The example you give of a trip hazard is completely different, in that you state the owner is aware of the hazard. How would one be aware of an issue with a smoke alarm if you've hired somebody else to inspect them? They may have relocated or replaced them for all you know. (Unless you're way more of a micro-manager than I care to be.)
Once again, you misinterpret and misrepresent. At *NO STAGE* have I talked about the inspections. I entirely agree with you that if I hire someone qualified to test the smoke alarms (i.e. absolutely anyone!) and they report to me in writing that they tested the alarms and they were found to be working, then no reasonable person would expect me to go around and test them all again. (Although on at least one occasion I have had an inspection where I know for 100% certain the inspector failed to check an alarm. It actually was not working and I was in the process of getting it replaced when the PM unbeknownst to me sent in the shonkies who gave it a clean bill of health. That is, however, another story.) At least having the report is evidence that you took steps to comply which will be very useful when you get sued.
My remarks were purely to do with *location* of the alarms. I don't know about you, but every time one of these companies has installed a smoke alarm for me, they have provided me with documentation about the location in which they installed it. Not only do I know where the alarms have been fitted, I have been provably informed of the location, and I am as qualified as the people who fitted them to know where they should go (everybody is qualified!), and I am required to know where they should go.
No. I am not a lawyer, but in addition to having had an illuminating conversation with the compliance division of the relevant PS dept, I have also taken legal advice, from a lawyer and not a 2nd-year law student. It is not a situation of duty of care we are primarily concerned with. It is a duty of compliance with the statutes, and that is not able to be delegated. If someone comes suing, they
will sue the LL (and perhaps the PM, although PMs have wisely done everything in their power to stay out of the firing line on this one). Assuming you have delegated the compliance, you may or may not have an appropriate target for a counterclaim - assuming they are still alive or still operational and they still have insurance (or ever had it). Since there is no licensing or qualification body for these organisations, there are no guarantees that you will be able to find them or that they will have an insurance policy that will cover it. (Contrast this with professionals and trades contractors who are required by law to have appropriate insurance - and in most cases need to provide evidence of a paid up professional indemnity/public liability policy on an annual basis and they need a policy that covers them for up to 7 years after they stop practicing.) If you can't find them or they don't have insurance then you/your insurer is left holding the bag. You are not excused.
Your point about mere compliance with statutes not necessarily being enough is well taken, although I find it hard to envisage a case where you could be found to be negligent if in fact you are compliant with the statute. In the end the gummint has said that is the requirement and it is pretty black and white. Perhaps if during the tenancy your tenant started using a media room at the other end of the house from the bedrooms (hence requiring at least a new alarm outside that room) and you knew that and failed to add an alarm or direct the tenant to install an alarm despite the fact that statutory responsibility to maintain compliance/see that compliance is maintained through the tenancy rests with the tenant, not the landlord? Might be an interesting fight.