Government requirements for RCD & smoke alarm testing, WA

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.

Regarding installation

Regaring maintenance

Looks to me like you don't actually have to do any maintenance or testing until and unless you receive a rectification notice.

Sylvia.

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.

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.

Looks as if you are required to install them:

With a possible fine up to $5,000.00

-- Sell your surplus electronic components at

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.

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.

I had in mind reg 38L(3), which will replace the earlier regs.

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.

ce.

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.

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.

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

Cite evidence, please.

What law does that?

What law does that?

Depends on what that means. It is nor that explicit in the law.

If that happens, the properrty owner will clearly not be liable.

Depends on what that means.

That may be so in any minor criminal matter, and is therefore not particularly relevant in this thread.

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:

"(1) A corporation may appoint an individual, who need not be a legal practitioner, to be its representative in proceedings before the court."

Sylvia.

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.

The regulation could be construed as requiring that the owner check from time to time that the tenant hasn't disconnected it.

Sylvia.

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??

Contributory negligence. End of story. Any other claim is just make work from legal parasites.

No such animal in the criminal law.

Quite so. But quite wrong.

No doubt.