Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We found 3 homes that had been converted to duplexes without use of building permits. Issued a total of 8 Part 1 tickets ranging from Fail to install CO alarm where required, Fail to provide tenants with maintenance instructions for CO alarms, Fail to give tenants maintenance instructions for smoke alarms, to Fail to replace smoke alarm within time frame in manufactures instructions. An immediate threat to life order and an electrical inspection order were also issued in relation to these inspections. As you can imagine the property owner was not very please and has indicated he intends to appeal and enter a plea of not guilty.
I’ve issued tickets at other properties from the new list of ticketable offences including maintenance of closures, and other smoke and CO alarm violations, and have had success gaining compliance.
Common theme I’m finding from speaking to property owners is they seem to think these ticketable offences are new fire code requirements.
We are considering hosting an open house type of meeting for landlords to educate and emphasize their responsibilities as they relate to the FPPA & OFC.We are using the blue one in Midland as well. On this subject and it has yet happened but I suspect it is about to: How is the issuing officer notified if someone were to choose option # 3 and request a trial ?
Gary,
We currently carry a few loaners on the trucks however we have been looking to develop a formal policy for quite a while now and some of the questions we’ve pondered which you may have considered as well are:
Is the crew who is installing the loaner remembering to leave the maintenance instructions with the occupant?
If your policy includes wording for the return of a smoke alarm should that alarm be a new unopened unit as opposed to the loaner? (Do we really want to re-install an alarm that has been previously installed? And what are the chances we will retrieve the instructions?)
If you are installing a loaner (I’m assuming these would be battery operated) in the location of a missing or inoperative hardwired unit have we left them in a situation where we’ve reduced the level of protection?
I think our department management wants to lean in the same direction as Oakville and get away from the loaner program and shift the responsibility back to the property owner where it belongs.