IMHO it's PUWER. Not directly related but the guidance to LOLER states that multi-point couplings on the back of agricultural tractors are exempt from LOLER. IMHO that's because its purpose is only to gain clearance from the ground as opposed to achieving greater height. This conversation has been had before and has been widely publicised, if axle stands came under LOLER wouldn't every car jack in every company vehicle? Enforcing Officers are human beings and are as equally prone to misunderstanding as everyone else. Far too much of the common rebuttal against our industry is due to mistranslation. Consultants (GENERALLY) have the advantage of being able to give their opinion, take your money, give you advice and walk-away. Leaving you (ON OCCASIONS) with unworkable, unrealistic and/or unaffordable choices. If you believe it's PUWER, stand up for what you believe and challenge anyone who questions it. Without good case precedence it's your word against theirs. ultimately only the courts can decide. (I was only on my soapbox for a short period!) I'm an equal opportunities kinda guy so if there's anybody I haven't upset with this post please let me know and I'll try harder in future ;-)

I work in a college and we have motor vehicle students so I recently downloaded (free) the lateste version of HSG261. It states that 'Examination of vehicle supports 211 The safe operation of a vehicle support is dependent on its condition in use, and deterioration would lead to a significant risk to the operator or other worker. They should be inspected, as required by the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER),25 typically every 12 months. Keep a record of the results until the next inspection.' Hope this helps

PUWER! ask this simple question when faced by equipment - does it raise, lower, or suspend a load? or in operation does it involve a change of level? if the answer is "no" PUWER 98 applies - still get it inspected - I would suggest every 6 mths and log the results iaw PUWER 98 semantics I know but they should be applying the correct Regs! contact me if yourequire moral support - good luck

I used this example because it was covered in a H&S publication a couple of years ago! To answer the question of whether or not it is covered by LOLER (or indeed why anything is covered by any particular piece of legislation) you have to ask yourself the question; "what is the aim of this legislation?" Imho LOLER was written to reduce the number of accidents relating to lifting operations, namely; stuff falling on top of you! I don't maintain pump-trucks under LOLER I do it under PUWER! When questioned I stand by my reasoning and have yet to be questioned further. If a three point linkage on the back me Massy is exempt, how can a pumptruck or indeed a car jack (please remember that you shouldn't get under a car supported only by a jack) be subject? Apply the spirit of the law before the word of the law! Otherwise crowbars may be subject to LOLER!

A lifting equipment inspection company is likely to have a very biased opinion!

Afternoon all, :) It would appear that some of you may have had bad experience of Lifting Equipment Companies :) Look for a company who when asked a question like the one above will make reference to both LOLER and PUWER. I agree there are profiteers out there, but take the time to check who gives you the confidence to employ them. Look at the quality of the certificate etc. profiteers usually come up short on the paperwork. Personally I would insist on "SAFE/NOT SAFE" to use statement and the qualifications of the examiner. Finally, Hand tools come under PUWER! :)

See also para 15 of http://www.hse.gov.uk/fod/infodocs/803_69.pdf

Just noticed my post to this querie has promoted me to 'forum user' Not Friday yet but do I get a badge;-)

Hand shovels would be covered by DIRT ;-)