SNP and joined-up thinking?

[Blatman]

1 hour ago, GaryD1971 said:

The revised Bill has been put together by influential people from the fire safety industry for a start, not some civil servant. Groups such as The British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association, Building Research Establishment, Fire Protection Association to name but a few have had input along with consultation from every fire and rescue service in the UK. Together, they know considerably more about this subject than the whole of the Tory party, who incidentally all voted this down. Every single one. There were a few independents in there too but not one Labour MP. That could be the fact that Labour tabled the motion to make this bill law in the first place. 

 

But not influential enough to be able to persuade MP's to vote for it and/or have the jutzpa to defy the part whips for the good of the public? And the MP's who may have wanted to vote for it but were put off by a 3 line whip were themselves unable to make a persuasive case to their party for voting the bill through? 

 

1 hour ago, GaryD1971 said:

What the bill  would have done was force landlords to identify themselves as a responsible person to the Fire and Rescue authority and therefore become liable in the eyes of the law for any loss of life if a building they owned caught fire. That didn't sit comfortably with them and was the main sticking point in getting the bill passed.

 

I'm guessing the landlords involved weren't so much "tory MP landlords", the inference I took to mean many Tory MP's own and rent properties to supplement their income and feeds in to the "fat-cat" narrative, but more likely the landlords were the large construction industry, housing association and local council landlords who would definitely lobby their MP's to vote against. That's not to say that Tory (or indeed Labour) MP's don't sit on the boards of these companies/charities. I happen to know of 1 London MP of a Labour constituency who has influence within a large housing conglomerate. BUT my point is they are singular voices in these organisations rather than dictatorial leaders with the ability to force through anything they want.

To me it sounds like this law would have meant that the Grenfell Tower disaster would automatically have been the "fault" of the local council. Whilst convenient, I don't see how that is fair, reasonable or proportionate. I am not sure it is possible to make a landlord (private, corporate, charity or local authority) responsible for the actions of tenants and even if it was possible, it will be policed once every 5 years, assuming the landlords (especially the big ones) actually get round to it. And lets face it the system might pass inspection at 10am on Monday and by 10.30 the kitchen detector has been removed or bypassed because it goes off when one burns the toast, an irritation that many of us live with and accept and that many others will take action to avoid.

 

And to be clear here, I'm not against improved fire safety, of course not. But there is far more to this that "fat-cat Tory MP's" voting solely in their own interests.

[DonPeffers]

So if average cost of say £400 per alarms installation (hopefully less) and 2.5 million dwellings, that equates to £1 Bn expenditure on new smoke/heat/co alarms. Is that proportionate to the risk?

 

Will those laid off because of covid have the funds to meet additional expenditure especially as Martin Lewis answers plenty questions on mortgage holidays?

 

It seems we are moving ever more rapidly into an idiocracy where cost will be irrelevant and every yard of coastline will require a lifeguard in case someone cannot swim in the sea, and every yard of coastal cliff will have to be fenced off in case the laws of gravity are too complex for some individuals to understand.

 

This continues apace with cartons of Soya Milk requiring allergy advice stating "contains soya". Let's have a label on fish stating 'contains fish'.

 

Anyone fancy starting a new thread for the most idiotic warnings?

[Mark (smokey mow)]

2 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

So if average cost of say £400 per alarms installation (hopefully less) and 2.5 million dwellings, that equates to £1 Bn expenditure on new smoke/heat/co alarms. Is that proportionate to the risk?

 

Of which 40% are rented either through private landlords, councils or housing associations. So the cost will be bourn by a landlord rather than the occupiers. 
 

Also what percentage of those 2.5 million houses were built or have been extended in the last 20 years so already have interlinked detection installed?

£400 is the typical cost of having a tradesperson install the detectors.  A typical radio interlinked pair is between £100-£150 to buy and most competent diy’rs should be able to fit their own.

 

So to answer your question, yes I think the cost is proportionate to the risk/ outcome.

[Blatman]

13 hours ago, Mark (smokey mow) said:

Of which 40% are rented either through private landlords, councils or housing associations. So the cost will be bourn by a landlord rather than the occupiers. 

 

Not where I live. The The owners of the block have a long habit of immediately passing these costs on. We have already received notice that we, the residents, will be paying for remedial works to the cladding in light of Grenfell and the new rules and sensitivities it brings. My particular block has no cladding but other buildings do and as an "estate cost", I'll be contributing the same as those who's dwellings do have cladding. Is that fair and reasonable? Many of us do not think so.

[Mark (smokey mow)]

17 minutes ago, Blatman said:

 

Not where I live. The The owners of the block have a long habit of immediately passing these costs on. We have already received notice that we, the residents, will be paying for remedial works to the cladding in light of Grenfell and the new rules and sensitivities it brings. My particular block has no cladding but other buildings do and as an "estate cost", I'll be contributing the same as those who's dwellings do have cladding. Is that fair and reasonable? Many of us do not think so.

Are you a tenant, freeholder or leaseholder of the flat?

 

it sounds like you’re a leaseholder in which case you’re rights are very different to that of any tenants you may have and are dependant on the terms of the maintenance contract you signed when you bought the property.

[Blatman]

Leaseholder and I am aware of my rights and responsibilities as part of my lease.

Grenfell and potentially other new requirements could never have been forseen so of course we are aware of the need for flexibility and reasonable behavior when things like this occur. But my block also has a sinking fund to cover these costs as well as cyclical works and at the moment there are 6 figures in there, and that's just for my small block of 12 dwellings. The sister block to mine has much the same. It looks to us like the landlord likes having these large sums untouched for the benefit of it's bottom line rather than the purpose for which they are held, which is large scale remedial works and cyclical repairs etc.

[DonPeffers]

I recently had a small fan heater installed in the bathroom and that came to £187 including electrician's labour so cost can soon mount up.

If new alarms diy cost is £150, that is better, but not for disabled or pensioners with arthritis and mobility problems who need professional fit.

 

The total expenditure will come from homeowners and landlords and Councils, and many Councils are strapped for cash already.

Does a careful person living in a bungalow, with ready escape route, need these particular alarms? What about more expense by insisting a methane gas detector must be fitted as well, in case gas cooker not lit and loss of smell sufferer (covid side-effect) does not realise gas is escaping....where do the cost additions stop?

 

Fire reports state most deaths in fire arise when occupant is intoxicated by alcohol or drugs and if householder comatose then no alarm is any use  https://www.firescotland.gov.uk/media/1494628/incident_statistics_2018_19.pdf

Also mentions many false fire alarms which I assume relate to hardwired systems possibly linked to fire station.

Most fires apparently relate to cooker use.

 

Just like covid and going outside your home just take necessary precautions and stay safe.

[Blatman]

25 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

but not for disabled or pensioners with arthritis and mobility problems who need professional fit.

 

Many of whom may likely qualify for some sort of discount or disbursement to assist with these legally required costs. Many but not all is not ideal as there are always cracks to fall through, but there will surely be assistance available in some form.

 

28 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

What about more expense by insisting a methane gas detector must be fitted as well,

Do you mean Carbon Monoxide? I think that many modern alarms are now dual purpose. And of course in dwellings without gas, no CO (a by-product of combustion) will be produced unless something actually catches fire, rather than a wonky appliance belching out the invisible, silent killer.

[Rab (bombero) Reid]

Oh my, I turn my back for one minute and this topic has lit up, lol!

 

Don, I clearly cannot provide hard evidence reports on ACM replacement programmes in Scotland as the private sector don't work as cohesively as that. Suffice to say, that I know first-hand of a student accommodation provider that has a Primary Authority Partnership in regards to a programme of works.   

 

Not sure I agree with you that just because a person is intoxicated, that an alarm is of no use..

 

The intention behind the legal step is that deaths from fire in a domestic dwelling are not dropping as significantly as desired and, whilst there's been a steady drop over the decades, a single death is a death too many where it could've been avoided. (This is indeed the first question that the relevant bodies have in the forefront of their minds going into an enquiry). 

 

We simply cannot rest on our laurels and arguments against the fitting of an interlinked system throughout a dwelling are understandable but difficult to accept. I think that where there are individual cases of hardship, etc then they should be address individually but the spirit behind the move cannot be argued. 

[Rab (bombero) Reid]

On 25/10/2020 at 15:04, DonPeffers said:

So if average cost of say £400 per alarms installation (hopefully less) and 2.5 million dwellings, that equates to £1 Bn expenditure on new smoke/heat/co alarms. Is that proportionate to the risk?

Yes, because the 'proportionate' amount is to the individual not the country. I can't recall off the top of my head, the total cost of a fatality in a domestic dwelling but it was mind boggling. Everything is taken into account from the cost of fire crews attending, other emergency services attending, ambulance, hospital, coroner's enquiry, post mortem, building surveys, insurance repairs, re-occupation, etc. 

 

If a fire can be detected at the earliest opportunity, then a life that otherwise might have been lost is saved, and a property is less inclined to be extensively damaged by earlier FRS intervention. 

[DonPeffers]

48 minutes ago, Rab (bombero) Reid said:

 I clearly cannot provide hard evidence reports on ACM replacement programmes in Scotland

 

Not sure I agree with you that just because a person is intoxicated, that an alarm is of no use..

 

The intention behind the legal step is that deaths from fire in a domestic dwelling are not dropping as significantly as desired and, whilst there's been a steady drop over the decades, a single death is a death too many where it could've been avoided.

 

We simply cannot rest on our laurels and arguments against the fitting of an interlinked system throughout a dwelling are understandable but difficult to accept. I think that where there are individual cases of hardship, etc then they should be address individually but the spirit behind the move cannot be argued. 

IIRC Blatters financial assistance available if on Pension Credit etc with Very low income and savings levels.

Methane detector is different to a CO detector.

 

Rab, 'tis a pity data on foam cladding replacement in Scotland isn't readily available and might explain lack of reporting I guess.

 

I stated alarm no use to comatose householder (slightly beyond merry).

 

For decades I had no smoke alarms and still see them as 'nice to have' but not essential, same as ABS on my road car: I managed for years without ABS, being able to realise that steering wasn't an option with locked front wheels.

 

With as many lives being lost to drowning as house fires looks like urgent legislation required.

 

Mobile phone use like playing games while at the wheel currently not illegal and set to change in the new year. Just as well with nearly 2000 road fatalities and each one maybe costing £2Mn equates to £4 BN.

[Blatman]

28 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

With at least 8 times as many lives being lost to drowning as opposed to house fires looks like urgent legislation required.

An interesting stat...

 

Rab, I don't think anyone is arguing against the principle of fitting modern smoke alarms to premises and if i was a landlord, I'd fit them simply out of a desire to attempt to do all I could to try and ensure safety for my tenants as well as my investment. The discussion is more to do with who pays, how they pay and whether this has been thought through adequately.

 

I do agree with Don about "comatose" people not hearing it. I had a colleague who fell asleep in the hotel room above me. He'd left the shower on very hot and as heat and steam built up the smoke alarm in his room sounded. He never heard it. We had to get a manager to open the room and sort him out. And he wasn't even drunk, just really tired...

[Rab (bombero) Reid]

1 minute ago, Blatman said:

An interesting stat...

 

Rab, I don't think anyone is arguing against the principal of fitting modern smoke alarms to premises and if i was a landlord, I'd fit them simply out of a desire to attempt to do all I could to try and ensure safety for my tenants as well as my investment. The discussion is more to do with who pays, how they pay and whether this has been thought through adequately.

Where the loss of life is preventable, guidance (and legislation) are brought in. 

 

In Scotland, where there's a Landlord (be it HMO or single private), it's the responsibility of the Landlord to ensure that the dwelling meets the fire safety criteria for HMO licencing or the standards set out for single domestic under the Repairing Standard, the latter of which will take it's lead from the new (now 2022 legislation). Local Authority and housing associations will need to pick up the tab for their properties. Privately owned houses will be a cost to the resident. I'm going to assume at this stage, that should a private homeowner struggle financially to come up to the new standard then there are charitable organisations to which they can (and should apply) .. a bit like what many can do now with Handy Helpers, etc.

 

Unfortunately, for the likes of many of us, we'll be expected to foot the bill ourselves. Whether we see this as 'fair' or not, I don't find a lot of what goes on in society as fair but there you have it! 

 

Governments are under pressure from their own policies to drive down fire deaths and legislation is the ultimate (final) weapon in their arsenal. Will it 'drive down' fire deaths, I don't think so. Will it save more lives, absolutely. 

 

 

[DonPeffers]

My mistake Blatters as 8 times as many drowning as opposed to house fires was my mixing up UK and Scotland stats. as a ratio, when really the figures nationwide are about equal.

 

Am I right in thinking an electrical interruption will set off all the alarms in a house and possibly many neighbours on the same supply ring?

 

Is this legislation solely applying to Scotland? Have N.I., Wales and England not introduced it for private households without renovation?

 

 

[Blatman]

4 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

Am I right in thinking an electrical interruption will set off all the alarms in a house and possibly many neighbours on the same supply ring?

 

If I throw the circuit breaker on my smoke alarms, nothing happens 'cos the battery back-up kicks in. When the battery goes flat they chirp about once every two minutes. Usually this is at some ungodly hour in the morning and I end up going to the local all-nighter for a battery to restore my sanity. One of the many benefits of living in London, there's always a shop open nearby 

 

Bypassing one of them (I have two, one above the cooker  and one in the hall adjacent to the lounge door) doesn't do anything either.