Electrocuted, by landlords washing machine

NickWarren_2

bernadette2105 wrote: »

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!!

Of course i would as that is MY Duty of care to myself and other road users, Hence the Law and 12 month M.O.T's not being applicable until the car is 3 years old, it is still deemed safe until the 3 year part of its life, just like the 5 year rule on the electrics The LL Has followed the laws and legislation as is HIS duty of care.

Suing someone isn't the only option available. Maybe you should address your grievence to the LL Directly, his address should be on your AST Agreement

N79

bernadette2105 wrote: »

All apliances that are in a property of which you are claiming rent for should be in safe working order......it is your obligation!

I think we all agree with you there. Please don't imply anything else.

Where faults are reported we should get them fixed in a reasonable time. The problem here is how do we know that goods are not in a safe working order? Unfortunately there is often no way of know if an item is going to develop a fault so we have to do some testing / inspections etc. Even doing this, sometimes goods break. The only way to have complete electrical safety is to have no electricty!

If you feel that your LL took insufficent steps to check then please get the advice you need from the sources quoted above and take them to court. We would all love to know the outcome mainly because it will help us to know what courts consider to be reasonable / unreasonable. I think that some of the hurdles you will face have been highlighted in this thread.

As well as being a LL I am also a T. I do understand how you feel as the property I rent has numerous electrical safety problems (it would never pass an inspection to BS7671!) but I also think that there is very little, if anything, that your LL could have done which would have avoided you receiving an electric shock.

martindow

bernadette2105 wrote: »

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!

But Bernadette, good working order does not mean that the machine and its wiring has been painstakingly dismantled and checked. To me this means that at that time the machine operated and dirty clothes came out clean.

bernadette2105

martindow wrote: »

But Bernadette, good working order does not mean that the machine and its wiring has been painstakingly dismantled and checked. To me this means that at that time the machine operated and dirty clothes came out clean.

mmmm without giving the user a masive electric shock! As said earlier the machine was totally live, if a check was done saying it was in 'working' order the person doing the check would of had the shock....not me.

If you as a landlord bought a house with a washing machine in it, surely any normal person would check it worked before renting it out?

Premier_2

bernadette2105 wrote:

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!

By "you" & "your" , I presume you mean a landlord?

If you look back at my posts in this thread you will see I informed you that I think the landlord must take reasonable steps to ensure the items are safe.

The landlord almost certainly has a certificate proving the property was inspected and tested 3 years earlier. The qualified person testing would probably have stated on that certificate that the next inspection was due within 5 years.

All this I have posted previously. You won't convince a judge just because you don't like the situation - you need some kind of proof your landlord did something wrong (e.g. acted negligently). The landlord is probably not a qualified electricain, he doesn't need to be. You were fortunate to have rented a property from a landlord that was actually inspected by a qualified electrician and passed as safe. Surely even that "reasonable" person you referred to earlier wouldn't consider that the landlord had been negligent in any way, and I'm sure a judge wouldn't either.

Premier_2

bernadette2105 wrote: »

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!!

I would have a car checked out after 3 years because a qualified person would suggest it was. By law a vehicle 3 years old needs to have a MOT test.

In this case we are talking about an electrical installation - not the same principle at all. The qualified electrician suggested the installation was rechecked after 5 years, that would be anytime within the remaining 2 yerars since it was last inspected.

bernadette2105

Premier wrote: »

By "you" & "your" , I presume you mean a landlord?

If you look back at my posts in this thread you will see I informed you that I think the landlord must take reasonable steps to ensure the items are safe.

The landlord almost certainly has a certificate proving the property was inspected and tested 3 years earlier. The qualified person testing would probably have stated on that certificate that the next inspection was due within 5 years.

All this I have posted previously. You won't convince a judge just because you don't like the situation - you need some kind of proof your landlord did something wrong (e.g. acted negligently). The landlord is probably not a qualified electricain, he doesn't need to be. You were fortunate to have rented a property from a landlord that was actually inspected by a qualified electrician and passed as safe. Surely even that "reasonable" person you referred to earlier wouldn't consider that the landlord had been negligent in any way, and I'm sure a judge wouldn't either.

I shall keep you posted but from the advice recieved today from my local law centre i shall most certainly pursue this. LL's have a DUTY OF CARE, and to rent a property that he has aquired after being on the market for 14months and NOT checking the safety of electrical equipment within the said property is not taking reasonable steps.

Premier_2

bernadette2105 wrote: »

mmmm without giving the user a masive electric shock! As said earlier the machine was totally live, if a check was done saying it was in 'working' order the person doing the check would of had the shock....not me.

If you as a landlord bought a house with a washing machine in it, surely any normal person would check it worked before renting it out?

Now there could be a situation where an appliance develops an elctrical fault that makes the caseing live and if you happen to be touching that metal casing at the same time, then you would probably receive an electrical shock.

However, the electrical casing would be grounded to earth. It wouldn't take long for even an old fashioned fuse to probably blow under such circumstances, let alone the almost instantaneous RCD that would be expected in a property so new.

Premier_2

bernadette2105 wrote: »

I shall keep you posted but from the advice recieved today from my local law centre i shall most certainly pursue this. LL's have a DUTY OF CARE, and to rent a property that he has aquired after being on the market for 14months and NOT checking the safety of electrical equipment within the said property is not taking reasonable steps.

No one is denying that, but how can you claim the landlord had acted negligently. As I said, a property that age almost certainly has been inspected & tested and would have a certificate to prove so.

Best of luck in your court case that you seem so hell bent on having, despite so many posters here suggesting you don't seem to have any justification.

bernadette2105

Premier wrote: »

Now there could be a situation where an appliance develops an elctrical fault that makes the caseing live and if you happen to be touching that metal casing at the same time, then you would probably receive an electrical shock.

However, the electrical casing would be grounded to earth. It wouldn't take long for even an old fashioned fuse to probably blow under such circumstances, let alone the almost instantaneous RCD that would be expected in a property so new.

As stated earlier the appliance was not at fault it was the wiring that was not earthed so the machine was live at all times, all metal parts of machine was live! as on the the report
"On removing the machine and carrying out various tests on the machine and the kitchen wiring, it became clear that the fault was in the wiring. The precise nature of the fault is that the wiring of both the live and earth wires are both live, and the neutral wire is correctly neutral.
This of course means that all metal parts of the machine are live with full mains 240volts, a potentially lethal situation."

Maybe a different washing machine had been put in, who knows only the previous owners, however it is obvious that no checks had been carried out to check the working order of the machine else the person checking it would of recieved a shock. This is not taking reasonable steps to ensure all appliances are safe before commencement of tenancy