Government requirements for RCD & smoke alarm testing, WA
Bruce Varley
property we own, regarding installation and maintenance of RCDs and smoke
alarms in rental properties. The notification appears to be on behalf of the
WA government, and states requirements for installation and 'maintenance' of
these safety devices. Attached to the forms is a 'quotation' from Alinta (WA
energy supplier), offering a service to regularly test them, with an
implication that as property lessors, we are more or less obliged to adopt
this service. Not a good way to keep me on side.
Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of periodic
testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need to be done, and
is any fancy gear required? TIA
terryc
> Does anyone know what the actual legal requirement is, in terms of periodic
> testing of RCDs and smoke detectors in WA? What tests need to be done, and
> is any fancy gear required? TIA
As far as I know, SFA.
We had a similar letter, but it was clearly about the agent covering
their arse at our expense from some imaginary future case.
It would be cheaper to just install a new alar each year.
>
>
Sylvia Else
Regarding installation
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38l.html
Regaring maintenance
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/br1989200/s38p.html
Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or
testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
These devices are mandatory - them must be installed, and they must work
correctly. Their maintenance is up to the owner of the property. The owner
is perfectly free to maintain the devices (ie check that they work
correctly) as they please.
Sylvia Else
It looked to me as if there's no penalty for non compliance with the
requirement that they work, only for non-compliance with a rectification
notice.
Sylvia.
Alan
wrote:
Looks as if you are required to install them:
With a possible fine up to $5,000.00
--
Sell your surplus electronic components at http://ozcomponents.com
Search or browse for that IC, capacitor,
crystal or other component you need.
Or find new components at http://auscomponents.com
Epsilon
Paragraph (a) of the applicable offence provision has a double-barrelled
requirement of installation and compliance with the specific regulation (ie
working correctly). If it doesn't work correctly, there is an offence.
But I assume that the main penalty provision used is where the owner fails
to comply with a notice.
Sylvia Else
Proof of the offence under 38L(1) would require a proof that the
requirement to achieve (a) was not met within 14 days. If at some later
time it becomes apparent that the device is not installed, and was never
installed, then the owner will likely be convicted. But if the device is
installed but simply no longer works, then the prosecution would have to
show that it hadn't been working within the relevant 14 days. It would
not be sufficient to show that it is not working at the later time.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
I had in mind reg 38L(3), which will replace the earlier regs.
Sylvia Else
OK.
"extent practicable" is a nicely vague term to have in a provision that
creates an offence.
The OP should probably have the alarms tested several times a day until
such time as the tennant refuses to allow it any more.
Sylvia.
kreed
How it really works is that they just charge the person regardless.
Faced with the prospect of spending around $10,000 on legal fees for
representation, even if they win, they are likely better off
financially just pleading guilty. Charges are largely laid based on
this factor in other matters but If they have legal aid, or are a
legal professional themselves, it seems to be different.
Sylvia Else
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.
Helmut
Unfortunately most investors who rent out houses do so via a private
Company. As I understand corporate law, a company may well be a separate
legal entity but unlike people, companies are forbidden from
representing themselves in court. It is mandatory to engage a lawyer to
represent a company. so in response to this thread...
By all means maintain your own smoke alarms but be aware the onus for
the continual working is on the property owner. Tenants have been known
in the past to remove batteries from smoke alarms to enjoy a joint or
two in the comfort of their lounge room.
Once done, the owner is responsible for NOT having a functional smoke
alarm, not the tenant who disarmed it. It is indeed cheaper to just pay
the fine by default than engage a solicitor and a barrister to defend
the matter.
HH
Epsilon
Cite evidence, please.
> As I understand corporate law, a company may well be a
> separate legal entity but unlike people, companies are forbidden from
> representing themselves in court.
What law does that?
> It is mandatory to engage a lawyer
> to represent a company.
What law does that?
> so in response to this thread...
>
> By all means maintain your own smoke alarms but be aware the onus for
> the continual working is on the property owner.
Depends on what that means. It is nor that explicit in the law.
> Tenants have been
> known in the past to remove batteries from smoke alarms to enjoy a
> joint or two in the comfort of their lounge room.
If that happens, the properrty owner will clearly not be liable.
> Once done, the owner is responsible for NOT having a functional smoke
> alarm, not the tenant who disarmed it.
Depends on what that means.
> It is indeed cheaper to just
> pay the fine by default than engage a solicitor and a barrister to
> defend the matter.
That may be so in any minor criminal matter, and is therefore not
particularly relevant in this thread.
Sylvia Else
In at least some jurisdictions that's true as far as civil proceedings
go. But for criminal proceedings in Western Australia, it's expressly
contradicted:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cpa2004188/s152.html
"(1) A corporation may appoint an individual, who need not be a legal
practitioner, to be its representative in proceedings before the court."
Sylvia.
terryc
> Tenants have been known
> in the past to remove batteries from smoke alarms to enjoy a joint or
> two in the comfort of their lounge room.
>
> Once done, the owner is responsible for NOT having a functional smoke
> alarm, not the tenant who disarmed it.
That is the advantage of having amains powered one. Takes some disarming
and the tenant is going to have to come up with a good story o get their
arse out of the sling.
Sylvia Else
The regulation could be construed as requiring that the owner check from
time to time that the tenant hasn't disconnected it.
Sylvia.
Dennis
I had an electrician install some GPOs, lights and a ELCBR for the lights at
our place this week. When giving us the sign off certificate he told us he
was supposed to do a full inspection of the premises electrical installation
and safety test (in addition to the earth leakage test he did on the new
GPOs/Lights).
I was hurrying him up and basically tossed him out as I needed to go out
myself.
Is this true or was he scouting for some more work??
terryc
Contributory negligence. End of story.
Any other claim is just make work from legal parasites.
Epsilon
No such animal in the criminal law.
> End of story.
Quite so. But quite wrong.
> Any other claim is just make work from legal parasites.
No doubt.
Helmut
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
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
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
Definitely not true. Report him.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
Are you suggesting that those authorities are capable of reasoned thought?
Sylvia Else
Oh, perhaps, up to the level of "We can issue fines, and there's no
downside, so we do."
Sylvia.
kreed
>
> 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" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:907uva...@mid.individual.net...
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
>> 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
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
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