Electrocuted, by landlords washing machine

stevetodd

Premier wrote: »

Whilst I wouldn't fault this as a recommendation, it is not a requirement.

From the same link:

"There is currently no statutory requirement to have annual safety checks on electrical equipment as there is with gas, but it advisable to do so."

From what I remember of the appropriate legislation, the only requirement is that the installation should be safe, having been approved by a competant person if necessary.

Who is defined as competent is not specified in the legislation. There is no requirement to keep any records (although having such records would probably help in any defence should the need arise)

Of course I agree. You do not seem to realise that I am saying the exact same thing as you

silvercar

If it ever went to court what would a judge think. Would he think it reasonable for a landlord to assume that a 3 year old house has decent electrics?

stevetodd

silvercar wrote: »

If it ever went to court what would a judge think. Would he think it reasonable for a landlord to assume that a 3 year old house has decent electrics?

IMO I reckon he would it's not as if it's an old victorian house that hasn't been checked for 25 years.

RabbitMad

bernadette2105 wrote: »

the only requirement is that the installation should be safe, having been approved by a competant person if necessary.

Well it cant of been approved by a competant or non competant person, otherwise it would of been fixed before commencement of tenancy?

Surely, with the property being empty for a certain ammount of time, and appliances being rented along with the property common sense would prevail and these would be checked?
I personally dont blame the LL, more the LA as they are the one's i have dealt with from the start

Surely common sense is that in a property less than 3 years old the electrics and any hard wired appliances will be safe.

PAT is Portable Appliance Test. In the work place these should be carried out yearly; the idea being that portable items can become damaged through being moved and unplugged, plugged back in again.

Honestly I think any judge would agree that the LL behaved in a reasonable manner.

bernadette2105

So a LL can just rent out unsafe equipment get paid for it and take no responsibillity for harm caused by faulty goods?

I am sure under law of contracts, law of tort, and European law he has a duty of care to his tenants.

Premier_2

stevetodd wrote: »

I think she is referring to the PAT testing at tenancy change over

Was she? Perhaps it wouldn't surprise me if she was. I never considered she would be talking of Portable Appliance Tests in relation to this thread since the appliance concerned was hardwired according to a previous post.

If she was, then the answer is no even if the appliance was portable. Such tests are not required in let property.

Edit: RabbitMad beat me to it

Premier_2

bernadette2105 wrote: »

So a LL can just rent out unsafe equipment get paid for it and take no responsibillity for harm caused by faulty goods?

No, a LL need to take reasonable steps to ensure it is safe.

If you don't think he did, you need to prove he was negligent. The fact that he probably has a valid certificate signed by a qualified electrician approving the installation probably proves he has been far from negligent.

Over to you...

stevetodd

Premier wrote: »

Was she? Perhaps it wouldn't surprise me if she was. I never considered she would be talking of Portable Appliance Tests in relation to this thread since the appliance concerned was hardwired according to a previous post.

If she was, then the answer is no even if the appliance was portable. Such tests are not required in let property.

Edit: RabbitMad beat me to it

Yes I know, I think she is clutching at staws, in this case an incorrect one.

On the subject more generally, the problem is that there is no specific ruling on electrical safety, I wish there was though. I do act reasonably but I would hate to have to rely on not getting a silly ruling from a judge on a crusade if I ever found myself in court. That's why I would much prefer tighter rules on this. I think it's crazy that fees for licensing landlords are more of a possibility than bi-annual electrical certificates. I am not saying licensing is unnecessary but I would say that electrical safety is far more important than to be left to interpretation.

Tozer

Isn't there an obvious question of loss here? Negligence doesn't entitle a claimant to damages without proving loss. Thinking a bit of general damages for the bruising but I can't see too many solicitors taking it on a no-win, no fee as it would fall within the small claims jurisdiction.

bernadette2105

No electrical testing was carried out on equipment and appliances of which the LL was charging for. The appliances were unsafe at start of first tenancy, this cannot be contested as incident happened within two days of start of tenancy. The LL took no reasonable steps to check any of the equipment as this has not been logged. The LL has a duty of care to tenant