I recently had a new wood burner installed in the lounge of my house. A representative of our local council visited to inspect the unit and make sure it had been installed properly. No worries with the wood burner, but he insisted on checking if there was a fire alarm within three metres of each bedroom. Unfortunately, there wasn’t an alarm near one of the bedrooms and I was not initially permitted a code of compliance certificate for the wood burner. I now have the alarm and the certificate, but it seems odd to me that in order to get them I have had to install fire alarms. If anything, it seems a vote of no confidence in their own inspections.
I hear where you’re coming from. Clearly your local council, and probably many others as well, are using the consent process to enforce households to install fire alarms. I don’t have any problems with this. It’s not as though installing basic fire alarms is a significant added expense. I recently got an alarm for free by simply dropping into our local fire station and asking if they had any. The only inconvenience to you was a short delay in getting your code of compliance certificate. Who knows, you may be very grateful one day for what you possibly consider to be nitpicking. I don’t think it’s a vote of no confidence in their inspections system. I think it’s just an acknowledgement that, because you now have a new source of fire in your house, the chances of an accident occurring have increased. So yes, some citizens might consider the compulsion to have fire alarms near every bedroom if you have a wood burner a breach of their personal freedoms, but I’m not one of them.
Do you have a consumer question for Kevin? Email [email protected], or post to Weekly Consumer, PO Box 90119, Victoria St West, Auckland 1142.
Related stories
Native ad body.
Native ad body.
Native ad body.
