lodgers and cooking on the landing

WIAWSNB

user1977 said:

BungalowBel said:

Chat GPT gave me this answer:

Please don't just copy and paste AI slop as answers to queries, they're rarely helpful (plus the OP can do that themselves if they want). Its answer about insurance looks like nonsense for a start.

BBel made it clear the source. You accept the info given by AI with that caveat, but it's usually a great starting point. You then double-check all the pertinent points with more traditional sources.
What's your issue re the insurance point? 

user1977

WIAWSNB said:

user1977 said:

BungalowBel said:

Chat GPT gave me this answer:

Please don't just copy and paste AI slop as answers to queries, they're rarely helpful (plus the OP can do that themselves if they want). Its answer about insurance looks like nonsense for a start.

BBel made it clear the source. You accept the info given by AI with that caveat, but it's usually a great starting point. You then double-check all the pertinent points with more traditional sources.
What's your issue re the insurance point? 

Generative AI is good at producing things which sound plausible - and it doesn't really matter if all you want it to do is e.g. make up some marketing puff for your new business. But ask it for legal "advice" and is likely to churn out something fabricated from unknown origins, there have been well-publicised cases where it's even made up citations to "back up" its advice. And if you don't know what you're looking for then it's tricky to spot where it's got things wrong (e.g. have we even determined which jurisdiction the OP is in?). I suspect Chat GPT is not distinguishing between reputable sources and punters on forums confidently repeating urban myths.

On the insurance point, can anybody cite an insurance policy which has as a condition that:

"cooking appliances must be used:

• In a kitchen

• On a suitable heat-resistant surface

• Away from circulation areas" ?

It's not the sort of thing I can recall seeing before.

The whole point of insurance is that it will (generally) cover you for somebody doing something daft.

The OP should of course check what conditions are in her policy and what she declared on her proposal form, but I think it's wildly inaccurate to state that "the insurance company would very likely refuse the claim."

travelodger

Slinky said:

Regarding the insurance/risk issues, are the remaining electrical appliances PAT tested?

Nope, never heard of it. How do I do that? Who is Pat?

Tabieth

travelodger said:

Slinky said:

Regarding the insurance/risk issues, are the remaining electrical appliances PAT tested?

Nope, never heard of it. How do I do that? Who is Pat?

https://www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/faq-portable-appliance-testing.htm

WIAWSNB

user1977 said:

Generative AI is good at producing things which sound plausible - and it doesn't really matter if all you want it to do is e.g. make up some marketing puff for your new business. But ask it for legal "advice" and is likely to churn out something fabricated from unknown origins, there have been well-publicised cases where it's even made up citations to "back up" its advice. And if you don't know what you're looking for then it's tricky to spot where it's got things wrong (e.g. have we even determined which jurisdiction the OP is in?). I suspect Chat GPT is not distinguishing between reputable sources and punters on forums confidently repeating urban myths.

On the insurance point, can anybody cite an insurance policy which has as a condition that:

"cooking appliances must be used:

• In a kitchen

• On a suitable heat-resistant surface

• Away from circulation areas" ?

It's not the sort of thing I can recall seeing before.

The whole point of insurance is that it will (generally) cover you for somebody doing something daft.

The OP should of course check what conditions are in her policy and what she declared on her proposal form, but I think it's wildly inaccurate to state that "the insurance company would very likely refuse the claim."

I totally agree, which is why you need to take into account the source. For example, I am currently using it to assist in a contentious probate situation, and it is seemingly incredible with the info it provides. But I then take that info and check the actual law and court cases. I have to say, tho', it's pretty darned impressive. 

As for insurance T&Cs, that is one angle, but the other is that the insured is expected to act reasonably, and not carelessly, recklessly, or negligently. Having a cooking appliance build up with grease until it combusts on an upstairs landing is, well, you know... Take it to its logical conclusion - why don't the lodgers have an open wood fire on that landing too - would that be 'covered'?

A good test, I think, would be to either ask, or figure out, what the local Fire Service would make of it if you, say, asked them to check your smokies. Do you reckon they'd ignore a range of cooking appliances on a landing? Nor me. 

The OP also cannot claim ignorance. 

Anyhoo, largely moot, as she's done the right thing. 

travelodger

Tabieth said:

travelodger said:

Slinky said:

Regarding the insurance/risk issues, are the remaining electrical appliances PAT tested?

Nope, never heard of it. How do I do that? Who is Pat?

https://www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/faq-portable-appliance-testing.htm

Thank you for that link, I read every word on the page. But it makes no mention of homes. All the examples given are workplaces or businesses like hotels which have special regulations. I cannot see anything that says private homes must have appliances tested.

user1977

WIAWSNB said:

user1977 said:

Generative AI is good at producing things which sound plausible - and it doesn't really matter if all you want it to do is e.g. make up some marketing puff for your new business. But ask it for legal "advice" and is likely to churn out something fabricated from unknown origins, there have been well-publicised cases where it's even made up citations to "back up" its advice. And if you don't know what you're looking for then it's tricky to spot where it's got things wrong (e.g. have we even determined which jurisdiction the OP is in?). I suspect Chat GPT is not distinguishing between reputable sources and punters on forums confidently repeating urban myths.

On the insurance point, can anybody cite an insurance policy which has as a condition that:

"cooking appliances must be used:

• In a kitchen

• On a suitable heat-resistant surface

• Away from circulation areas" ?

It's not the sort of thing I can recall seeing before.

The whole point of insurance is that it will (generally) cover you for somebody doing something daft.

The OP should of course check what conditions are in her policy and what she declared on her proposal form, but I think it's wildly inaccurate to state that "the insurance company would very likely refuse the claim."

As for insurance T&Cs, that is one angle, but the other is that the insured is expected to act reasonably, and not carelessly, recklessly, or negligently.

Can you cite your source for that? (this is what I mean by people on forums repeating urban myths!).

Obviously insured incidents will often involve somebody's negligence. Not much point having, say, motor insurance if they just turn round and tell you that you should driven more carefully.

Grumpy_chap

travelodger said:

Tabieth said:

travelodger said:

Slinky said:

Regarding the insurance/risk issues, are the remaining electrical appliances PAT tested?

Nope, never heard of it. How do I do that? Who is Pat?

https://www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/faq-portable-appliance-testing.htm

Thank you for that link, I read every word on the page. But it makes no mention of homes. All the examples given are workplaces or businesses like hotels which have special regulations. I cannot see anything that says private homes must have appliances tested.

AIUI, the need for PAT-testing does not apply in the OP's case.

The OP has a Lodger (s) living in the OP's own home.

AIUI, PAT-testing applies to work place and guest houses etc.  There is also a requirement for a LL letting a whole property under AST to provide electrical safety checks and this might also include PAT-testing of LL-provided items within the checks.

AIUI, the need for PAT-testing does not apply to a room let to a Lodger.

Maybe someone else will comment if there is definitive clarification to the contrary.

Section62

Grumpy_chap said:

AIUI, the need for PAT-testing does not apply in the OP's case.

The OP has a Lodger (s) living in the OP's own home.

AIUI, PAT-testing applies to work place and guest houses etc.  There is also a requirement for a LL letting a whole property under AST to provide electrical safety checks and this might also include PAT-testing of LL-provided items within the checks.

AIUI, the need for PAT-testing does not apply to a room let to a Lodger.

Maybe someone else will comment if there is definitive clarification to the contrary.

I think the issue here is that having a kitchen on a landing of what is supposed to be a protected stairway is such a departure from the norm that perhaps getting the appliances PAT checked would give the OP some level of defence if one of them decided to self-immolate and trap one of the lodgers in their room.  It wouldn't necessarily get them off a manslaughter charge, but would at least show that some effort had been made to manage risk.

AIUI there is no specific legal requirement for PAT testing in any case - PAT testing is simply a common method used by those who have a duty of care to demonstrate they have done something positive to manage risk.

BungalowBel

user1977 said:

BungalowBel said:

Chat GPT gave me this answer:

Please don't just copy and paste AI slop as answers to queries, they're rarely helpful (plus the OP can do that themselves if they want). Its answer about insurance looks like nonsense for a start.

Sorry, I was trying to find out myself and thought it would be helpful.  Won't bother again.