We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Electrocuted, by landlords washing machine
Options
Comments
-
bernadette2105 wrote: »
Any 'Reasonable' person would say this.
You cant just rent out equipment without taking steps to check that equipment is safe.
You but a house that has been empty for a while and you rent out the equipment that you have no personal knowledge of its history any person with common sense would have it checked to protect themselves from issues like this
He didn't say 'reasonable' but 'qualified'
It would also be reasonable for the tenant to have asked about electrical safety testing.0 -
My view is that a property that has stood empty, with its appliances unused, for a while should not simply be "assumed" to be safe or unsafe - it is reasonable to expect that the LL/LA should have had things properly checked immediately prior to the tenancy and unless they can show that they did, then they may well be stuffed on this one.
Define "properly checked" though. That is what we are all debating about. BS7671 provides the standards. Testing intervals for installations are normally every ten years for domestic property. Therefore this property should have an installation certificate.
The same is true of bernadette2105 post stating "The Consumer Protection Act 1987 applies if a landlord supplies electrical equipment in let accommodation. The property and equipment should be checked before it is offered for rent." ( I do not know how to quote more than once in a post)
What does checked mean? It does not mean PAT tested (which would not apply here anyway as the appliance does not seem to be portable).
BS7671 recommends annual inspection of electrical installations and fittings. Crucially, it does not recommend that this is carried out be a qualified electrician but by a person with reasonable knowledge of how to operate etc the fittings. IE this is refering to a visual inspection. Even a full installation test to BS7671 was carried out annual will not protect against a fault that occurs during the year in exactly the same way that a gas safety certificate does not mean that a boilder will not kill the tenants with Carbon Monoxide poisoning.
I agree with stevetodd. I would like a testing regime mandated by statue because it removes my responsiblity to do anything but comply with the regime. It codies what is the reasonable defence. Until then, each case must be judged on whether the LL acted reasonably. We do not have the full facts to this case as with all the others but I will reiterate what I have said before.
TBS both the cases you quote were far more clear cut. The equipment was old and clearly rubbish to contravene those regulations. We should remember that this house is covered by an installation certificate for at least 2 more years. Unless the original washing machine had been replaced then this will also meet all these regulations. All of the convictions for supplying furniture which did not meet the fire regs are not relevent here as far as I can see.
Bernadette if you feel that you can prove that your LL was negligent and failed in their duty of care then please take them to court. I think this will be hard to prove.
Fortunately it is very rare for a 3 year old installation and appliance to develop such a serious fault. I am glad that the OP did not suffer and serious injuries. That is the miracle of modern electrical installations.0 -
bernadette2105 wrote: »
Any 'Reasonable' person would say this.
You cant just rent out equipment without taking steps to check that equipment is safe.
You but a house that has been empty for a while and you rent out the equipment that you have no personal knowledge of its history any person with common sense would have it checked to protect themselves from issues like this
But they obvciously did test it otherwise the inventory couldn't have said in good working order.0 -
bernadette2105 wrote: »
And in this case it is obvious that a house that has been left empty for 14 months cannot be assumed to have safe appliances. Hence any 'reasonable' person would of undertaken checks.
No it is far from obvious. While this is clearly the opinon of yourself and TBS it is not the opinion of the IET and it is not expressed as a requirement in BS7671. As a reasonable person I follow the published standards.0 -
I, probably like many others, have electrical equipment in my house that has not been used for over 14 months. (e.g. a car battery charger, an electric drill, etc) Are they all deemed unsafe too? :rolleyes:bernadette2105 wrote: »
Any 'Reasonable' person would say this.
You cant just rent out equipment without taking steps to check that equipment is safe.
You but a house that has been empty for a while and you rent out the equipment that you have no personal knowledge of its history any person with common sense would have it checked to protect themselves from issues like this
How long ago do you think some of the electrical appliances sold in stores was originally manufactured? It's quite interesting to see the date of the QC/QA inspection stamp
Perhaps they should all be inspected and re-certificated too immediately before they are allowed past the till :rotfl:"Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
What remedy have you sought? £10 zillion indamages, A writen appology, a box of chocolates for you bruise?
I don't think there are many LL's on here that would disagree, it sounds like many already do.
An apology and letting out safe properties would not go amiss ey!!
But i dare say as being a so called LL maybe gives you a feeling your above right from wrongs, and shoddy goods are not important.
Not that your bias at all hey!!
I personaly shall follow this through and talk to non bias experts, and shall certainly push for LL's to be responsible and liable for their actions....or in this case lack of them!
After all if tenants treated your property with the same attitude as yours, you would soon be up in arms. I personally treat this house as my home and respect everything in it.0 -
But they obviously did test it otherwise the inventory couldn't have said in good working order.
It wouldn't need to have been tested, as stated if the installation is only 3 years old and the test should be every 5 then it will have been deemed safe at the start. I assume the good working order refered to the fact the appliance worked.
OP Have you actually decided what you want from this? Money? an Appology? Legislation?
I'm not disagreeing, As a tennant i expect my house to be in a good condition, and yes things should be safe upon tennancy but through a court you will get nowhere as the LL Has broken no laws.
At the end of the day accidents happen, surely if the installation is unsafe it would be due to barrat's incompetance in the electrical fittings, maybe take it up with them :rotfl:War does not decide who is right, It decides who is left.0 -
I, probably like many others, have electrical equipment in my house that has not been used for over 14 months. (e.g. a car battery charger, an electric drill, etc) Are they all deemed unsafe too? :rolleyes:
How long ago do you think some of the electrical appliances sold in stores was originally manufactured? It's quite interesting to see the date of the QC/QA inspection stamp
Perhaps they should all be inspected and re-certificated too immediately before they are allowed past the till :rotfl:
Shows your mature attitude!
All apliances that are in a property of which you are claiming rent for should be in safe working order......it is your obligation!0 -
It wouldn't need to have been tested, as stated if the installation is only 3 years old and the test should be every 5 then it will have been deemed safe at the start. I assume the good working order refered to the fact the appliance worked
If you bought a three year old car that had not been drove for 14months....would you not have it checked out?? Same principle!!0 -
Originally Posted by RabbitMad
But they obviously did test it otherwise the inventory couldn't have said in good working order.
So obviously it wasnt checked on the inventory and someone was cutting corners!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards