Posted By Michael Thomas Just a quick bit of help please. Does new equipment, CE marked, require any type of testing prior to use? Talking about office eqpt in this case. Is it ok just to do a visual inspection and if so, do you need to "sticker" it accordingly. Thanks

Posted By WilliamTell Michael, There is nothing in the Elec at Work Regs which requires new equipment (or any equipment for that matter)to be PAT tested. If the equipment is new then no it does not have to be PAT tested. Regards

Posted By Ian Gardner QUOTE: "There is nothing in the Elec at Work Regs which requires new equipment (or any equipment for that matter)to be PAT tested. If the equipment is new then no it does not have to be PAT tested." You're quite right, new equipment does not have to be inspected & tested. However, it is a very good idea to do it before new equipment is put into service. Many PAT engineers will be able to tell you stories regarding new equipment that failed an initial combined inspection & test. If this equipment had gone straight into service, it could have been used for 6 months, a year, whatever, in a dangerous state (definitely in contravention of EAW Regs, and throw a bit of PUWER and W(H,S&R) Regs in for good measure). It's better to know that something is safe before it starts being used, rather than just assuming it is. It's not such a problem for companies who have the appliance inspection & testing carried out by in-house staff. More of a problem for those companies who contract out their testing requirements, as having a PAT engineer pay a visit to test just a couple of items at a time can prove quite expensive.

Posted By WilliamTell Apologies the post should have been adressed to Ian

Posted By GeoffB4 PL, as you seem to have the figures could you break down the types of faults for us? 2% of defective goods is an enormous number and I would say completely unacceptable to most manufacturers. What feedback do they give you?

Posted By WilliamTell The biggest gripe I have with this forum is that people over complicate matters and put there own spin on what the post is actually trying to gain an answer to - Please read the question - "Does new equipment, CE marked, require any type of testing prior to use? Talking about office eqpt in this case." NO is the answer - please outline what legislation says new equipment has to be PAT tested - I fancy learning something new today!! Its fine, if like your company they have their own in-house team of electrical engineers - but most companies don't and so its not reasonable to suggest that all new equipment is PAT tested. The reference to PAT testing your new household goods is I think relevant in this case - I know its domestic and the ACT does not apply!! but the point I'm attempting to get across is that if your testing new equipment for the safety of staff in the workplace then why wouldn't you test the new T.V. you have just bought from Currys for the sake of your families safety.....the answer is because its costs money which far outweighs the level of risk. So no apology will be forthcoming.

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 We need to answer two questions here; 1) What is CE marking? What is it's purpose? 2) Are Items tested prior to being sold? Also we need to know that we do not need to have a pat test on machinery which has been relocated from one point to the other. (Even though shipment can cause the damage) Have a nice evening.

Posted By holmezy Hi, I'm in the "no" camp on this one. There is no requirement to PAT test although I'd argue that its a good idea to do some level of check when first plugging in, ie check cable, plug etc for damage, which is probably what we all would do at home. Kirsty, thats actually 3 questions not 2. The CE mark is more relevant to the design and manufacturing process and whilst it should flow down to the actual assembly process, this is normally done by humans who are prone to doing things wrong so that may account for a % of the 2% that may or may not fail PAT testing. I'm also pretty sure that Phillips or Murphy Richards or Sony or whoever do 100% inspection which is why we get the odd duff one in the market. Still, there's no reqt to PAT test, its just an easy and convinient way of meeting your obligations Holmezy

Posted By Ian Gardner And on a slightly different note: QUOTE WilliamTell: "The biggest gripe I have with this forum is that people over complicate matters and put there own spin on what the post is actually trying to gain an answer to - Please read the question - "Does new equipment, CE marked, require any type of testing prior to use? Talking about office eqpt in this case."" If you look at the top of any page on this forum, you'll notice the word 'discussion'. A discussion forum.

Posted By Michael Thomas Many thanks for your responses. They seem to have triggered a "lively" discussion. In the interim I have gone down the no test route to keep things flowing. Coincidentally I work for the MOD and yes, we do tend to suffer from over-complexity of any regulations. I shall also be trawling various DEF standards, Joint Service Publications, Local Orders etc. etc. to eventually put in place a simplistic, logical system that everyone understands! The Holy Grail then. Thanks one again. Mick

Posted By GeoffB4 Wow Ian, remember as you said it is just a discussion, no need to take it personally.

Posted By holmezy Ian, not sure why you think anyone has got the hump, I certainly haven't! Obviously everyone interprets requirements slightly different, so to ensure electrical safety we could, but don't have to, PAT test. We could test,inspect or check to varying degrees depending on our own individual circumstances, views and beliefs, so long as the outcome is "electrically safe". Not taking anything away from you if you do PAT test (or PA Test for the purists) items at home, however if we all did it, there would be some disgruntled people with glum faces on Xmas morning, not because the didn't get the scalextric, the kettle, the power tool, the iron, the curling tongs, the mobile phone, the computer etc etc,,,,, but glum because they can't play with their new toys until it's confirmed that they are safe! And you try keeping my wife away from a new iron..... its just not going to happen!! Holmezy

Posted By Boh And...is it...yes...i think it is.... A thread summing up 'the fun police'.

Posted By Sally Agree with BOH, this is the kind of thread that gets us the 'fun police' reputation we have. Play nice guys - it's almost Christmas.

Posted By Sally I actually meant the petty sniping and the tone of some posts. Ian put forward his opinion, he didn't deserve your response. My view on to pat test or not to pat test are that if it involves getting someone in specially then no, but if there is someone in house and there is very minimal cost then it is worth doing. The key to control measures is 'reasonably practicable' and 'cost/benefit analysis' So to use your example you wouldn't stop a child playing with their new xbox on christmas morning but you would get it done the next time the tester is in the area.

Posted By S T APLOGIES FOR COPY RIGHT BREACHES! “Many PAT engineers will be able to tell you stories regarding new equipment that failed an initial combined inspection & test.” “If you are to rely solely on CE markings, I'm sure that someone better placed than me will tell you not to.” “Many of the manufacturers aren't sure how to apply the regulations effectively” “the last 12 monts 2% have failed and been returned to the manufacturers.” “It seems to fall 50:50 with earth leakage and earth continuity.” “The CE mark is more relevant to the design and manufacturing process and whilst it should flow down to the actual assembly process, this is normally done by humans who are prone to doing things “ “Deary me, someone's got the hump, haven't they?” “The people that want to hide behind CE marks, and 'no legal reason for this' can carry on regardless. “ “any new appliance that comes into my house gets an inspection & test. “ “some disgruntled people with glum faces on Xmas morning” “And you try keeping my wife away from a new ironHolmezy” “not just anyone has the hump, only a certain person who was pulled up about it by another poster much earlier in this tread. That's who it was aimed at.:32 “ “No hump with anyone only with PL “ “anyway why would I apologies for my opinion....??” “So to use your example you wouldn't stop a child playing with their new xbox on christmas morning but you would get it done the next time the tester is in the area.” Argghhhhhhhhhhhhhh! (ST quits Health & Safety Job ...Temporarily)

Posted By holmezy still haven't got the hump, nor am I likely to get it. Not got any fears of Acorns or conkers come to that. It is a discussion group after all, and enevitably people will read things in a different context to the way the writer intended, so we will have some "interesting" ones every now and then, plus the differing of opinions? Surely an interesting thread is better than a dull one? If we didn't discuss then every thread would have 1 response, or perhaps 2? So in response to the origional question then, my really dull answer would be YES, YES and NO. To which the poster would quite rightly ask why, why and why? So, all the "petty" stuff has to go, and we need to smarten up our act because the press really don't like us? When was the last time that the Mail or Telegrapgh ran an article called "To PAT or not to PAT...that is the item the Fun Police can't agree on"? Do we really think that Littlejohn trawls our discussion pages looking for the next scandal? And yippeee...its Friday. And its nearly Xmas and I hope to get a new hammer drill....now where's that PAT tester when I need him? See you all later in the bar....drinks are on me, purely as a peace keeping gesture you understand! Holmezy

Posted By Decimomal Interesting thread and whhat a can of worms....... Anyway is it PAT Testing or PA Testing? (Do we say RIDDOR Regulations?) I am in the No camp on your initial query. I don't believe you need to 'sticker' the items once you have carried out the routine physical and visual checks, but you will need a PAT register with a sign off column to demonstrate the items have been examined. Kirsty, can you clarify your post of 15th December - I am not sure what it is that you are asking/telling us. Ciao

Posted By Decimomal Kirsty - Not really!

Posted By Ian Futcher I am amazed by some of the responses to this thread. You are talking about safety checking a new piece of equipment. Many of you suggest it is not needed. Do you take such a cavalier attitude with all your new equipment, (installing a form-fill sealing machine? a chemical reactor? any piece of installation equipment you care to name?) or are you happy to get a 240v belt from these small untested items and then it’s not a major injury so we won’t affect our statistics? The argument some of you present is that the item is CE marked, so it’s ok. CE marking comprises 2 elements as far as I can see… (1) the product has been manufactured to the MINIMUM safety requirements as described in the relevant EU directives (2) the manufacturer has an (externally) audited Quality Management System Since Quality is defined “fitness for purpose”, we cannot say that the manufactured item is “safe”, only that it is fit for purpose i.e. meets the specification that the either purchaser drew up, or accepted in the contract of purchase. The Quality Management System may not have final QC checking (that is perfectly acceptable if the QMS defines whatever QC process you use, and so long as you follow it), so it is a bit rum to say that products are tested for safety and integrity; how do you know that for sure unless you have audited your supplier? It mystifies me why anyone says that a sign of the CE should be taken as a sign that the item is Safe… it isn’t. We have purchased machinery from Germany only recently which was CE marked; we had to upgrade the guarding and interlocks significantly. Similarly, last year I visited a famous Post Office sorting centre (at least, famous to those who knew Allan St. John Holt) where their sorting equipment was purchased from France (I will admit it was only allegedly CE marked) but it had arrived with no guarding whatsoever around the pinching rollers that send the letters speeding through the sorter/postcode identifier… As visitors we were told that the manufacturers stated the French don’t guard such rollers as anyone (i.e. French person?) stupid enough to put their fingers in deserve all they get. Unbelievable! So – does a new piece of equipment need to be safety checked? Of course it does. You just need to be sensible about the level and type of safety check you use on installation. I am not suggesting a multi-hour HAZOP or FMEA before you use a new kettle, but you ought to check it out in some way before putting it into normal operation. Slightly exasperated Ian