Pay for Smoke Alarm Maintenance & Inspection: Yay or Nay???

M

Mindmaster

There are companies that annually check smoke alarms, certify alarms as being compliant, change batteries etc etc for a fee.

Would you suggest
-using these companies
-not using them
-something different

My PM is suggesting a mob for annual smoke alarm inspections that charge $66 a dwelling. Not sure personally if paying 3 x $66 for 3 units is worth while.
 
If anything happens a smoke alarm certificate will deter liability.

Personally I don't like these fear based tactics. The smoke alarm is working but you have to produce a piece of paper to say its working and not by anyone - by a person who has been given authority to produce that piece of paper.

Yes it's a waste of money - but necessary to protect yourself from possible liability.

I tend to stay away from the companies that have too much fear- based marketing - not my style.
But we also do recommend the service to our clients because the higher powers are stating that it is necessary!

In a tribunal case recently, not my company, a pm sent out a maintenance person to replace a faulty PowerPoint. Tenant asked for electrical certificate of compliance, pm did not issue it but did show the tenant that the PowerPoint is now working.

Tenant was awarded compensation at end of lease for not having use of that PowerPoint because she did not have the COP.

Soooo yes landlords have to spend more money to get these papers just to protect their own interests.
As a pm - I don't like it!
 
I tried to do it myself when the laws were first introduced.

Caved a few years ago and have signed up to an annual service. At the price of around $100 pa, it's not unreasonable, saves you the trouble of going out there and provides peace of mind.

As someone who's tried both ways, I say sign up to the service.
 
Say I own an apartment in a strata complex. And that complex has an annual fire safety inspection (which includes inspection of my apartments smoke alarm). If the smoke alarm is faulty, they replace it and strata bill you for it. If all is okay then its costs you nothing as the inspection is already paid for from strata levies.

Why then pay again for an annual smoke alarm inspection? Seems to me like paying again for the same service.
 
I do my own smoke alarm 'maintenance' for properties close to me. I just have it coincide with one of the 6 monthly inspections I attend, then I have someone witness the smoke alarm test on my 'smoke alarm testing form', either agent or tenant. I have a can of simulation smoke I hit the alarms with too, which I've never seen a 'qualified' smoke alarm tester do.

I document everything and only use alarms with 10 year battery life and make sure I check the date on the batteries each time I inspect.

Takes me probably 3 minutes per property.
 
Perp said:
The battery and functioning seems like the lower risk aspect; are you confident about the adequacy of the number, type, and location of your alarms?
Click to expand...

This is what made me decide to have it taken over by Smoke Alarm Solutions. We thought we were covering every angle, but had some fittings that were past their use by date, some were placed wrongly (by us) and some houses just didn't have enough.

That, plus me not having to drag a ladder to the houses is worth the money, I reckon. That and they come out as many times as needed.

... and they use the type of alarm that is highly recommended by the fire department.

This is one thing I'm happy that I've outsourced.
 
Given your 3 units are all on the same site, I'd be negotiating for 2 fees of $66 to cover all 3 units. $66 does appear to be cheap though, perhaps they're already giving you a discount?

Testing and changing a smoke alarm battery is about as difficult as changing a light bulb. It's annoying that the law suggests that landlords should be responsible for this.

Has anyone ever been sued because a tenant fell in the dark because a light bulb didn't work?
 
Peter_Tersteeg said:
Has anyone ever been sued because a tenant fell in the dark because a light bulb didn't work?
Click to expand...
I couldn't find any relevant caselaw.

It could happen if a tenant reported a broken bulb that the landlord agreed to have changed (e.g. non-standard bulb, up high, or something), and the landlord failed to do it in a reasonable timeframe and the tenant subsequently had a trip or something due to poor lighting.
 
Perp said:
My take here: http://somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274898&postcount=1
Click to expand...

Very insightful post, thank Perp. A couple of points to add that came from my discussions with the compliance section in the Qld public service:

1) I was told that the legislation was specifically written so that non-experts could comply.

2) When I asked how you could identify an expert, I was told that I couldn't. There is no certification for experts available, hence there are no "experts."

That said, I do think there is scope for experience and familiarity with the regs and how fires work in determining the correct positioning and numbers of smoke alarms. An opinion from someone who does lots of inspections that you have filed away would obviously be of great use here.

I also note that, last time I looked, in Qld, simply having a regime where all alarms get checked every 6 months does not cut it. The alarms need to be checked by the landlord within 1 month of the start of a tenancy or renewal of a lease that lasted less than a year and a day. (From memory when there is a periodic tenancy it is the LL's responsibility once a year but I won't swear to that.)

For the record, I outsource it but grind my teeth a teensy bit when the bills arrive. In the end, $75/year for something that saves lives is a minor annoyance compared to rates and land tax that have gone up by more than 55% in the last 6 years.
 
With regard to expertise, it's less important that they actually have any expertise, than that they are a business who is insured to perform the service. If you've hired somebody who says they're an expert, you - as a landlord - are in the clear in any negligence action. (Unless you knew they weren't qualified or something extraordinary.)

If, however, you do it yourself and bugger it up, the onus would be on you to prove that even if it had been done by a professional, they would have made the same mistake. Even if you "know" in your heart that that's true, proving it in court is quite a different matter.

Effectively, you pay somebody else to do it to have the SANF that you have a legitimate defence in a negligence action, more so than to have the SANF that it's been done correctly.

To those who resent paying it, if they can sleep at night knowing that they run the risk of being a defendant in a negligence action with difficult questions to answer, then good for them. I'm a bit more conservative than that with regards to risk. :)
 
Perp said:
If, however, you do it yourself and bugger it up, the onus would be on you to prove that even if it had been done by a professional, they would have made the same mistake. Even if you "know" in your heart that that's true, proving it in court is quite a different matter.
Click to expand...

1. There are no "professionals" (except for the case when they are hardwired, in which case installation needs to be done by qualified tradespeople.) I have this from the horse's mouth.

2. Just like the people who go around and charge money, If I were doing it myself I would (a) take pains not to bugger it up and (b) have insurance.

Given that the legislation is specifically written so that compliance is within the reach of laypeople, I disagree that simply hiring a company to do the job puts you in the clear. If they bugger it up (and I have had this happen) then the LL is still responsible and potentially liable. "I can't tell where the smoke alarms should have gone" is no excuse. As a LL you are required to know and cannot get out of it. What you are providing is an alternative target to sue. If I were the injured party I would sue the LL regardless and leave suing the contractor up to the LL's insurance. Or I would sue both.

To me the biggest value of having the contractors do the job is (a) independent documentation of compliance (very valuable) and (b) not having to do it myself.

And if your PM doesn't arrange for the inspection to happen at the right time, you are still potentially screwed. On the whole I would probably sleep better if I were doing it myself, but that's not an option for me.
 
Morbius said:
1. There are no "professionals"
Click to expand...
Sure there are. Professionals are people who do this for pay. I didn't say "qualified experts".
Morbius said:
Given that the legislation is specifically written so that compliance is within the reach of laypeople, I disagree that simply hiring a company to do the job puts you in the clear. If they bugger it up (and I have had this happen) then the LL is still responsible and potentially liable.
Click to expand...
You are suggesting that the duty of care by a landlord to a tenant is non-delegable. I'm pretty confident that whilst this is true for duty of employers to employees, schools to students, hospitals to patients, and a few other specific duties, I don't believe it is true for the duty of landlord to tenant in Australian law.

If I'm mistaken, are you able to provide a citation for this?
 
Laws in NSW are different. Owner is responsible for the units to be working with new batteries when a new lease commences. The onus is then put on the tenant to change the batteries and check to ensure units are working and keep on working. We also during our periodic inspection ensure the units are work.
 
Salvatore1 said:
Laws in NSW are different. Owner is responsible for the units to be working with new batteries when a new lease commences. The onus is then put on the tenant to change the batteries and check to ensure units are working and keep on working.
Click to expand...
That's the statutory obligation only. The common law obligations are the same nationwide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Corded blinds inspection
Replies
4
Views
1K
DaveM
DaveM
T
Smoke Alarm "Compliance"
Replies
8
Views
3K
Sez
S
D
What should PM fees reasonably cover?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Scott No Mates
Scott No Mates
Perp
Statute law and common law
Replies
10
Views
3K
battler
B
C
smoke alarms
2 3
Replies
59
Views
8K
Lil Skater
Lil Skater
Back
Top