They should have had a working smoke alarm, you should also not have left the pot on.
It would have been great for you if the smoke alarms were working because it would have reduced the extent of the damage you caused.
If there was an electrical fire because of a poorly maintained appliance in the house you were using, that would be different because that's the fault of the property owner having unsafe equipment.
You broke it you bought it is how i would view this case. Smoke alarms aren't required by law and are designed to save lives not property. Your argument is no different than saying you slipped over in the bathroom because there wasn't a mat on the floor. Its a case or user beware.
If your concerned next time take some spare batteries.
BTR: You broke it you bought it is how i would view this case. Smoke alarms aren't required by law and are designed to save lives not property. Your argument is no different than saying you slipped over in the bathroom because there wasn't a mat on the floor. Its a case or user beware.
If your concerned next time take some spare batteries.
But if there is a smoke alarm don't you think there is some responsibility for the owner to ensure batteries are not flat? Either keep the batteries fresh or completely remove the smoke alarm.
And, if the smoke alarm had sounded the chance of avoiding damage is far higher.
How can the home owner be partly to blame here? Its not mandatory to have smoke alarms. Are you saying that the owner is now partially to blame simply because he HAD smoke alarms? If he had NO smoke alarms he would not have any blame!
BTR: You broke it you bought it is how i would view this case. Smoke alarms aren't required by law and are designed to save lives not property. Your argument is no different than saying you slipped over in the bathroom because there wasn't a mat on the floor. Its a case or user beware.
If your concerned next time take some spare batteries.
But if there is a smoke alarm don't you think there is some responsibility for the owner to ensure batteries are not flat? Either keep the batteries fresh or completely remove the smoke alarm.
And, if the smoke alarm had sounded the chance of avoiding damage is far higher.
My personal opinion is that fault is 50/50.
Advise your insurance company of the damage, and then let the insurance companies fight over the value and apportionment of liability, thats what they are there for.....
timmmay: Smoke alarms aren't mandatory AFAIK. You caused damage, you're responsible for it.
They're only mandatory in new builds. Much to the Fire Service's disgust.
Rules might be different for commercial properties, but from context, it sounds like this was the private hire of a batch.
I would have thought they were required in rentals, or places booked out to the public. If not, then that is a big hole int eh law.. But as others have said, speak to a Lawyer at the CAB. The people renting it out should have insurance anyway, and an excess eg $400 -800. Are they asking you to pay the excess? I think is that insurance requires the owner to tell the insurer that it is being rented out, so if they aren't claiming on insurance, then you have to ask why? But IANAL and you should speak to one.
MikeAqua: Does anyone really rely on smoke alarms to monitor cooking?
If the person cooking had been standing beside the cooker, they wouldn't have fallen asleep and the problem would have been avoided.
It depends on the type of detector and type of smoke, as they often aren't triggered until more damage has occurred. The fact that they aren't required in ALL buildings is a big issue, as not having that requirement is costing NZers lives. So people are likely dying and getting injured becuase a $5-10 smoke alarm in an old house/flat isn't required.
timmmay: Smoke alarms aren't mandatory AFAIK. You caused damage, you're responsible for it.
They're only mandatory in new builds. Much to the Fire Service's disgust.
Rules might be different for commercial properties, but from context, it sounds like this was the private hire of a batch.
I would have thought they were required in rentals, or places booked out to the public. If not, then that is a big hole int eh law.. But as others have said, speak to a Lawyer at the CAB. The people renting it out should have insurance anyway, and an excess eg $400 -800. Are they asking you to pay the excess? I think is that insurance requires the owner to tell the insurer that it is being rented out, so if they aren't claiming on insurance, then you have to ask why? But IANAL and you should speak to one.
My concern is, there were smoke alarms in the batch, but they were not working. The rental agencies is trying to charge us with the bill for the cleaning, but had the smoke alarms been working, we would have caught this before it happened.
Where do I stand here?
Thanks,
I think you would fail the good faith component of any contract. You shouldnt rely on a smoke alarm to tell you when your food is cooking, and you shouldnt cook when you feel fatigued. Thats just plain common sense.
The smoke alarms are there as something to help save lives, but dont guarantee anything at all. It usually says this on the packet when you buy them.
The non-working smoke alarms is a separate issue. For our safety maybe we should all add that as something we test in a holiday house... I vaguely recall doing that once.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
ID Verified
