Smoke Alarms

[kabba]

Does anybody know what responibilities a landlord has regarding the upkeep of smoke alarms.

I recieved a letter from my property manager stating that 'it is MY legal requirement to ensure that my smoke alarms are tested on a regular basis ' and of course they are offering the services of a company to do it for me at a cost of over $80.

At the start of every tenancy I ensure the smoke alarms have a fresh battery and are tested by myself. Is it expected that the tenant replace the batteries every 6 months or is it considered a regular maintenance item that I incur ?
I spoke to Consumer Affairs on the matter , and they said it was a grey area as to the responsibility , but if I was to have it done it would be piece of mind and if there was a fire it would look better on my insurance claim . They described it as a maintenance item like the replacement of a light globe and that a tenant usually does it but if requested is my responsibility( but can I assume they have done it ?).

Is this just the PM protecting themselves at my cost ??
Should it be PM's responsibility to test during routine inspections ??
Can smoke alarm maintenance be made tenant's responsibility by putting it in the lease ??
Can I do it ??
Do I need an accredited person to do it ??

It's all about responsibility , Duty of Care and Liability..
Where does the landlord stand ????

 

[65fbk]

I don't know what the rules are in Vic regarding responsibilties, but my PM here in Bris had someone test mine for $25..

 

[wylie]

I can never seem to find anything when I search but there is a rather long and detailed thread about this from about six months or so ago.

Perhaps someone else can find it with more success than I (or is that me?).

We self manage, and put in new batteries at the start of each tenancy, and note that this is done on the entry condition report and on the back of the lease. We also state that it is up to the tenants to replace the batteries during the tenancy and test the smoke alarms. Cannot remember the timing (six months or twelve?) but we check with the RTA website. It is all there.

 

[Alabex]

Is this just the PM protecting themselves at my cost ??
Should it be PM's responsibility to test during routine inspections ??
Can smoke alarm maintenance be made tenant's responsibility by putting it in the lease ??
Can I do it ??
Do I need an accredited person to do it ??

It's all about responsibility , Duty of Care and Liability..
Where does the landlord stand ????

The Pm is probably protecting themselves... and in my experience the smoke alarm legislation is a massive grey area as you have said - it keeps changing and noone seems to know how to correctly service the legislation.

Property managers are not smoke alarm operation experts.What if the PM test it, thiks it is okay but they have not done it correctly. The alarm doesn't work place then burns down and your tenants dont make it... you will blame the property manager even though they tried to do the right thing by checking the alarm.

YOu cant add a special condition to a lease that goes against legislation.. i.e if something is a landlords responsibility in the legislation you cant change it.

You probably can do it but then the liability falls on you if something goes wrong.

IMO i would get a professional do it, who is familar with various alarms. You will then be providing your duty of care to tenants as well as removing your and your agents liability to a certain extent. Check around various companies as you can probably get it cheaper than $80. Wouldn't you rather have the peace of mind that it is done properly and your tenants are safe?

 

[Xenia]

PM is correct. Landlords are responsible by law to maintain smoke alarms.

In our agency our aim is to reduce landlord costs so it is part of our induction program with the tenant to take them through smoke alarm maintenance. Just like we pass water and phone connection charges to the tenant to protect the landlord.

In cases where tenant refuses however (most can be convinced), the law will go after the landlord!

If the house burns down and tenants are hurt the landlord will have a legal issue at hand. To avoid this, we ask tenants to do it but also maintain smoke alarms that are not done as part of our routine inspections.

Overall, yes you can put it in the lease, but if they refuse then if falls on you. It can't be enforced.

Hope that helps.

 

[BoatBoy]

We also state that it is up to the tenants to replace the batteries during the tenancy and test the smoke alarms..

Does that even matter if legislation says it is the LL's responsibility and expense?

Dave

 

[marg4000]

Our PM now refuses to do the smoke alarm tests and has directed us to a private contractor who takes responsibility. Apparently there have been a few court cases and the PM is running scared.

We are not happy about it - an extra cost - but have had no option but to agree. We could take over the testing and instructing tenants, but at great inconvenience to us.

Hope this is not a trend for PMs to take less and less responsibility.
Marg

 

[wylie]

Does that even matter if legislation says it is the LL's responsibility and expense?Dave

This is picked straight off the RTA site -

Tenants: Have obligations for cleaning, testing and replacing batteries for alarms during a tenancy.

Lessors: Have obligations for installing, cleaning and testing smoke alarms and replacing batteries before the start or renewal of a tenancy.

The Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 allows entry to the rental premises by the lessor to install and maintain smoke alarms. These amendments fall under entry provisions (s192 of the Act) allowing lessors to give a 24 hour Entry Notice (form 9) for the purposes of entry to comply with the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 in relation to smoke alarms.
Quick tips

* It is good practice for the lessor to give their tenants the manufacturer's instructions on how to clean, test and replace batteries for smoke alarms.
* A smoke alarm is required to emit a warning signal before the battery fails, usually a chirping sound.
* Changing batteries in smoke alarms on an anniversary such as a birthday will act as a reminder to change them once a year.
* Cleaning a smoke alarm usually involves an external clean to remove dust and debris with a broom or a vacuum cleaner.
* Smoke alarms are required to have a minimum service life of at least 10 years.

A lessor must not pass on their obligations to the tenant to act on their behalf such as asking the tenant to replace batteries at the beginning of the tenancy.



So.... we are do things according to the law.

 

[turk]

PM is correct. Landlords are responsible by law to maintain smoke alarms.

In our agency our aim is to reduce landlord costs so it is part of our induction program with the tenant to take them through smoke alarm maintenance. Just like we pass water and phone connection charges to the tenant to protect the landlord.

In cases where tenant refuses however (most can be convinced), the law will go after the landlord!

If the house burns down and tenants are hurt the landlord will have a legal issue at hand. To avoid this, we ask tenants to do it but also maintain smoke alarms that are not done as part of our routine inspections.

Overall, yes you can put it in the lease, but if they refuse then if falls on you. It can't be enforced.

Hope that helps.

Hi Xenia

If as you say it's the landlords responsibility by law how do you legally avoid this responsibility?

It would seem to me that you are seriously exposing your landlords should there be a fire for the sake of saving a few dollars.

Cheers

Pete

 

[NotAllPMsRBAD!]

Despite the fact that it is written into most lease agreements that a tenant must check and change the SD battery and report any faults with the unit, ultimately it is still the landlords responsibilty to ensure that the unit is in working order.

yes your PM may be saving their own butt, but they are also saving yours in case of a fire. For a measly $80 that is tax deductible why on earth would you take the risk?? Suck it up and pay the $$

 

[Pablo]

yes your PM may be saving their own butt, but they are also saving yours in case of a fire. For a measly $80 that is tax deductible why on earth would you take the risk?? Suck it up and pay the $$

HaHa along with all the other seemingly endless costs, although this may be one of the important costs somewhere along the line you have to say enough is enough.

 

[Fudge]

I had my smoke alarms go last week in my PPOR, and had to change them within 10 minutes, as the beeping sound that is emitted to indicate low battery was driving me crazy.

I would expect that when the warning buzzers start beeping in rental accomodation, that the tenants would quickly get up there and change it.

In saying this though, I am sure there would be some tenants out there that would just as easily slide it out, take the battery out of it (to shut it up) and not worry about replacing battery and puting it back on the base attached to the ceiling.

I have been looking around for property managers at the moment, and a few of these suggest that they will do a test every quarterly inspection. (I would assume that I would be out of pocket $6 for supply and replacement of a new 9 volt battery.)

Cheers,

 

[Ausprop]

yes you can't expect a tenant to do something such as change a battery on a simple life saving alarm system, they have every right to expect a LL to do this. If the place burns down there is no one to blame but the landlord, with potentially multi-million damages to follow. Suck it up, what's a few hundred tax deductible $'s matter in the big picture?

also on the positive side, you can use the opportunity to have the electrician go through and check all the light globes. and don't forget to replace the 9v battery on the stove top whilst at it.... it will save you a separate call out fee.

yep -when it comes to resi IPs remember, "your place, your problem".

 

[wylie]

yes you can't expect a tenant to do something such as change a battery on a simple life saving alarm system, they have every right to expect a LL to do this.

Yes, we can expect our tenants to do this. It is written into the legislation and in black and white on the RTA website and in our leases.

They have no right to expect the landlord to do it. They sign the documents stating that we have fulfilled our legal obligation and agreeing that they have a duty to replace the batteries. If they chose not to do so, it is there problem, not the landlords.

Of course, we fulfil our end of the bargain and install new batteries at the start of each tenancy. Hardly earth shatteringly difficult.

 

[Ausprop]

They have no right to expect the landlord to do it.

hit the nail on the head there... there are so many conflicting expectations in this business, which is one of the most personal - and hence emotional - businesses around. I believe the majority of tenants expect little more than to have unchallenged right of tenure and to have to pay the rent when and if they can. the LL does the rest.

 

[wylie]

And for this reason, we make sure that we point out the clauses in the lease and explain it to them. They have no further come back on us, and cannot say down the track "but I didn't know about that".

I don't know know how PMs handle this, perhaps they do the same, or perhaps they assume long term tenants know the rules.

We make sure they know what is expected of them.

 

[Perp]

The reason these discussions are so difficult is because people want a black-and-white answer, and there is no black-and-white answer. I hope you'll forgive a brief digression while I explain why.

Our legal system consists of two types of law: statute law, which are the laws passed by Parliament and setting the rules, and common law, which is the law consisting of all previous binding judgements, and interpretations of Parliament's rules. Statute law is very clear (at least as it's written ): if you do X, then the (maximum) penalty is Y.

Common law, however, is basically case law, and is the "interpretations of interpretations" handed down over a long period of time, and periodically amended when a higher level court takes a different interpretation. Therefore it's not "set in stone" and can be subject to change. Sometimes the Parliament tries to clarify things by codifying the law in a particular area and creating a new statute, but even the statute has to be interpreted by judges when it comes before them... so there are very few "black and white" issues in the law.

Legal liability for damages, and duty of care, are overwhelmingly governed by common law. If somebody sues you for damaging them, the determination of what your "duty of care" is, is decided by a judge in light of the relevant statues (if there are any), and perhaps even more so, by relevant prior cases.

When one quotes from an RTA website, as wylie has done, they're referring to statute law - what the law says is the minimum that you must do. The potential flaw in being overly reliant on this is that it's only minimally relevant to a Court in determining whether you've met your common law duty of care.

If you do what the RTA advise and the house burns down and the tenant's child is killed, the fact that you fulfilled the RTA's requirements will be taken into consideration, but it doesn't mean that the tenant has no case against you. The Court can, and not infrequently does, decide that you had a higher duty of care than the minimum prescribed in legislation.

For example, if it's widely known in the property industry that tenants don't change batteries even when you include this as a requirement in the lease, the Court may hold that passing the requirement to tenants, even though it meets statutory requirements, fails to meet your common law duty of care. Or if you've ever found, during a periodic inspection, that the batteries hadn't been changed and should have been, the Court may find that you were "on notice" that the arrangement you had wasn't working, and thus should have reverted to either doing it yourself, or paying a qualified person to do it.

The problem with any common law obligations, such as duty of care, is that you can't contract them away. It is a very firmly established legal principle. It doesn't matter if the tenant signs something saying that they accept full responsibility for the smoke detectors; you still have a duty of care. (For this reason, waivers and indemnities usually aren't worth the paper they're written on.)

And we haven't even touched on the issue if either yourself, or the tenant, uses the wrong kind of battery (eg puts in a rechargeable instead of standard battery - which I've done myself in my own home out of ignorance ), puts in the battery the wrong way around, forgets to test, etc...

wylie, I'm not having a go, I'm really not. I'm not suggesting that what you're doing is overly risky, or that you're not being conscientious, because you certainly have done your research. I think in terms of risk management, particularly if you also have debt protection, structures, and good insurance, what you're doing is highly unlikely to end badly.

I'm just highlighting that meeting all statutory requirements does not mean that you won't still get sued, and trying to explain to kabba why it's so difficult to get a "black and white" answer on what the landlord is required to do. The statutory requirement is clear; the common law requirement is not.

(Apologies for the lengthy post.)

 

[wylie]

I appreciate your point Tracey, but we have done all we are legally obliged to do. If I lived my life worrying about all the possible problems that could arise, I would not sleep at night.

Sometimes, people just have to accept that they also have obligations. We cover the major risks that we see, and are confident in our position.

I would not like to start worrying about the "what if" scenarious, and I have no confidence that paying someone to change a battery would let me off the hook anyway. I reckon the companies who send someone to change a battery would have covered their butts with more "out" clauses than I could think up.

 

[Perp]

I appreciate your point Tracey, but we have done all we are legally obliged to do. If I lived my life worrying about all the possible problems that could arise, I would not sleep at night.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be defensive when I made it as clear as it's possible to be that I was not having a go. I'm not suggesting your position is unreasonable, at all.

 

[wylie]

All I am saying is that we are satisfied that we have done all we are legally and morally obliged to do, and tenants simply have to shoulder some responsibility for their own safety.

It was not meant to be defensive and I am sorry I apologise if you took it that way.