Programmed obsolescence in smoke alarms?

[Tony]

On 10/02/2015 4:31 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

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.

FWIW, in WA DFES has an FAQ which deals with Smoke Detectors in WA:

http://tinyurl.com/lnwquku

If I interpret it correctly it is the landlords duty to look after the
battery.

Also, as it was mentioned here before that you have to disconnect power
before you change a mains powered detector's batttery, I can only say
that I have never seen a mains powered detector that would *not* have to
be unplugged before you can get to the battery, which kind of makes
sense too. This way anyone can change the battery anytime.

What I didn't know is the fact that a detector must not be older than 10
years. Got to check on mine...

Tony

 

[Rod Speed]

"Tony" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mbch0h$bvj$1@dont-email.me...

On 10/02/2015 4:31 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
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.



FWIW, in WA DFES has an FAQ which deals with Smoke Detectors in WA:

http://tinyurl.com/lnwquku

If I interpret it correctly it is the landlords duty to look after the
battery.

Yes, if it actually has a battery.

Also, as it was mentioned here before that you have to disconnect power
before you change a mains powered detector's batttery, I can only say that
I have never seen a mains powered detector that would *not* have to be
unplugged before you can get to the battery, which kind of makes sense
too. This way anyone can change the battery anytime.

That is a separate issue to what the law has to say.

What I didn't know is the fact that a detector must not be older than 10
years. Got to check on mine...

That isn't universal within Australia.

 

[Pelican]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjttccFtcstU1@mid.individual.net...

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.

Reg 76 deals with maintenance. The obligation to maintain the thing clearly
falls on the landlord.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/02/2015 8:38 PM, Pelican wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjttccFtcstU1@mid.individual.net...
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.

Reg 76 deals with maintenance. The obligation to maintain the thing
clearly falls on the landlord.

It doesn't apply to ordinary houses and town-houses (being class 1a
buildings).

In the case of a block of units, there's the question of whether the
registered proprietor of a unit is an owner of a building within the
meaning of the act. The classes of buildings contain no classification
for a unit. The entire building is class 2, but then who is the owner?
The body corporate?

Sylvia.

 

[Pelican]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cju9ibF205sU1@mid.individual.net...

On 10/02/2015 8:38 PM, Pelican wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjttccFtcstU1@mid.individual.net...
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.

Reg 76 deals with maintenance. The obligation to maintain the thing
clearly falls on the landlord.

It doesn't apply to ordinary houses and town-houses (being class 1a
buildings).

In the case of a block of units, there's the question of whether the
registered proprietor of a unit is an owner of a building within the
meaning of the act. The classes of buildings contain no classification for
a unit. The entire building is class 2, but then who is the owner? The
body corporate?

No. The owner of each unit. The legislation has to be regarded as
deliberately carving out particular types of residences. It's a dog's
breakfast.

 

[news13]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 20:20:48 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely
not be that consistent.

Consistent faulty manufacture in the same batch?

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11/02/2015 12:27 AM, Pelican wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cju9ibF205sU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 8:38 PM, Pelican wrote:

In the case of a block of units, there's the question of whether the
registered proprietor of a unit is an owner of a building within the
meaning of the act. The classes of buildings contain no classification
for a unit. The entire building is class 2, but then who is the owner?
The body corporate?

No. The owner of each unit. The legislation has to be regarded as
deliberately carving out particular types of residences. It's a dog's
breakfast.

Be interesting to see how it played out in court in the unlikely event
that there was a defended prosecution.

Sylvia.

 

[Pelican]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjvla7Fdkb5U1@mid.individual.net...

On 11/02/2015 12:27 AM, Pelican wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cju9ibF205sU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2015 8:38 PM, Pelican wrote:

In the case of a block of units, there's the question of whether the
registered proprietor of a unit is an owner of a building within the
meaning of the act. The classes of buildings contain no classification
for a unit. The entire building is class 2, but then who is the owner?
The body corporate?

No. The owner of each unit. The legislation has to be regarded as
deliberately carving out particular types of residences. It's a dog's
breakfast.

Be interesting to see how it played out in court in the unlikely event
that there was a defended prosecution.

A prosecution would presumably be for not maintaining an installed smoke
alarm. Unless there is some kind of regular or routine checking of smoke
alarms by an official of some kind, it's not easy to see anyone facing an
investigation, much less a formal prosecution. In the case of a hard-wired
thing that wasn't working, maybe, because those seems to be the landlord's
responsibility everywhere. But, in the case of a non-hard-wired thing (ie
battery), how would officialdom know whether it was working or not?

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11/02/2015 11:45 AM, news13 wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 20:20:48 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely
not be that consistent.

Consistent faulty manufacture in the same batch?

It would have to be very consistent indeed to achieve useful lives that
were the same to within a fraction of a percent. As McAvity observed,
even getting a clock this accurate is a challenge without a crystal.

Sylvia.

 

[news13]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:57:31 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 11/02/2015 11:45 AM, news13 wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 20:20:48 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would
surely not be that consistent.

Consistent faulty manufacture in the same batch?


It would have to be very consistent indeed to achieve useful lives that
were the same to within a fraction of a percent. As McAvity observed,
even getting a clock this accurate is a challenge without a crystal.

How about VOC's?

Acer had the misfortune to sell a pile of new computers to a government
dept that moved into a newly built building with complete new fittings.
They soon gained the reputation of being crap. The cause was VOCs from
the new stuff. Not widely known or understood at the time.

 

[BuckyBalls]

On 8/02/2015 4:25 AM, Sylvia Else 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.

Over here (.de) smoke alarms are mandatory and installed and maintained
by a specialist company. They come round and test 'em every year. I was
in my previous flat for over 12 years, during that time the smoke alarm
never malfunctioned and the battery was never changed. Must be some sort
of professional grade alarm not available retail. I don't think the
battery is replaceable anyway, they would just install a new unit.
(This only applies to apartment blocks and rental premises.)
I did install a normal P/E detector in the cellar, as there wasn't one
there, it has never given any trouble although it has had a new battery
after about 6 years.

 

[news13]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:13:43 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

It still seems rather improbable that the degradation would somehow
combine with the inherent variation in components to produce a better
than 1% similarity in failure time.

Its the similarity that's important. If they'd just failed within a few
months of each other, I'd have reached the obvious conclusion - rubbish
smoke alarms - but the better than 1% result is suspicious. Such results
would usually only arise by design.

N=2 doesn't support that conclusion, just a coincidence.
They usually wait until you murder three husbands before they start
looking for signs of murder.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11/02/2015 11:45 PM, news13 wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:57:31 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 11/02/2015 11:45 AM, news13 wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 20:20:48 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would
surely not be that consistent.

Consistent faulty manufacture in the same batch?


It would have to be very consistent indeed to achieve useful lives that
were the same to within a fraction of a percent. As McAvity observed,
even getting a clock this accurate is a challenge without a crystal.

How about VOC's?

Acer had the misfortune to sell a pile of new computers to a government
dept that moved into a newly built building with complete new fittings.
They soon gained the reputation of being crap. The cause was VOCs from
the new stuff. Not widely known or understood at the time.

It still seems rather improbable that the degradation would somehow
combine with the inherent variation in components to produce a better
than 1% similarity in failure time.

Its the similarity that's important. If they'd just failed within a few
months of each other, I'd have reached the obvious conclusion - rubbish
smoke alarms - but the better than 1% result is suspicious. Such results
would usually only arise by design.

Sylvia.

 

[Peter Jason]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:54:29 +0100, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 8/02/2015 4:25 AM, Sylvia Else 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.

Over here (.de) smoke alarms are mandatory and installed and maintained
by a specialist company. They come round and test 'em every year. I was
in my previous flat for over 12 years, during that time the smoke alarm
never malfunctioned and the battery was never changed. Must be some sort
of professional grade alarm not available retail. I don't think the
battery is replaceable anyway, they would just install a new unit.
(This only applies to apartment blocks and rental premises.)
I did install a normal P/E detector in the cellar, as there wasn't one
there, it has never given any trouble although it has had a new battery
after about 6 years.

This is like my suggestion about service similar to that of fire
extinguishers where a twice/year replacement is charged to rates
(property taxes).
I might add that these gadgets are hard to screw to a plaster-board
ceilings and mine simply perch on the top window frames, and work OK.

 

[Pelican]

"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:lb1odallmgk5ao4fff4al6anb50ebmmckk@4ax.com...

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:54:29 +0100, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:

On 8/02/2015 4:25 AM, Sylvia Else 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.

Over here (.de) smoke alarms are mandatory and installed and maintained
by a specialist company. They come round and test 'em every year. I was
in my previous flat for over 12 years, during that time the smoke alarm
never malfunctioned and the battery was never changed. Must be some sort
of professional grade alarm not available retail. I don't think the
battery is replaceable anyway, they would just install a new unit.
(This only applies to apartment blocks and rental premises.)
I did install a normal P/E detector in the cellar, as there wasn't one
there, it has never given any trouble although it has had a new battery
after about 6 years.

This is like my suggestion about service similar to that of fire
extinguishers where a twice/year replacement is charged to rates
(property taxes).
I might add that these gadgets are hard to screw to a plaster-board
ceilings and mine simply perch on the top window frames, and work OK.

The object is the have rules applying nationally so that all residences have
smoke alarms. Those residences which are tenancies will have the landlord
responsible for their maintenance. They are simpler to maintain than fire
extinguishers, so the maintenance regime can be much simpler.

 

[Peter]

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:29:04 +1100, "Pelican"
water-birds@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:



"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:lb1odallmgk5ao4fff4al6anb50ebmmckk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:54:29 +0100, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:

On 8/02/2015 4:25 AM, Sylvia Else 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.

Over here (.de) smoke alarms are mandatory and installed and maintained
by a specialist company. They come round and test 'em every year. I was
in my previous flat for over 12 years, during that time the smoke alarm
never malfunctioned and the battery was never changed. Must be some sort
of professional grade alarm not available retail. I don't think the
battery is replaceable anyway, they would just install a new unit.
(This only applies to apartment blocks and rental premises.)
I did install a normal P/E detector in the cellar, as there wasn't one
there, it has never given any trouble although it has had a new battery
after about 6 years.

This is like my suggestion about service similar to that of fire
extinguishers where a twice/year replacement is charged to rates
(property taxes).
I might add that these gadgets are hard to screw to a plaster-board
ceilings and mine simply perch on the top window frames, and work OK.

The object is the have rules applying nationally so that all residences have
smoke alarms. Those residences which are tenancies will have the landlord
responsible for their maintenance. They are simpler to maintain than fire
extinguishers, so the maintenance regime can be much simpler.

All this has prompted me to contact the local fire station (1
kilometer away) about having a direct-line fire alarm connected from
this premises to their station. I hope thereby to screw a sizeable
discount from my exorbitant fire insurance premium.

Good luck with that!
My guess is they will just tell you it won't stop a fire from happening but
just save the neighbours from burning as well.
Let us know how they respond and while you are at it ask them what they
expect from landlords that they insure
--

 

[Peter Jason]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:29:04 +1100, "Pelican"
<water-birds@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:

"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:lb1odallmgk5ao4fff4al6anb50ebmmckk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:54:29 +0100, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:

On 8/02/2015 4:25 AM, Sylvia Else 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.

Over here (.de) smoke alarms are mandatory and installed and maintained
by a specialist company. They come round and test 'em every year. I was
in my previous flat for over 12 years, during that time the smoke alarm
never malfunctioned and the battery was never changed. Must be some sort
of professional grade alarm not available retail. I don't think the
battery is replaceable anyway, they would just install a new unit.
(This only applies to apartment blocks and rental premises.)
I did install a normal P/E detector in the cellar, as there wasn't one
there, it has never given any trouble although it has had a new battery
after about 6 years.

This is like my suggestion about service similar to that of fire
extinguishers where a twice/year replacement is charged to rates
(property taxes).
I might add that these gadgets are hard to screw to a plaster-board
ceilings and mine simply perch on the top window frames, and work OK.

The object is the have rules applying nationally so that all residences have
smoke alarms. Those residences which are tenancies will have the landlord
responsible for their maintenance. They are simpler to maintain than fire
extinguishers, so the maintenance regime can be much simpler.

All this has prompted me to contact the local fire station (1
kilometer away) about having a direct-line fire alarm connected from
this premises to their station. I hope thereby to screw a sizeable
discount from my exorbitant fire insurance premium.

 

[Peter Jason]

On 12 Feb 2015 05:23:35 GMT, Peter <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:29:04 +1100, "Pelican"
water-birds@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:



"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:lb1odallmgk5ao4fff4al6anb50ebmmckk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:54:29 +0100, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:

On 8/02/2015 4:25 AM, Sylvia Else 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.

Over here (.de) smoke alarms are mandatory and installed and maintained
by a specialist company. They come round and test 'em every year. I was
in my previous flat for over 12 years, during that time the smoke alarm
never malfunctioned and the battery was never changed. Must be some sort
of professional grade alarm not available retail. I don't think the
battery is replaceable anyway, they would just install a new unit.
(This only applies to apartment blocks and rental premises.)
I did install a normal P/E detector in the cellar, as there wasn't one
there, it has never given any trouble although it has had a new battery
after about 6 years.

This is like my suggestion about service similar to that of fire
extinguishers where a twice/year replacement is charged to rates
(property taxes).
I might add that these gadgets are hard to screw to a plaster-board
ceilings and mine simply perch on the top window frames, and work OK.

The object is the have rules applying nationally so that all residences have
smoke alarms. Those residences which are tenancies will have the landlord
responsible for their maintenance. They are simpler to maintain than fire
extinguishers, so the maintenance regime can be much simpler.

All this has prompted me to contact the local fire station (1
kilometer away) about having a direct-line fire alarm connected from
this premises to their station. I hope thereby to screw a sizeable
discount from my exorbitant fire insurance premium.

Good luck with that!
My guess is they will just tell you it won't stop a fire from happening but
just save the neighbours from burning as well.
Let us know how they respond and while you are at it ask them what they
expect from landlords that they insure

It's becoming a saga. The monitors are not the installers so I'm
waiting on the latter who will instal the detectors, wiring, 'control
board' land line etc, and thinking about the cost which will be 'above
rubies, if indeed they will be bothered. I thought a few smoke
detectors connected to the fire station (with WiFi) would be enough,
but no.