A baby has had its very short life ended and the young parents have suffered a loss that all parents fear, that of the loss of a child.
A faulty boiler explodes and a child dies, not the first even of this kind but surely it should be the last?
The first night in a new house, supplied by the council and this tragedy occurs, but who is responsible for what happened? Had the parents been aware of the dangers of this type of boiler blowing up and raining scalding hot water on their chid it is safe to say that they would not have placed the child in that room in that place, perhaps even refused to move in to the house until it was replaced.
This was a council property, was this their responsibility, especially in the light of the same thing happening four years ago? Surely when a tenant moves out and they take the proerty back then they should check all equipment and replace what needs replacing? They do in my district, well most of the time anyway.
They had knowledge of this happening before, should they have replaced all the boilers of this kind that were in their proerties in order to prevent such a thing happening again instead of keeping quiet about what had happened?
Are the boiler manufacturers at fault for having faulty thermostats? But that would only apply had they been made in this country where they have to pass rigourus tests to obtain the seal of approval.
Personally I believe that the Council should carry the blame for this one for two reasons, one not advising or making it publicly known that these particular types of boliers have a danger of blowing up and two, for not replacing them in the properties that they own and rent out to young couples with young children.
As the courts have so rightly declared, this was an accident waiting to happen that could have been avoided.

sexygeordiegirl
Obviosuly this was not the parents fault at all. How would they know? I wouldnt know thats for sure. I agree that the council are at fault... As would a private landlord if they let someone move into their property without having everything checked and to be in full working order... So why should it be any different for the council who are supplying the house?
Although on this note... I must add that I do not agree with the council giving young families or anyone for that matter houses or anything for nothing. I dont agree with the amount of benifits that are given out... I think that if people honestly need these benifits and they have tried other means first (as in searched properly for ANY job) then yes the council should help to stop people living on the streets etc, but they shouldnt give it for free... They should have to work for it... Even if its just the type of work that is usually volinteer - working in charity shops, cleaning parks and streets... Other things like that.
I dont agree with the amount of people who are taking our hard earned tax just because they are too lazy to work.