Posted By alex mccreadie Bruce I would suggest the point you are missing is that LOLER regulates work equipment and I feel a multigym would not be covered. I stand to be corrected especially by 3 CMIOSH,S but that is my Interpretation. Interesting I agree. Ta Alex

Posted By Pete48 Alex, unless you are a fitness instructor at work?? Bruce, you have started something in my head at least. You will no doubt have noted from a number of HSE/LAU sources that "LOLER should not be applied to equipment provided as part of a work activity but primarily for use by, and under the control of, members of the public, eg a lift in a shopping mall (see L113 para 40) or as part of a leisure activity." Is that is the baseline of this exercise? Of course this dilemma must result from all that time you have to think about things whilst using this non LOLER'ed kit, exercising the body doesn't need to exercise the brain simultaneously you know:) Since the important control is that equipment must be appropriately and regularly maintained, inspected, examined throughout its working life then either set of Regulations provides the requirement adequately. All the guidance refers to proportionality in the application of LOLER and therefore the requirements for this type of kit are unlikely to be much different whichever route one takes. This is my only, admittedly weak, thought at the moment. I can, however, clearly see a difference in risk between your two examples when linked to the workplace environment and conditions of use for example. Oh dear I must be getting quite sad if I can actually think about such matters. Still better than watching the box though.

Posted By CFT Bruce Gym lifting equipment does not come under LOLER for the following reason/s: 'Equipment which is provided for use in a non-work situation does not become work equipment merely because work is sometimes carried out on it,' 'LOLER should not be applied to equipment provided as part of a work activity but primarily for use by, and under the control of, members of the public, or as part of a leisure activity.' I do agree that this might cause a right royal discussion, [which clearly in this case it has] as with most of our regulations they remain descriptive and open to much abuse when attempting interpretation of; e.g.:"accessory for lifting" means work equipment for attaching loads to machinery for lifting; Is one therefore not attaching a load? yes, is it work equipment? It could be defined as such with some interpretation! Is it machinery? Yes. Does one lift with it? Of course. Really quite simple Bruce! Now then (with doubting Thomas head on) was that a yes or a no? CFT

Posted By Paul Duell For the reasons already stated (not work equipment etc), I'd say that technically this isn't LOLER. However - in any environment where I was providing the kit for public use (gym, office fitness centre, work social club etc), I'd have some sort of inspection regime by a competent person. For these purposes I'd define competent as "Understands the inspection regime recommended by the manufacturer".

Posted By Tabs If the gym is indeed providing equipment for work (which I doubt, unless the gym staff are using it too) then PUWER obviously applies ... LOLER shows how you can achieve your responsibilities in PUWER. PUWER says it has to be safe - absolute duty, no reasonable-nous here. LOLER shows how lifting equipment (things being lifted - sounds like your gym equipment to me) can be shown to be safe on an on-going basis. Conclusion - LOLER does not apply, but could be used as a basis for showing a very good attempt to satisfy PUWER (if it applies). Of course, it is all completely ruined by the provision of a manufacturer's / supplier's maintenance regime. This supersedes all other in this case I would suggest.

Posted By TomP And from L113: 'In most cases LOLER will not apply to work equipment which does not have as its principal function a use for lifting or lowering of the type associated with 'traditional' lifting equipment such as cranes, fork-lift trucks or accessories such as chains or eyebolts' I agree - not LOLER (yet another CMIOSH)!!! Still needs checking though and probably a thorough examination and testing every twelve months or less.

Posted By Andrew M IMO, If it's in a place of work, it's work equipment - therefore it needs to have an appropriate level of inspection/maintenance. As for disqualifying it because it is not lifting equipment, but a height adjustment device - the HSE no longer share your views. I would say that gym equipment is just as dangerous as other lifting equipment - mainly because their is a human being in direct contact with load.