Posted By Karen Wilson Thinking this one through.... I think I would expect an improvement notice unless it was quite obvious that the condition of the equipment was such that a life threatening situation had been created (e.g. where a visual inspection identified a serious flaw in the working of the equipment, or in dire need of maintenance in general) in which case I would expect a prohibition notice. I think the age of the equipment would be taken into consideration also, along with the timesince the last inspection - I am assuming that in addition to LOLER, the equipment would have needed to be checked at least once on an annual basis to satisfy insurance company criteria? If there were an accident, and an investigation found the ramp to be faulty, with no documentation to confirm the safety of the equipment within the required time period, then the company would be in breach of LOLER and HASAW - and I am of the opinion that prosecution would follow. Any examination and test of equipment - is however rather like an MOT and is only true of the condition of the equipment at the time of test and inspection. [Would suggest that weekly visual inspections are essential to identify potential fault development] Regards Karen

Posted By J Sursham Taking a risk based approach, I think I'd expect a prohibition notice, the reason for this being that the consequences of a catestrophic failure could potentially be life threatening should someone actually be working beneath a vehicle raised on the ramp. JEDS

Posted By Robert K Lewis The HSE recently prosecuted a garage over a similar issue. It followed a near major/fatality when a vehicle lift in a garage suddenly descended. Fortunately the fitter was not fully beneath the vehicle and was pushed aside by the body of the descending vehicle. The garage had inadvertently not noticed that the testing had not been done. They had a contract with an inspection engineer but they had been busy and not attended for up to 3 years. The engineer was not charged as there is no criminal legal duty to do the examinations they are contracted to do. Employer was fined and received a Prohibition Notice on the use of the hoists. Bob

Posted By steven bentham Pete48 A Prohibition Notice is to stop immediate risk and it isfor the inspector to decide, lack of examination &/or records may or may not equate to any immediate risk. An Improvement Notice is more likely to be of use in your question, to review procedures and maintenance with a timescale in a schedule. Or if the Inspector thinks he/she can obtain the standard required by a letter, then this may be used with a follow-up. The Inspector will look at other practical compliance aspects in the workshop and look at the level of training & management control etc. Are there other management faults identified? Has advice been issued by safety adviser or any inspections by safety reps identified this as a problem? A key question for me, is the item in question just out of its inspection/maintenance period or has it never been looked at? Not all breaches of legislation or activity of immediate danger receive notices.

Posted By Pete48 Thanks to you all for taking the time to help me out on this one. Your comments have been most useful as a benchmark. By way of a conclusion response from me. I am now convinced with the supplementary info that I have, a PN would be expected. However, since the kit has now been thoroughly examined and historical records located, it won't be needed. Phew! As Bob said, it is easy for people to overlook this key duty; many small businesses rely upon their insurers and it somehow becomes a passive management issue for them until.... Once again, many thanks for your help.

Posted By Bob Baynes The HSE notices page at http://www.hse.gov.uk/no...O==&SF=SIC&SV=50200+++++ has examples of both improvement and prohibition notices issued for similar circumstances. With no records at all available, I would expect a prohibition notice. Regards, Bob

Posted By Paul Harrison Hi all Myself and my two EHO colleagues agree that it would be an IN unless there was an obvious defect. The HSE website states:- Selection of Appropriate Notice:- "Where there is a risk of serious personal injury a prohibition notice is more appropriate than an improvement notice. For example a prohibition notice might be appropriate to cover a defective scaffold or an unguarded power press but improvements in a maintenance system should be dealt with by an improvement notice. In some cases both may be issued to deal with the same set of circumstances." I think that a scheme of examination is comparable to a maintenance system. Also just because its a absolute liability offence doesn't mean that it should be a PN. The issue is the presence or absence of the risk to serious personal injury. This cannot be established without an engineers report. Could be talking total tosh, but hey-ho it's friday - nearly time for cider!! Paul

Posted By David A Cooper I have a copy of a prohibition notice issued on a major supermarket for not having LOLER certificates on their lifts.

Posted By Tony Priest Insurance companies that insure vehicle workshops that use lifting equipment insists that only their representatives that are specialist and competent in their field carry out the inspections of the lifting equipment and on the pressure systems, this is a condition of the insurance policy. It is recognised that vehicle hoists (although they do not normally lift persons, except during MOT testing) are thoroughly examined every 6 months because people work beneath them. I have noticed that all of the insurance engineers use the same paperwork and once the equipment is examined a report is generated electronically and sent to the client. These reports have A, B, C categories for defects/faults, if a vehicle hoist has an A category fault then the electronic report is also automatically sent to the relevant enforcing authority. Therefore if the enforcing authority was to inspect the hoist and it was still in service, then based on the information from the insurance engineer report a PH could be served due to the A class defect/fault. On some occasions the insurance inspector cannot inspect a hoist at the scheduled interval, mainly this is due to a vehicle on the hoist that cannot be removed and therefore the hoist cannot be inspected i.e suspension components removed, gearbox and clutch removed, axle stands propping up chassis, etc. In effect some hoists can miss a vital inspection. Note: an A class defect could be a safety mechanism not working on a two poster hoist, a safety rubber missing, roll off devices remove on four poster ramps, frayed cables etc.. IMHO I would estimate that about 2-8% of vehicle hoists in operation today have A class defects on them. When workshop Managers receive their insurance reports and there is an A class defect, again IMHO they will not, despite the report telling them to do so, take the equipment out of service. Pete48 You mentioned that you are aware of the technical aspects to this question; I thought that my post would benefit other readers (peers) with respect to vehicle ramps. My post is based on what actually happens in vehicle workshops and not on likely outcomes as I think that these have been covered. Hope this helps. Karen Totally agree with (documented) weekly visual inspections carried out for lifting equipment.

Posted By Pete48 Thanks again for the continuing posts. Life is never that simple eh? "Means and ends" is a valid argument given that I cannot give you chapter and verse on this forum. However, I can now see a base line for the decision making process which has helped me tremendously. And they say you have the opportunity to learn something everyday. Well, I learnt today, from Tony P, that cat A defects are copied to the enforcers.