Posted By Tabs If they are used as work equipment (as these are) there is an absolute duty(no "reasonable" to be applied) for them to be safe. Look at Reg 6 here : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982306.htm#6 and Reg 4(2) of the Elec Regs: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/s..._19890635_en_3.htm#mdiv4 PAT is used as one method of ensuring this.

Posted By Manny Tabs, you state that "PAT is used as one method of ensuring this" what other methods could be used? Manny

Posted By Manny Yes Dave, the items are owned by the occupants but are used by the home help. Manny

Posted By Dave Wilson HASA Sect 51 Exclusion of application to domestic employment Nothing in this Part shall apply in relation to a person by reason only that he employs another, or is himself employed, as a domestic servant in a private household.

Posted By Martyn Hendrie Perhaps I am missing the point here but, Manny's friend manages a group of domestic helpers who clean in domestic properties. Surely the employment issue here is not "domestic servants in a private home" but, is the person managing them acting by way of "trade or business" In the first case HASAWA would not apply; in the second it would

Posted By Alan Haynes Who is the employer? - not I think the person who's house is being cleaned. Rather, it is your friend's company, as they are paid by someone [homeowner or Social services perhaps] to provide the service to the homeowner. I'd suggest that his company should perhaps carry out the necessary tests

Posted By Tabs Hi Manny, PAT is one way... another way would be to return the product to the manufacturer for periodic servicing and inspection (completely unlikely, but it is another way). I am sure we could come up with others - the point is that PAT itself is not obligatory, it is one method broadly adopted. The question about domestic servant never occurred to me, because 'home help' would not come under that proviso as far as I can see. I believe it to apply to the situation of a person engaged to live in as a permanent member of the 'household'. I could be wrong though. If domestic servant does apply, then no obligation. If not ... I have to presume that the person managing these people does so for money. I have to assume that they are empployees. I don't recall anything in PUWER exempting equipment borrowed from others. Therefore... There is a legal requirement for the equipment to be safe. There is no specific legal requirement for an electrical test to be undertaken, the law is not that prescriptive. No-one *HAS* to undertake PAT - we do it because it is the most accepted way of trying to ensure that the equipment is safe, which we all *HAVE* to ensure. It is a grey area that has caught a few H&S people out in the past, I am sure. None of us like to answer "no, there's no legal obligation, but.." because the employer seldom listens to the rest of the sentence.

Posted By Alan Haynes I don't think you can put the onus on the householders - its you friend's company that has the responsibility. Unless the contract with the householder says they must supply certain equipment, the company must 'ensure'. What happens if a householder [like, for instance, my mother-in-law who is 94 and housebound] doesn't have a hoover - does it mean the home helps don't clean, or is there a pool of equipment that can be taken to the homes? My cleaner [no I'm not that old that I need a Home Help - just too busy to clean properly] brings her own electrical equipment - won't use ours under any circumstances as her insurance won't cover her if she does - what does your friend's company's insurance cover?.

Posted By Dave Wilson Bruce Ex EHO mate

Posted By Manny Thanks Jan

Posted By David Bannister Just to confuse matters... As a director of a Ltd company, I employ a cleaning company to carry out cleaning duties in my office, located in my house. The cleaner (usually the same one each time, depending on Polish holidays) uses my domestic vacuum cleaner that belongs to my household, not the business. As I see it, I have a clear common law duty to the cleaner not to provide dangerous equipment. I have statutory duties under HASAWA not to cause harm to others. In this case I perform my own visual examinations from time to time, and the vac is only a couple of months old. The circuits are protected by MCBs but not RCDs as far as I know. I am not aware of the cleaning company doing anything to discharge its duty in this regard. Perhaps I may offer my H&S services to them!