In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"Andrade" wrote in message
...
In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

In Cali, it's probably the government

On Jan 23, 12:35*pm, Andrade wrote:
In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Are you the lanlord or tenant and is it a house or apt and wonder if
landlord should maintain it, Your city probably has all codes online
for you to read, but in an apartment building in a different state I
maintain hall fire extinguishers and hall smoke detectors, im not
required to have a fire extinguisher for each apartment and tenants
cook- burn food and remove batteries so I dont care, and I have one Co
detector.

On Jan 23, 3:33*pm, ransley wrote:
On Jan 23, 12:35*pm, Andrade wrote:

In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Are you the lanlord or tenant and is it a house or apt and wonder if
landlord should maintain it, Your city probably has all codes online
for you to read, but in an apartment building in a different state I
maintain hall fire extinguishers and hall smoke detectors, im not
required to have a fire extinguisher for each apartment and tenants
cook- burn food and remove batteries so I dont care, and I have one Co
detector.

In my state, it looks like the *owner* is responsible.

701.2 Responsibility. The owner of the premises shall provide and
maintain such fire safety facilities and equipment in compliance with
these requirements. A person shall not occupy as owner-occupant or
permit another person to occupy any premises that do not comply with
the requirements of this chapter.

On Jan 23, 2:50*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jan 23, 3:33*pm, ransley wrote:

On Jan 23, 12:35*pm, Andrade wrote:

In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Are you the lanlord or tenant and is it a house or apt and wonder if
landlord should maintain it, Your city probably has all codes online
for you to read, but in an apartment building in a different state I
maintain hall fire extinguishers and hall smoke detectors, im not
required to have a fire extinguisher for each apartment and tenants
cook- burn food and remove batteries so I dont care, and I have one Co
detector.

In my state, it looks like the *owner* is responsible.

701.2 Responsibility. The owner of the premises shall provide and
maintain such fire safety facilities and equipment in compliance with
these requirements. A person shall not occupy as owner-occupant or
permit another person to occupy any premises that do not comply with
the requirements of this chapter.

You could have told us which state!

On 1/23/2010 3:01 PM, hr(bob) wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:50 pm, wrote:
On Jan 23, 3:33 pm, wrote:

On Jan 23, 12:35 pm, wrote:

In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Are you the lanlord or tenant and is it a house or apt and wonder if
landlord should maintain it, Your city probably has all codes online
for you to read, but in an apartment building in a different state I
maintain hall fire extinguishers and hall smoke detectors, im not
required to have a fire extinguisher for each apartment and tenants
cook- burn food and remove batteries so I dont care, and I have one Co
detector.

In my state, it looks like the *owner* is responsible.

701.2 Responsibility. The owner of the premises shall provide and
maintain such fire safety facilities and equipment in compliance with
these requirements. A person shall not occupy as owner-occupant or
permit another person to occupy any premises that do not comply with
the requirements of this chapter.

You could have told us which state!

If you look at his e-mail addy it appears to be New York, probably
Rochester.

Don

ransley wrote:
On Jan 23, 12:35 pm, Andrade wrote:
In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Are you the lanlord or tenant and is it a house or apt and wonder if
landlord should maintain it, Your city probably has all codes online
for you to read, but in an apartment building in a different state I
maintain hall fire extinguishers and hall smoke detectors, im not
required to have a fire extinguisher for each apartment and tenants
cook- burn food and remove batteries so I dont care, and I have one Co
detector.

I'm pretty sure that around here, detectors in apartment complexes have
to be line-powered, at least for new construction.

But like others in thread have said, it is a STUPID thing to have a
****ing contest about. If I live in a place, it will have working
detectors. If landlord won't do it, I will. I left a fire extinguisher
screwed to kitchen wall in every apartment I ever had.

--
aem sends...

On Jan 23, 1:35�pm, Andrade wrote:
In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

I don't know what the laws are, but if I were a responsible owner of a
rental property I would see that the batteries are changed at least
once a year whether I was required to do so or not. Also, if I were a
good/responsible tenant I would make sure the batteries were fresh
whether I needed to or not. To have a law just shows what this world
is coming to. Nobody wants to be responsible for their own welfare/
safety and etc.

Hank ~~~thinks people can't take care for themselves anymore

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:35 -0800, Andrade wrote:

In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

I'd say the landlord as it his property as required by law.
But it's your duty as the renter to insure they are in working order at all
times. What's more important to you? A few bucks for a battery or your
life?

Andrade wrote:
In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
Hi,
Up here in Calgary 3 people burnt to dead living in a rented suit.
None of the alarms worked. The landlord got fine very heavily.
Regardless who is responsible, I'd make sure they work where I am.
In my house they are hard wired with battery back up. I mixed the string
with flame detector, smoke detector and CO detector.

On Jan 23, 1:35*pm, Andrade wrote:
In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

I know this can vary by county and possibly city so best check with
local authorities. May also vary with the type of property and length
of lease.

Jimmie

Since the question was regarding California, here's an answer
from a California Q&A forum.

Q: Because landlords are required to install working smoke
detectors, shouldn't they be responsible for maintaining them
as well? I am a tenant, and I think I should be able to deduct
the cost of replacing the batteries every year. (December 2002.)

Since 1987, state law has required landlords to provide operable
smoke detectors at the beginning of all tenancies in multiple-unit
buildings. Replacing batteries of smoke detectors in your unit is
not the landlord's obligation, unless that's written into your rental
agreement. You, as a tenant, must assume some responsibility
for basic maintenance of your rental unit, which means keeping
it clean and replacing, at your own expense, minor items with a
naturally short life that wear out during your tenancy, such as
light bulbs and batteries. On the other hand, if your smoke
detector doesn't work even with a new battery, then notify your
landlord, who must then repair or replace the smoke detector.
Also, property owners are responsible for replacing the batteries
of smoke detectors located in common stairwells.

On Jan 23, 1:35*pm, Andrade wrote:
In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Jan 23, 8:00*pm, Michael B wrote:
Since the question was regarding California, here's an answer
from a *California Q&A forum.

Q: Because landlords are required to install working smoke
detectors, shouldn't they be responsible for maintaining them
as well? I am a tenant, and I think I should be able to deduct
the cost of replacing the batteries every year. *(December 2002.)

Since 1987, state law has required landlords to provide operable
smoke detectors at the beginning of all tenancies in multiple-unit
buildings. Replacing batteries of smoke detectors in your unit is
not the landlord's obligation, unless that's written into your rental
agreement. You, as a tenant, must assume some responsibility
for basic maintenance of your rental unit, which means keeping
it clean and replacing, at your own expense, minor items with a
naturally short life that wear out during your tenancy, such as
light bulbs and batteries. On the other hand, if your smoke
detector doesn't work even with a new battery, then notify your
landlord, who must then repair or replace the smoke detector.
Also, property owners are responsible for replacing the batteries
of smoke detectors located in common stairwells.

On Jan 23, 1:35*pm, Andrade wrote:



In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In nearby Chicago, it seems there are several fires each year in
rental units where there are no working smoke detectors because the
batteries have been removed, presumably 9V batteries that someone has
taken to us in a radio or something else. I have never heard on any
of the news reports if the owners were cited as a result of the
missing batteries.

hr(bob) wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:00 pm, Michael B wrote:
Since the question was regarding California, here's an answer
from a California Q&A forum.

Q: Because landlords are required to install working smoke
detectors, shouldn't they be responsible for maintaining them
as well? I am a tenant, and I think I should be able to deduct
the cost of replacing the batteries every year. (December 2002.)

Since 1987, state law has required landlords to provide operable
smoke detectors at the beginning of all tenancies in multiple-unit
buildings. Replacing batteries of smoke detectors in your unit is
not the landlord's obligation, unless that's written into your rental
agreement. You, as a tenant, must assume some responsibility
for basic maintenance of your rental unit, which means keeping
it clean and replacing, at your own expense, minor items with a
naturally short life that wear out during your tenancy, such as
light bulbs and batteries. On the other hand, if your smoke
detector doesn't work even with a new battery, then notify your
landlord, who must then repair or replace the smoke detector.
Also, property owners are responsible for replacing the batteries
of smoke detectors located in common stairwells.

On Jan 23, 1:35 pm, Andrade wrote:



In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

In nearby Chicago, it seems there are several fires each year in
rental units where there are no working smoke detectors because the
batteries have been removed, presumably 9V batteries that someone has
taken to us in a radio or something else. I have never heard on any
of the news reports if the owners were cited as a result of the
missing batteries.

Or possibly because the owner was cooking and got tired of listening to
the beepage. Been guilty of that one myself, although I did just go
through and make sure all batteries were replaced last weekend. Will be
going to hardwired soon (might as well, all smoke detectors are pretty
ancient and probably ought to be replaced anyway,) hope I don't regret it.

Can someone recommend a particular hardwired smoke head that doesn't
false alarm when you're boiling water? (no, none of my smoke detectors
are all that close to the kitchen.) Was probably going to go with
Gentex based on their popularity for use in hotel rooms and condos, but
am open to other suggestions. (local inspector will require tandem
connection and 9V backup)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
hr(bob) wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:00 pm, Michael B wrote:
Since the question was regarding California, here's an answer
from a California Q&A forum.

Q: Because landlords are required to install working smoke
detectors, shouldn't they be responsible for maintaining them
as well? I am a tenant, and I think I should be able to deduct
the cost of replacing the batteries every year. (December 2002.)

Since 1987, state law has required landlords to provide operable
smoke detectors at the beginning of all tenancies in multiple-unit
buildings. Replacing batteries of smoke detectors in your unit is
not the landlord's obligation, unless that's written into your rental
agreement. You, as a tenant, must assume some responsibility
for basic maintenance of your rental unit, which means keeping
it clean and replacing, at your own expense, minor items with a
naturally short life that wear out during your tenancy, such as
light bulbs and batteries. On the other hand, if your smoke
detector doesn't work even with a new battery, then notify your
landlord, who must then repair or replace the smoke detector.
Also, property owners are responsible for replacing the batteries
of smoke detectors located in common stairwells.

On Jan 23, 1:35 pm, Andrade wrote:



In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector
batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

In nearby Chicago, it seems there are several fires each year in
rental units where there are no working smoke detectors because the
batteries have been removed, presumably 9V batteries that someone has
taken to us in a radio or something else. I have never heard on any
of the news reports if the owners were cited as a result of the
missing batteries.

Or possibly because the owner was cooking and got tired of listening to
the beepage. Been guilty of that one myself, although I did just go
through and make sure all batteries were replaced last weekend. Will be
going to hardwired soon (might as well, all smoke detectors are pretty
ancient and probably ought to be replaced anyway,) hope I don't regret it.

Can someone recommend a particular hardwired smoke head that doesn't
false alarm when you're boiling water? (no, none of my smoke detectors
are all that close to the kitchen.) Was probably going to go with Gentex
based on their popularity for use in hotel rooms and condos, but am open
to other suggestions. (local inspector will require tandem connection
and 9V backup)

nate

Hi,
I relpaced all of them last year'cause they were getting old.
Firex has something called hush feature, if it goes off false,
push the button to mute w/o losing basic functionality.

Tony Hwang wrote:

Firex has something called hush feature, if it goes off false,
push the button to mute w/o losing basic functionality.

Some Kiddie alarms also have hush - probably just the photoelectric
ones. It temporarily desensitizes the alarm - it will still go off at
higher smoke concentrations.

On Jan 23, 9:29*pm, "hr(bob) "
wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:00*pm, Michael B wrote:



Since the question was regarding California, here's an answer
from a *California Q&A forum.

Q: Because landlords are required to install working smoke
detectors, shouldn't they be responsible for maintaining them
as well? I am a tenant, and I think I should be able to deduct
the cost of replacing the batteries every year. *(December 2002.)

Since 1987, state law has required landlords to provide operable
smoke detectors at the beginning of all tenancies in multiple-unit
buildings. Replacing batteries of smoke detectors in your unit is
not the landlord's obligation, unless that's written into your rental
agreement. You, as a tenant, must assume some responsibility
for basic maintenance of your rental unit, which means keeping
it clean and replacing, at your own expense, minor items with a
naturally short life that wear out during your tenancy, such as
light bulbs and batteries. On the other hand, if your smoke
detector doesn't work even with a new battery, then notify your
landlord, who must then repair or replace the smoke detector.
Also, property owners are responsible for replacing the batteries
of smoke detectors located in common stairwells.

On Jan 23, 1:35*pm, Andrade wrote:

In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In nearby Chicago, it seems there are several fires each year in
rental units where there are no working smoke detectors because the
batteries have been removed, presumably 9V batteries that someone has
taken to us in a radio or something else. *I have never heard on any
of the news reports if the owners were cited as a result of the
missing batteries.

"presumably 9V batteries that someone has taken to us in a radio
or something else"

I'd say the odds are more that the batteries were removed because:

1 - The alarms kept going off while cooking or some other activities
that created smoke.

2 - They beeped to warn of a weak battery, which was removed to stop
the beeping and never replaced.

How many devices use 9V batteries these days? I think the only use in
my house is battery back-up for one clock radio.

I think you're right. The only uses I've got for 9v cells.
Smoke detector, some alarms at the backs of stores, and a
hearing amplifier I use at church.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...

I'd say the odds are more that the batteries were removed
because:

1 - The alarms kept going off while cooking or some other
activities
that created smoke.

2 - They beeped to warn of a weak battery, which was removed
to stop
the beeping and never replaced.

How many devices use 9V batteries these days? I think the
only use in
my house is battery back-up for one clock radio.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think you're right. The only uses I've got for 9v cells.
Smoke detector, some alarms at the backs of stores, and a
hearing amplifier I use at church.


Battery backup for your alarm clock, although the latest one I bought
uses the same big button cell that I use in my bicycle computers.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:23:26 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I think you're right. The only uses I've got for 9v cells.
Smoke detector, some alarms at the backs of stores, and a
hearing amplifier I use at church.

Aside from our smoke detectors, the only item we have that uses
9-volt is an old clock radio.

--
"Sometimes I think the Time Lord live too long."
-- The Doctor in 'The End of Time' Part two

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:29:04 -0800 (PST), "hr(bob) "
wrote:

In nearby Chicago, it seems there are several fires each year in
rental units where there are no working smoke detectors because the
batteries have been removed, presumably 9V batteries that someone has
taken to us in a radio or something else. I have never heard on any
of the news reports if the owners were cited as a result of the
missing batteries.

Gosh forbid these were crack heads. In one house the bath fart fans
were immobilized. Even found a syringe in the toilet bowl rim (past
the flapper, yes).

1) There was a sex swing hook on the ceiling. They took out the light
and used that framing for sexual escapades.

2) Sheet rock walls were full (100?) of fired BB/pellet rounds.

3) Dryer vent had a 100% cotton sock on the end of the dryer vent
hose/pipe/tube (inside the closet).

I'm sure I can figure a few more

On Jan 23, 8:29*pm, "hr(bob) "
wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:00*pm, Michael B wrote:





Since the question was regarding California, here's an answer
from a *California Q&A forum.

Q: Because landlords are required to install working smoke
detectors, shouldn't they be responsible for maintaining them
as well? I am a tenant, and I think I should be able to deduct
the cost of replacing the batteries every year. *(December 2002.)

Since 1987, state law has required landlords to provide operable
smoke detectors at the beginning of all tenancies in multiple-unit
buildings. Replacing batteries of smoke detectors in your unit is
not the landlord's obligation, unless that's written into your rental
agreement. You, as a tenant, must assume some responsibility
for basic maintenance of your rental unit, which means keeping
it clean and replacing, at your own expense, minor items with a
naturally short life that wear out during your tenancy, such as
light bulbs and batteries. On the other hand, if your smoke
detector doesn't work even with a new battery, then notify your
landlord, who must then repair or replace the smoke detector.
Also, property owners are responsible for replacing the batteries
of smoke detectors located in common stairwells.

On Jan 23, 1:35*pm, Andrade wrote:

In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In nearby Chicago, it seems there are several fires each year in
rental units where there are no working smoke detectors because the
batteries have been removed, presumably 9V batteries that someone has
taken to us in a radio or something else. *I have never heard on any
of the news reports if the owners were cited as a result of the
missing batteries.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You cant be sited its not the owners responsibility because of tenant
lifestyle, if you put in a new battery 5 minutes later it could be
going off because of cooking at to high a heat. Tenants just remove
the batteries and admit it

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:00:23 -0800 (PST), Michael B wrote:

Since the question was regarding California, here's an answer
from a California Q&A forum.

Thanks Michael. It's a single-family home. I think this PDF sums it up:
http://www.mcar.com/gapdf/SmokeDetectorRequirements.pdf

- Landlords must supply working detectors in all "common sleeping areas"
- After 1992 renovations, Landlords must include detectors in each bedroom
- Tenant must notify landlord if it's broken; but landlord fixes them
- Tenant is responsible for batteries (Landlord provides 1st battery)

Now I'm looking for the second half of the question ... the fire
extinguishers.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Jan 24, 12:34*am, Melissa Andrade wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:00:23 -0800 (PST), Michael B wrote:
Since the question was regarding California, here's an answer
from a *California Q&A forum.

Thanks Michael. It's a single-family home. I think this PDF sums it up:http://www.mcar.com/gapdf/SmokeDetectorRequirements.pdf

- Landlords must supply working detectors in all "common sleeping areas"
- After 1992 renovations, Landlords must include detectors in each bedroom
- Tenant must notify landlord if it's broken; but landlord fixes them
- Tenant is responsible for batteries (Landlord provides 1st battery)

Now I'm looking for the second half of the question ... the fire
extinguishers.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Google it you lazy ass, Google aint broke, how do you think people
here get answers.

You still haven't said whether you are asking as a landlord, tenant, or
neither one.

I don't know the law in California. In my state (New Jersey) the
landlord/owner must meet certain state and municipal requirements regarding
smoke detectors and fire extinguishers for rental units depending on the
type of rental unit -- multiple dwelling, less than 3 units, etc. Where
fire extinguishers are required, they have to be inspected and "tagged"
annually.

Smart landlords include in the lease that the tenants shall replace
batteries at their own expense and, if the landlord has to do the battery
replacement, there is a $20 to $25 charge per battery replaced by the
landlord as "additional rent" when assessed.

"Andrade" wrote in message
...
In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

As an inspector, I suggest to owners of rental properties that
they assume responsibility for changing the furnace filter, and
that at the same time they verify smoke detector function.

Certainly, very few have taken that, but the ones that have
gotten back to me on it have been expressing appreciation
for the suggestion.

If the prospective tenants are not willing to have the owner
replacing the filter every other month, the owner doesn't
need them anyway. Because the owner would be able to
see what is being done with the property, instead of being
surprised after a tenant has moved out. It puts them in the
unit 6 times a year, and they give notice of their planned
entry time per landlord-tenant act, which is similar but
different for every state and municipality.

Regarding responsibility for fire extinguishers, I suggest
checking with the local non-emergency fire dept. number.

If we have to notify the owner of a smoke detector not in
good function, even if it's just got a dead or missing battery,
it has to be replaced with a 10-year unit, non-tamperable.

So it continues to be to the owner's advantage to see that
the detector is in place and functional.

And even though 70% of fires start in the kitchen, I suggest
against a detector in the kitchen without the "hush" function.

Because the current generation of smoke detectors are not
really smoke detectors, even though we still call them that.
They are ionization detectors, and will sound off when the
toaster is used, with no smoke at all. They tend to do false
alarms when they are right outside a bathroom door, too.

BTW, when mounting them, remember that the instructions
say that if you put one on a wall, it needs to be within the
first 12" from the ceiling, but not within the first 4". Smoke
tends to travel in kind of a mushroom shaped pattern, and
a detector in the upper corner could be bypassed by the
smoke pattern. I suggest mounting to the ceiling, so that a
person can use a stick or broom handle to push the hush
button.

On Jan 23, 1:35*pm, Andrade wrote:
In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Michael B wrote:
As an inspector, I suggest to owners of rental properties that
they assume responsibility for changing the furnace filter, and
that at the same time they verify smoke detector function.

Certainly, very few have taken that, but the ones that have
gotten back to me on it have been expressing appreciation
for the suggestion.

If the prospective tenants are not willing to have the owner
replacing the filter every other month, the owner doesn't
need them anyway. Because the owner would be able to
see what is being done with the property, instead of being
surprised after a tenant has moved out. It puts them in the
unit 6 times a year, and they give notice of their planned
entry time per landlord-tenant act, which is similar but
different for every state and municipality.

Regarding responsibility for fire extinguishers, I suggest
checking with the local non-emergency fire dept. number.

If we have to notify the owner of a smoke detector not in
good function, even if it's just got a dead or missing battery,
it has to be replaced with a 10-year unit, non-tamperable.

So it continues to be to the owner's advantage to see that
the detector is in place and functional.

And even though 70% of fires start in the kitchen, I suggest
against a detector in the kitchen without the "hush" function.

Because the current generation of smoke detectors are not
really smoke detectors, even though we still call them that.
They are ionization detectors, and will sound off when the
toaster is used, with no smoke at all. They tend to do false
alarms when they are right outside a bathroom door, too.

BTW, when mounting them, remember that the instructions
say that if you put one on a wall, it needs to be within the
first 12" from the ceiling, but not within the first 4". Smoke
tends to travel in kind of a mushroom shaped pattern, and
a detector in the upper corner could be bypassed by the
smoke pattern. I suggest mounting to the ceiling, so that a
person can use a stick or broom handle to push the hush
button.


Good post, but I disagree with your statement that all smoke detectors
are ionization type. There's quite a few photoelectric detectors as
well, which operate by detecting obscuration (that is, particulates) in
the air. I'm not very familiar with what's more popular in residential
use, but the vast majority of new commercial installations are using
photoelectric detectors.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

No argument with your observation, because there are
indeed detctors being made that are specific for obscuration.
But the currently available residential units will respond to
conditions that had not produced airborne particulates. As
I recall, they use Americium 125 and are looking for ionization
products, such as one I had recently that had sounded off
after the cat had caused the hot water heater vent pipe to be
displaced. No particulates, no obscuration, but ionization.

On Jan 24, 10:04*am, Nate Nagel wrote:
Michael B wrote:
As an inspector, I suggest to owners of rental properties that
they assume responsibility for changing the furnace filter, and
that at the same time they verify smoke detector function.

Certainly, very few have taken that, but the ones that have
gotten back to me on it have been expressing appreciation
for the suggestion.

If the prospective tenants are not willing to have the owner
replacing the filter every other month, the owner doesn't
need them anyway. Because the owner would be able to
see what is being done with the property, instead of being
surprised after a tenant has moved out. It puts them in the
unit 6 times a year, and they give notice of their planned
entry time per landlord-tenant act, which is similar but
different for every state and municipality.

Regarding responsibility for fire extinguishers, I suggest
checking with the local non-emergency fire dept. number.

If we have to notify the owner of a smoke detector not in
good function, even if it's just got a dead or missing battery,
it has to be replaced with a 10-year unit, non-tamperable.

So it continues to be to the owner's advantage to see that
the detector is in place and functional.

And even though 70% of fires start in the kitchen, I suggest
against a detector in the kitchen without the "hush" function.

Because the current generation of smoke detectors are not
really smoke detectors, even though we still call them that.
They are ionization detectors, and will sound off when the
toaster is used, with no smoke at all. They tend to do false
alarms when they are right outside a bathroom door, too.

BTW, when mounting them, remember that the instructions
say that if you put one on a wall, it needs to be within the
first 12" from the ceiling, but not within the first 4". Smoke
tends to travel in kind of a mushroom shaped pattern, and
a detector in the upper corner could be bypassed by the
smoke pattern. I suggest mounting to the ceiling, so that a
person can use a stick or broom handle to push the hush
button.

Good post, but I disagree with your statement that all smoke detectors
are ionization type. *There's quite a few photoelectric detectors as
well, which operate by detecting obscuration (that is, particulates) in
the air. *I'm not very familiar with what's more popular in residential
use, but the vast majority of new commercial installations are using
photoelectric detectors.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Michael B wrote:
No argument with your observation, because there are
indeed detctors being made that are specific for obscuration.
But the currently available residential units will respond to
conditions that had not produced airborne particulates. As
I recall, they use Americium 125 and are looking for ionization
products, such as one I had recently that had sounded off
after the cat had caused the hot water heater vent pipe to be
displaced. No particulates, no obscuration, but ionization.


The "currently available residential units" may be either ionization or
photoelectric. Some are both. Both are, for example, quite available
from the BORG here. Photoelectrics do not have radioactive sources.
(Photoelectric are probably better near a kitchen.)

I agree with Nate.

--
bud--

Andrade wrote:
In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector
batteries and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Are you asking, in your situation, before or after the fire?

If after the fire, obviously the responsibility lay with the other party.
Therefore the other party is liable for all the damage to you, your family,
your possessions, peace of mind, pain, suffering, loss of consortium, your
beloved pet, and ongoing psychological stress.

If before the fire, providing smoke detection is in your best interest and
you are most responsible for your own well-being.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:35 -0800, Andrade
wrote:

In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batteries
and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?


Not sure about CA laws, but most landlords supply smoke detector
batteries. Sure it helps save lives, but the landlord really wants to
protect his buildings. If it were me, I'd prefer to take
responsibility and change my own battery and retain privacy. Who
would get the blame for a smoke-inhalation death--that depends on the
judge.

Phisherman wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:35 -0800, Andrade
wrote:

In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector
batteries and working fire extinguishers in a rental property?


Not sure about CA laws, but most landlords supply smoke detector
batteries. Sure it helps save lives, but the landlord really wants to
protect his buildings.


Exactamundo!

THIS MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE!

In every case where a hijacked plane is on the ground and the goblins are
thought to be armed with explosives, the plane has always been allowed to
take off for wherever.

In every case where a hijacked plane is on the ground and the goblins are
thought to armed only with firearms, the plane has never been allowed to
leave. In many of these cases, the FBI has rushed the plane and sprayed
everybody with machine gun fire.

The difference: A shoot out kills people but does only minimal damage to the
airplane. Whereas a bomb.... well, there goes $25 million!

So how can this bit of knowledge save your life?

If you're on a hijacked plane, call one of the squints over and say: "Look,
I know you're the expert on this sort of thing, but could you at least TELL
the authorities you have a bomb? We'd be ever so grateful."

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:45:38 -0800, Keith wrote:

http://www.mcar.com/gapdf/SmokeDetectorRequirements.pdf

Ah, very interesting Keith.

In summary, it looks like (from that California Assoc. of Realtors' doc),
for single family homes, renovated after 1992:
- Landlords must supply working detectors in all "common sleeping areas"
- After 1992 renovations, Landlords must include detectors in each bedroom
- Tenant must notify landlord if it's broken; but landlord fixes them
- Tenant is responsible for batteries (Landlord provides 1st battery)

I wonder if fire extinguishers are similar?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---