Ongoing annual maintenance

I think the disconnect here is the perception that PMs do these things to somehow improve business revenue - it's just simply not true and like any conspiracy, there's really no way to prove otherwise until each and every landlord has run their own PM business. Even that example above where there is a kickback, it's about a dollar for 1000 properties! That is nothing worth getting excited about to any business.

The reality is that it costs time (and therefore a direct translation to $) to organise and execute maintenance which means it's not a PM's preference to organise maintenance anymore than the landlord likes paying for it. Of course, it's no problem as that is part of the fee but properties with high maintenance that the landlord refuses to attend to are often culled from rent rolls as they become far too difficult to manage. It definitely runs both ways.

Back to smoke alarms, it's not a requirement that a company is used but in event you're required to prove they were compliant, it's going to be very hard to do so without some sort of documentation. It's really up to the landlord - we had some who preferred not to use a company and that was totally fine, it didn't make any difference to us. We made the landlord aware of their legal responsibilities and offered to help them assist with meeting them but if they didn't want to then that was their call.

 

These low effort annual services are always likely candidates for self interest - the above example is 12% rewards vs fees btw.

Where the PM does an inspection and advises things that need fixing before they become an issue (costlier or riskier problem) then that is a value add.

Can you share where the legislation requires this.

 

You may have misinterpreted as I didn’t say that you are required to prove they’re compliant. I said that in the event you are required to prove they’re compliant e.g. in a court of law after your tenants die in a house fire, it will be hard to prove you have met your legislative requirements and that your smoke alarms were compliant without some sort of documentation.

 

What about if i need to prove I am compliant if I have a vehicle accident on the way too an IP

The dissconect is what some PMs think thier client needs, with smoke alarms, your pushing responsibility from PM too third party......why.....you have insurance too.

Sorry mate, PMs are mostly looking out for themselves, my experience over 30 plus years has shown this time and time again, PMs try and lower own costs before LLs is my general experience, of course there are those who try and do right thing by LLs too.

PS you have had people working for you who would tell people anything, and that anything is not too benefit LLs

 

Whose car are you in , your own car , a company car or a hire car .
If you hire a car or are using a company vehicle would you expect them to maintain the car to a certain standard.
Would you accept being involved in a serious accident in a hire car or a company car that was not regularly serviced as per the owners manual and the brakes failed or the airbags failed to deploy due to lack of servicing or by someone that had no experience in vehicle maintenance.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

This is completely misguided and quite a dangerous perception for any young investor getting into this game with respect to legal responsibilities. It is never the PM's responsibility to maintain smoke alarms - it's the responsibility of the landlord, period! The PM assists the landlord abide by their legal responsibility (and in all facets of owning an IP) by organising for them and on their behalf.

If there was a fire and a tenant decided to sue, it would be the owner of the property that would be sued, not the PM. If the owner then had a grievance with the PM over the issue they would have to sue the PM separately. For anyone who's ever sued anyone, they will know it's much more difficult than just filing some court documents. Perhaps some of our resident forum lawyers can comment further on this.

If you're talking about replacing a battery, sure a PM could do that, but they also have liability issues to be concerned with too, e.g. a young PM falls off a step ladder and breaks their leg while changing a battery.

Yes, you have insurance but do you think an insurance company wouldn't ask for proof of compliance as part of their claim procedures?

There is no difference between maintaining a smoke alarm and unblocking a toilet or changing a light fitting from a maintenance PoV. A PM is simply not qualified to do it which is why specialist companies and electricians conduct this type of maintenance with their own P/L insurance. The semantics of task complexity are irrelevant and subjective in this regard.

If you want to interpret all of the above as PMs looking out for themselves then there’s not much anyone can probably say to convince otherwise. I can appreciate the frustration and how it looks sometimes as I’m an investor myself and have been for many years. However, there is a reality of having to separate the risk of owning a property to the risk of running a business. Property ownership risk does not fall to the PM and business risk does not fall to the landlord. Some understanding of both goes a long way to resolving debates such as these.

 

Most likely yes, because things go wrong, no matter the intention, also I am not automatically looking for someone too blame.

 

Andrew, your a good writer. But I am not going to read all this.

Anyone can ask for what they want, but if you follow the legislation, then that is all that is required, that is it, no more smoke and mirrors !

And I caught something about a PM and step ladder, you prove my point that PMs mainly look after own interest, if you or staff cannot be trusted on a step ladder, then I guess no one can be trusted and smoke alarms should be banned.

Lets just ack that there are plenty who do what the legislation requires, without some kid who has done a one day course or whatever, it os not overly complicated, PMs are pushing the blame and risk off too others, simple as that & it prob comes from the RE body who pushed it.

I am not saying more, I agreed with Anthony, it is not a good look, you and others can run your business as you like & it is true you wont please everyone, we are likely the minority, I do not know, nor care, I just look for people who do care about my interests, at least on par with themselves, and that is very hard too find. Staff like this are gold. Can save you from thousands and thousands a year.

 

Professional indemnity insurance - covers the acts of the agent. If the agent hasn't requested that the owner maintain a smoke alarm or has done the work themselves negligently then the agent hasn't discharged their duty.

Smoke detectors (ionisation type) have a replacement date - have you checked all of yours? if it fails, can you provide evidence that you had maintained? If someone is injured due to you not following the recommendation of your agent to service equipment can you provide an adequate response to a coroner why you didn't do x, y or z?

If you as an owner, ignore or refuse to undertake works advised by your agent, then you are responsible for your actions/inaction. There are plenty of court cases on negligence and failure to maintain etc (I'd attach the reference but it's not at my fingertips at present - contractor touched something up in a roofspace and got electrocuted after PM advised that work needed to be done - owner was responsible).

It is not simply the case of an agent passing off a responsibility or task to a contractor (do you expect a PM to carry a set of screw drivers around to tighten a loose handle, trim the hedges, replace a missing light globe or glue down some laminate on a benchtop? Probably not but you would expect them to get up on a ladder to change a battery/test a smoke detector/confirm that the location still complies with legislation/has adequate radioactivity etc.

 

SNM....I understand, again not reading it all, I take reasonable measures and follow the rules, but PMs are often like a bunch of scared school girls, and they err way too far toward the tenant.

At the end of the day, many of them protecting own butt due to perception and not paying attention too many important things, the amount of PMs that just put in any tenant and do no inpections or a quick walk through show exactly whose interests they look after.

There is no point arguing any of this, it is difficult finding good PMs, there are loads of sub par with juniors, and I understand why, so no point discussing that either.

The legislation is there.

Re smoke alarms, yes, when I am at any place of mine, I check the dates and have replaced a bunch when the date was not visible.

I have said this before, but some places do not even have these smoke and mirrors salesmen offering suchva service, PMs do it and it is not a problem, seems city PMs are afraid to do simple things now, but taking a cut of the rent will never be difficult nor delayed.

 

PS many of them could be labelled leeches and that would sit fine with me, of course, on the forum there is probably many who excel with services or at least make every effort.

Moral is for LLs, dont just sit there swallowing anything dished up or told too you.

PS PS...I am sure many experienced people here on both sides do understand each other and what we are all saying, so no value in trying to teach how too suck eggs.

 

Oh...and the irony is, I have not been reading a lot as I sit here trying to fix some very large problems which are in fact partly from a PM, one who always tells me about tenants rights, costing me thousands, and I have to pick up the pieces and direct the show when it all falls over......

Luckily I have yearly smoke alarm services hey......rolling my near mis aligned eyes.....PMs drive me nuts. Some are prob worse than bad tenants. Or were former bad tenants

 

Excellently written @Andrew Hancock. Although in a small difference of opinion, I would expect that the tenant would seek to sue the Landlord AND Agency in event of disaster relating to fire and failure of the smoke alarms to properly protect the occupants. I've also been told on a number of occasions by legal authorities that even written and acknowledged advice to those Landlords who refuse to engage external compliance services of their obligations, does not assuredly indemnify an Agent in event of a legal claim.

I'd like to add that my insurer has explicitly stated to me that they will NOT cover the actions of me or my staff in testing, servicing and replacing smoke alarms.They consider that this is a professional service outside of the requirements of Property Management and thus I would need to consider another policy if I wanted further coverage on the matter. It's a similar parallel to a Handyman being asked to replace a tap or a baton light- such simple jobs, but they're not insured for it.

As with most things safety and compliance @dabbler, the only sure test of either of our theories is in the event of a tragedy, which is why this argument can continue ad nauseum.
What it comes down to is that you appreciate an agent who is willing to take the risk with you on saving $99 p.a. per property, but as you've obviously found in your own experiences- most Agents prefer to follow industry best practice on the matter.

 

The world is going mad, it is a blame game with everyone ducking for cover Find another insurer, because I am sure there are places in QLD as in NSW and elsewhere where these smoke alarm snake oil services do not exist & they still go on living, I assume the PMs there must deal with things too, but it has now become a lot more complicated up there....again, because of a few idiots, we all pay the price.

Tom, you seem to be one of the ones who try and do whats right from what you write, but let me tell you, if something goes wrong, it will be you or I that get it in the neck, never the tenant, even if they tampered with things, this is now the way of the world.

I know a PM that was very "pesty" if you like in regard too fire compliance, well, he got it in the neck bad when some idiots caused a fire and deaths resulted, they put it all on him, poor bugger.

So you PMs can try all you like to do what you think is right, but make no mistake, your well and truly the ones holding a big target.

Anyways, we should not turn this into a smake alarm thread, they exists, and not dis similar to Trump threads, however far less LLs or people here participate, not unlike insurance or legislation, not many care it seems. Obviously we all do.

 

Well well well this statement certainly backs up all the PM's on here who have said that smoke alarm maintenance should be carried out by a licensed tradesperson (electrician, smoke alarm technician).

Tom, Andrew H and SNM... all very well written pieces.

 

As have already been said above, PM may be responsible for organising smoke alarm compliance per the appointment to act with them, but the Lessor is always accountable, just like you are accountable for the information you provide to your accountant for them to lodge your tax/bas.. What this means is, you're responsible for making sure it gets done and accountable if it's not, confusing! It also comes back to the PM is an Agent for the Lessor (not a contractor), this is a different relationship than for example between the Lessor/Agent and the Smoke Alarm checker business (who is a contractor).

 

If the agent or owner produces a certificate to show that the smoke alarm was professionally tested (with fake smoke and not just the pressing of the test button) and if the certificate shows the test was successful then there is no way the owner or agent could be held liable if the tenant takes the alarm down, or covers it up with cling wrap or plastic.... because the owner has done all that is reasonably required to maintain the smoke alarms in good working order.

 

Do you think PM's (the majority of which earn less than six figure salaries) should be holding 'big targets' considering all the other tasks they are hired for?

In 20 years of managing properties I have never seen it mentioned in a Management Agency Agreement that agents have to test and maintain smoke alarms, or to do any other type of maintenance on the property, for the owner.

 

It doesn't matter who does it as long as it meets the legislation. If the legislation requires a qualification then that is that. If you don't have the time or the capability then these services are a good option. As the legislation gets more comprehensive, it is understandable that it would not be appropriate for the PM to take smoke detector responsibility (all things considered).

However, all of these low hanging fruit compliance services have great potential for agent incentives so it would be naive to assume that the recommended service is the most suitable one for your needs.

 

That is a good point. An agent will have a preferred smoke alarm company that they use based on convenience and what they think is the best service provision for the landlord, but a good PM will also allow you to use whichever smoke alarm company you like, so don’t be afraid to dictate which one you want to use! If you believe there is a more appropriate provider that meets your service and cost needs then that shouldn’t be a problem.

At the end of the day, it’s just another contractor like an other maintenance. It will also serve to test whether or not they are in fact receiving a kick back right?