Posted By Luke. We Mostly hire in tools but i am trying to ensure that the guys on site are carrying out pre-start inspections on hand-held tools etc.. Obviously all work equipment generally comes under PUWER and even though the employee has no duties under this,they do under HASWA/MHSW ... How far do inspections need to go as far as hand-held tools? the regs stipulate that "in certain circumstances" to ensure that is inspected and continues to be safe for use... and that the operator needs to be competent to carry out the check... surely as far a competency goes, checking a hammer is common sense... I'm thinking grinders, floor saws, pneumatic drills,bench saws etc... best standard for inspections?

Posted By Mike DF PUWER reg 5 states 'Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.' Reasonably practicable does not come into this one, but you would like to think that common sense does. A daily visual check of handtools by the competent user before the first use (therefore only tools used are checked) seems sufficient to me

Posted By holmezy Raymond, thought we'ed established many times in many posts that (all) electrical items DON'T have to have a PAT test, but need to be safe? re the tools, pre use checks ie check the plug, cable, casing etc should be enough. Needs to be documented though! Holmezy

Posted By holmezy Raymond, without wanting to start a pedantic argument, however I do slightly disagree with what you say. I think that many employers mistakenly believe that PAT testing covers their responsibility to ensure electrical safety when it comes to portable tools, not because its RP. This mistaken belief either comes from those that offer PAT tests, poor advice or poor understanding of the regs. PAT testing is only good for the day (hour, minute ?) it was carried out. Regular maintenance and inspections are still required as things get thrown about, worn, etc. You wouldn't rely on a car's MOT cert to ensure it is in a safe condition? Presumably you would check tyres, lights etc on regular basis. PAT testing is quick, cheap and convinient (reasonably practicable as you say) but needs to be supported by regular checks. Holmezy

Posted By Raymond Rapp Holmezy With respect, I think you are straying into the pedantic zone. I don't make the rules and whilst I emphasise with your points, you are straying into the...obvious. Similarly, a visual inspection is only as good as the last time you inspected it. It is really about being sensible. What can be be practically achieved given the limitations of time, effort and cost. Theory is not much help - its about pragmatics. Ray

Posted By holmezy Raymond, 1)is it pragmatic to PAT test annually and assume continued electrical safety during the year....possibly not, however, lots of Companies do. 2)is it pragmatic to ask the user to visually check the plug, cable, casing etc on daily basis (or before use)...probably yes, however more Companies should do. I might be able to argue that if I did the second, then I don't need to do the first? Holmezy

Posted By Bob Shillabeer I'm a bit fed up with the PAT arguement, it is a historical test just like an MOT it simply states the kit was safe when it was tested and carries no vailidity after the test is completed as the kit may become damaged a second after the test was done it provides only a defence for the owner and does not ensure safe use. When will PAT be killed off as a complete waste of time and money and be replaced with a more worthwhile checking system