take that up with them if you care.

Unlikely they will do other than just ignore you
like everyone else does tho given that wired alarms
have been required there for a long time now.

Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

Nope, THEY made that claim.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/02/2015 11:02 AM, Pelican wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjsv92FmlcqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 4:36 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.


Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

He has looked, but he can't find the answer. I have looked, but I can't
find a good answer. My guess is that you have also looked, but can't
find a satisfactory answer.

Pretty much. If anything, SA law seems to say less about smoke alarms
than the law in some other states.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/02/2015 11:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

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

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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.

Then take that up with them if you care.
Unlikely they will do other than just ignore you
like everyone else does tho given that wired alarms
have been required there for a long time now.
Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

Nope, THEY made that claim.

So, are you standing by your original comment, or do you now accept that
it's very much in question?

Sylvia.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt0i5Fmug3U2@mid.individual.net...

On 10/02/2015 11:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.

Then take that up with them if you care.
Unlikely they will do other than just ignore you
like everyone else does tho given that wired alarms
have been required there for a long time now.
Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

Nope, THEY made that claim.

So, are you standing by your original comment,

Corse I am. I just don’t believe that they invented
something as specific as that themselves.

> or do you now accept that it's very much in question?

Nope, just that its no longer very relevant given how long
they have been required to have wired smoke alarms.

I've never been into wasting people's time by demanding
to know what they based what they said on with something
as irrelevant as that is now. Bet if you asked them they'd just
ignore you like everyone else does when you demand something.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt0gpFmug3U1@mid.individual.net...

On 10/02/2015 11:02 AM, Pelican wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjsv92FmlcqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 4:36 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.


Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

He has looked, but he can't find the answer. I have looked, but I can't
find a good answer. My guess is that you have also looked, but can't
find a satisfactory answer.

Pretty much. If anything, SA law seems to say less about smoke alarms than
the law in some other states.

I just don’t believe they plucked something as specific
as that out of the air and its going to be a bit hard to
see what produced that given how long its been now
that they have to have wired smoke alarms.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/02/2015 4:16 PM, Chris wrote:

On 10/02/2015 11:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 10/02/2015 11:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.

Then take that up with them if you care.
Unlikely they will do other than just ignore you
like everyone else does tho given that wired alarms
have been required there for a long time now.
Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

Nope, THEY made that claim.

So, are you standing by your original comment, or do you now accept that
it's very much in question?

Sylvia.

There are links to the requirements in each state in the original link
Rod posted. For NSW it starts at the RFS website that has easily
followed links t further info.

For my own interest (even though I'm not a landlord but my SO is) in NSW
for rental properties it's overseen by the dept. of Fair Trading, in
turn specified by the Residential Tenancies Act and Residential
Tenancies (Residential PRemises) Regulation. The alarms themselves are
governed by the Australian Standards...

--
Cheers,
Chris.

Following the links ultimately just takes one to the development
regulations. It was already clear the smoke alarms have to be installed.
The regulations say nothing about replacing batteries in them.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/02/2015 12:52 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt0gpFmug3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 11:02 AM, Pelican wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjsv92FmlcqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 4:36 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.


Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

He has looked, but he can't find the answer. I have looked, but I can't
find a good answer. My guess is that you have also looked, but can't
find a satisfactory answer.

Pretty much. If anything, SA law seems to say less about smoke alarms
than the law in some other states.

I just don’t believe they plucked something as specific
as that out of the air and its going to be a bit hard to
see what produced that given how long its been now
that they have to have wired smoke alarms.

It's either still the law, in which case a search should find it easily
enough, or it's wrong.

Sylvia.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt8m4Fomq2U2@mid.individual.net...

On 10/02/2015 12:52 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt0gpFmug3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 11:02 AM, Pelican wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjsv92FmlcqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 4:36 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.


Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

He has looked, but he can't find the answer. I have looked, but I
can't
find a good answer. My guess is that you have also looked, but can't
find a satisfactory answer.

Pretty much. If anything, SA law seems to say less about smoke alarms
than the law in some other states.

I just don’t believe they plucked something as specific
as that out of the air and its going to be a bit hard to
see what produced that given how long its been now
that they have to have wired smoke alarms.

It's either still the law, in which case a search should find it easily
enough, or it's wrong.

Or it may have got into the system some other
way than being explicitly stated in legislation.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/02/2015 3:06 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt8m4Fomq2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 12:52 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt0gpFmug3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 11:02 AM, Pelican wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjsv92FmlcqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 4:36 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they
read.


Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

He has looked, but he can't find the answer. I have looked, but I
can't
find a good answer. My guess is that you have also looked, but can't
find a satisfactory answer.

Pretty much. If anything, SA law seems to say less about smoke alarms
than the law in some other states.

I just don’t believe they plucked something as specific
as that out of the air and its going to be a bit hard to
see what produced that given how long its been now
that they have to have wired smoke alarms.

It's either still the law, in which case a search should find it
easily enough, or it's wrong.

Or it may have got into the system some other
way than being explicitly stated in legislation.

Should still be easy enough to find.

Sylvia.

 

[Chris]

On 10/02/2015 11:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 10/02/2015 11:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.

Then take that up with them if you care.
Unlikely they will do other than just ignore you
like everyone else does tho given that wired alarms
have been required there for a long time now.
Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

Nope, THEY made that claim.

So, are you standing by your original comment, or do you now accept that
it's very much in question?

Sylvia.

There are links to the requirements in each state in the original link
Rod posted. For NSW it starts at the RFS website that has easily
followed links t further info.

For my own interest (even though I'm not a landlord but my SO is) in NSW
for rental properties it's overseen by the dept. of Fair Trading, in
turn specified by the Residential Tenancies Act and Residential
Tenancies (Residential PRemises) Regulation. The alarms themselves are
governed by the Australian Standards...

--
Cheers,
Chris.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjtgblFqcicU1@mid.individual.net...

On 10/02/2015 3:06 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt8m4Fomq2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 12:52 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt0gpFmug3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 11:02 AM, Pelican wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjsv92FmlcqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 4:36 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they
read.


Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

He has looked, but he can't find the answer. I have looked, but I
can't
find a good answer. My guess is that you have also looked, but can't
find a satisfactory answer.

Pretty much. If anything, SA law seems to say less about smoke alarms
than the law in some other states.

I just don’t believe they plucked something as specific
as that out of the air and its going to be a bit hard to
see what produced that given how long its been now
that they have to have wired smoke alarms.

It's either still the law, in which case a search should find it
easily enough, or it's wrong.

Or it may have got into the system some other
way than being explicitly stated in legislation.

Should still be easy enough to find.

Go do that then.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/02/2015 4:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjtgblFqcicU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 3:06 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt8m4Fomq2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 12:52 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt0gpFmug3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 11:02 AM, Pelican wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjsv92FmlcqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 4:36 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they
read.


Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

He has looked, but he can't find the answer. I have looked, but I
can't
find a good answer. My guess is that you have also looked, but
can't
find a satisfactory answer.

Pretty much. If anything, SA law seems to say less about smoke alarms
than the law in some other states.

I just don’t believe they plucked something as specific
as that out of the air and its going to be a bit hard to
see what produced that given how long its been now
that they have to have wired smoke alarms.

It's either still the law, in which case a search should find it
easily enough, or it's wrong.

Or it may have got into the system some other
way than being explicitly stated in legislation.

Should still be easy enough to find.

Go do that then.

I don't think it exists.

Sylvia.

 

[Pelican]

"Chris" <c@b.a> wrote in message news:mbc473$vqh$1@speranza.aioe.org...

On 10/02/2015 11:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 10/02/2015 11:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.

Then take that up with them if you care.
Unlikely they will do other than just ignore you
like everyone else does tho given that wired alarms
have been required there for a long time now.
Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

Nope, THEY made that claim.

So, are you standing by your original comment, or do you now accept that
it's very much in question?

Sylvia.

There are links to the requirements in each state in the original link Rod
posted. For NSW it starts at the RFS website that has easily followed
links t further info.

Quite so, but when you look at the actual legislation to which they refer,
it doesn't support always their claim eg in NSW.

For my own interest (even though I'm not a landlord but my SO is) in NSW
for rental properties it's overseen by the dept. of Fair Trading, in turn
specified by the Residential Tenancies Act and Residential Tenancies
(Residential PRemises) Regulation. The alarms themselves are governed by
the Australian Standards...

The Building Code will, in time, resolve the issue. All residential
properties in Australia will have to have hard-wired smoke alarms. In
landlord-tenant situations, the landlord will be responsible for checking
and maintaining the smoke alarm. The problem is in the transitional period,
before that arrangement is fully in place. The Building Code can't do it,
so it's up to each State/Territory to provide a rule for who checks and
maintains a smoke alarm that is not hard-wired. It will sort itself out in
time, but right now it looks like a dog's breakfast.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-02-10, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 10/02/2015 4:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

Should still be easy enough to find.

Go do that then.

I don't think it exists.

https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/housing-property-and-land/housing/living-in-your-home/safety-regulations-around-the-home/smoke-alarms

.. All South Australian homes must be fitted with a working smoke alarm.
.. Homeowners and residential landlords are responsible for ensuring a
.. working smoke alarm is installed in the property.

An alarm with a depleted battery is not "working" and it's the
landlord's responsibility.

--
umop apisdn

 

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjtj4tFr0j7U1@mid.individual.net...

On 10/02/2015 4:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjtgblFqcicU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 3:06 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt8m4Fomq2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 12:52 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjt0gpFmug3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 11:02 AM, Pelican wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjsv92FmlcqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 4:36 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they
read.


Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

He has looked, but he can't find the answer. I have looked, but I
can't
find a good answer. My guess is that you have also looked, but
can't
find a satisfactory answer.

Pretty much. If anything, SA law seems to say less about smoke
alarms
than the law in some other states.

I just don’t believe they plucked something as specific
as that out of the air and its going to be a bit hard to
see what produced that given how long its been now
that they have to have wired smoke alarms.

It's either still the law, in which case a search should find it
easily enough, or it's wrong.

Or it may have got into the system some other
way than being explicitly stated in legislation.

Should still be easy enough to find.

Go do that then.

I don't think it exists.

Doesn’t matter what you think.

Its very unlikely indeed that they actually invented that very
specific requirement when they basically represent the landlords.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjtjd5Fr2j0U1@mid.individual.net...

On 10/02/2015 4:16 PM, Chris wrote:
On 10/02/2015 11:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 10/02/2015 11:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

They could well have misunderstood the significance of what they read.

Then take that up with them if you care.
Unlikely they will do other than just ignore you
like everyone else does tho given that wired alarms
have been required there for a long time now.
Where's the law on which statement is based?

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

You're the one who made the claim.

Nope, THEY made that claim.

So, are you standing by your original comment, or do you now accept that
it's very much in question?

Sylvia.

There are links to the requirements in each state in the original link
Rod posted. For NSW it starts at the RFS website that has easily
followed links t further info.

For my own interest (even though I'm not a landlord but my SO is) in NSW
for rental properties it's overseen by the dept. of Fair Trading, in
turn specified by the Residential Tenancies Act and Residential
Tenancies (Residential PRemises) Regulation. The alarms themselves are
governed by the Australian Standards...

Following the links ultimately just takes one to the development
regulations.

Not necessarily at the time that smoke alarms first showed up.

> It was already clear the smoke alarms have to be installed.

That wasn’t originally true.

> The regulations say nothing about replacing batteries in them.

There is more than just the regulations involved.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/02/2015 6:03 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2015-02-10, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 10/02/2015 4:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

Should still be easy enough to find.

Go do that then.

I don't think it exists.



https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/housing-property-and-land/housing/living-in-your-home/safety-regulations-around-the-home/smoke-alarms

. All South Australian homes must be fitted with a working smoke alarm.
. Homeowners and residential landlords are responsible for ensuring a
. working smoke alarm is installed in the property.

An alarm with a depleted battery is not "working" and it's the
landlord's responsibility.

The regulation to which it's referring is

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/dr2008250/s76b.html

and in particular subregulation (4).

The word "working" does not appear there.

The word "installed" is related to the word "install". It may reasonably
be construed to include "not uninstalled", but it should not be
conflated with the word "present". A smoke alarm that is installed, and
then breaks, does not become uninstalled thereby. If parliament intended
that a person commit an offence as a result of a smoke alarm breaking
(even without that person's knowledge), the courts would expect it to
say so in clear terms.

Sylvia.

 

[Rod Speed]

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

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

Should still be easy enough to find.

Go do that then.

I don't think it exists.

https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/housing-property-and-land/housing/living-in-your-home/safety-regulations-around-the-home/smoke-alarms

. All South Australian homes must be fitted with a working smoke alarm.
. Homeowners and residential landlords are responsible for ensuring a
. working smoke alarm is installed in the property.

An alarm with a depleted battery is not "working" and it's the landlord's
responsibility.

The regulation to which it's referring is

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/dr2008250/s76b.html

and in particular subregulation (4).

The word "working" does not appear there.

But is clearly implied by the requirement to have an alarm.

There isn't any point in mandating alarms that are not working.

> The word "installed" is related to the word "install".

You quite sure you ain't one of those rocket scientist stupid poms ?

> It may reasonably be construed to include "not uninstalled",

Duh.

> but it should not be conflated with the word "present".

Even sillier than you usually manage.

A smoke alarm that is installed, and then breaks, does not become
uninstalled thereby.

But the regulations clearly require a working alarm.

If parliament intended that a person commit an offence as a result of a
smoke alarm breaking (even without that person's knowledge), the courts
would expect it to say so in clear terms.

Take that up with the SA parliament.

And get the obscene gesture you always get when you do that.