I am currently trying to convince poeple that PAT testing should be carried out 3 monthly instead of 6 monthly for on site equipment (construction site) . I am coming up against the old "thats just guidance not law" argument. (head, brick wall, bang bang bang). Can anyone point me in the direction of some case law relating to not following guidance, particularly if it relates to failure to PAT test equipment at the reccomended frequency. Hopefully this might get a response.

Paul, thank you for your comments. 6 months is a long time for an extension lead to be used on a construction site. i believe that the environment means that there is a real risk of damage leading to electrocution. 3 month testing reduces that period and therefore the risk. Also the guidance may be over zealous, but it is guidance none the less and would likely be used in court if an accident occured. I am aware that there is no law requiring PAT testing, but bearing in mind the requirements of HASWA and PUWER, i believe that a 6 monthly test would not be sufficient, given the environment in which the equipment is being used. Even if no failures occured in the past on PAT tests the risk remains and in mind is foreseeable. (by the way we do have failures) Some opinions on this would be appreciated

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg107.htm Try this document - I think it has a list of recomended inspection periods.

jwk You can't be prosecuted for failing to follow established guidance. But you can be prosecuted for breaching legislation. As legislation is usually written in quite woolly terms how you comply with that legislation is set out in ACOP's, COP's and guidance. So technically someone may be prosected for breaching (for example)the Electricity at Work Regulations but it is the failing to follow the guidance that is relied upon to win the case in court. I did so successfully on many occasions (but I hasten to add not in relation to PAT). Personally I always tell clients that the whole ACOP, guidance thing is misleading becuase although you can't be prosecuted for failing to follow guidance the standard set out in the guidance will stand up in a court of law when being prosecuted for breach of the Regulations (unless you can demonstrate that you achieved the same equally effective measure (which I never saw happen). When it comes to PAT I think far too many companies rely on PAT instead of understandiung that it is just one of a range of measures that need to be in place. I've lost count of how many extension cables or pieces of equipment I've seen which were PAT tested recently but had damaged cables.

I'll share some of my experiences here if I may? A few months ago I attended a meeting with HSE inspectors who were giving a "ticking off" to one of my clients, a shopfitting contractor who's standards were below the expected. One area was PAT and the HSE recommended three monthly tests/inspections. I asked if this was required and the answer was "Yes"! Good enough for me! I carry out safety inspections on construction sites and see problems in getting PAT carried out on lots of sites. Those that have PAT are usually over the three month, sometimes over one year since previous tests, other equipment no record at all. This usually applies to individual worker's tools i.e. hammer drills, saws etc. Most of the contractors are now hiring in the site electrical equipment and this comes with records of testing that is quite up to date. My advice to contractors is to use rechargeable hand tools, the chargers do not create a problem and can be used in the hotel room overnight, otherwise hire the tools and always ask for records of up to date testing.

If you are really determined to find some case law, I suggest you start with the HSE prosecutions database and drill down on the EAWR - don't envy you trawling through that though to find a case specific to PAT. I can't recall one I have to say, but guess there are some! Good luck and let us know.

Claire, I believe that's what I said; you can only be prosecuted for breaking the law. Although I agree that as far as your clients are concerned the difference between ACOPs and Guidance is not very important. What matters is that they don't break the law. Guidance can be used in prosecutions arising from the Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act by the Jury in their deliberations. The Act defines guidance so as to include ACOPs, Guidance and practically anything else any government body has ever said about H&S. OK, this Act should only result in a handful of prosecutions per year, and in HSE's terms the difference between ACOP and guidance is still clear cut. However, if you are arguing with an employer who is using the 'that's only guidance' bit, as in the OP, it could help to point out that perhaps the scariest law employers face gives guidance rather more weight than we are used to. Also it's worth bearing in mind the idea people have about guidance; it's very often confused with the notion of guidelines, or jolly good ideas. It's not, and maybe an explanation of the technical definition of guidance could be helpful. Chris though hits the nail on the head; low voltage tools reduce the risk at source and meet the principles of prevention in Annexe 1 of the Management Regs; if there is little risk of a fatl shock it really doesn't matter what this or that HSE Inspector said, really, John

The following link may just answer the question. http://www.pat-testing.info/legal.htm Not sure if it states frequency of testing but there are lots of places to go.

This is interesting in that EWR is the breached regs, but the case notes apparently are backed up by reference to no PAT testing haven taken place: B&S Engineering (Cradley) Ltd Fined £1,500 under EWR 1989. Injured by 415v electric shock. Failure to maintain 3 phase twin and earth extension cable which had a visible split in insulation. No PAT testing. HSE Prosecution Case F120000473 (20/6/03) Cannot find the case on the HSE prosecutions database to double check if no PAT testing was just a side note or whether it was used as an aggravating factor.

Chris, The text on that website is lifted wholesale from the 2nd edition of the IEE Code of Practice. Very cheeky. A much more extensive explaination can be found in Chapter 3 ('The law') of the 3rd edition of the IEE CoP (http://www.theiet.org/publishing/books/wir-reg/cop.cfm).

Just a point, HSE guidance on maintenance of electrical equipment only refers to duties under the EAW Regs. Not PUWER nor the MHSWR. Please please please remember that PAT is not enough in it's own right. There has to be a range of measures (formal visual inspections and user checks as well) otherwise it's not enough. Also just because one inspector says one thing it doesn't make it 'fact'. So unless you have what they said in writing from them it will hold no legal weight. Even then they will use the argument that the circumstances were somehow different. Can I also clarify that I said Regs are 'woolly' (in my opinion) because they are too broad. For example EAW says that all electrical systems have to be safe at ALL times. That in itself is unachieveable. The guidance is what sets out the standards for what is reasonably practicable etc in achieving that. That's all I was trying to get across..

Yes, I know but paragraph 10 says that the use and maintenance of electrical equipment is contained within EAW. So I guess I've taken that as being the direction to take. Certainly when I was trained internally by the HSE all the emphasis was on EAW. The regs are 'woolly' (lol) enough to make any deficiency successful in court as a breach of EAW.

The requirement for fixed electrical tests is “almost” as enshrined in legislation as is PAT. I don't have my copy of the IET, CoP for PAT, BS7671, or GN3 with me at the moment, however they all include a reference to maintenance, inspection & testing in some form to ensure that equipment/systems are safe. As does EAWR, PUWER & MHSWR(? Don’t have this to hand), CDM, HSR25 & HSG107, INDG372, INDG354, L22, L114, some of the EIS series, and I could go on, & a host of other quasi-legal documents apart from the obvious legislation. Remember, fixed electrical installations come under CDM. Ian, did your company undertake the Periodic Inspection yourselves, or did you utilise an external provider? I'm sorry to say that there can be no doubt, the "persons" undertaking the inspection were not competent to do so if damage resulted, FULL STOP. There is no technical reason for damage to be caused during a Periodic Inspection of a fixed electrical installation. To do so is incompetent, end of. Periodic Inspections should NOT be "The Painful One" IF all work is carried out correctly and PIR's are undertaken according to guidance. The "Pain" arrises due to cost cutting and not getting the correct documentation for electrical changes etc. undertaken between PIR's or when electrical installations are undertaken by competent persons. IF all certification is present and all works are correctly undertaken then a PIR should be a painless exercise. Chris has, along with others mentioned visual inspections, well these form part of a PAT regime, as do user checks. It is NOT just about a so called "qualified" person coming alone once in a blue moon and putting stickers on appliances. Coz thats invariably what happens! I have yet to see a full PAT system correctly implemented according to IET guidance by anyone where external contractors are used. Keeping costs to a minimum is just too much to overcome. PAT is seen as a commodity just like buying bread or milk in the supermarket. You go in to buy these at a particular shop because they are cheap, so you browse for more, expecting these to be cheap too. With many companies it is a loss leader or barely trained operatives are utilised who do not fully understand the ramifications of the system hoping that they will be able to generate additional work from the situation. I came across one from a large supposedly reputable national testing co. the other day that failed a kettle on functional test. The item did not even have a fuse fitted. He did not inspect the item, nor check the fuse rating, no other tests, he just plugged into his tester and did a functional on it and failed it! The problem is that there are very few people out there doing these sorts of work that actually UNDERSTAND what they are doing and WHY they are doing it. This is NOT to meet legislation. It is to save lives and prevent injuries by ensuring that the items/systems are safe and correctly maintained. How many companies get an adequate written report from their PAT provider? How many reports contain a reference to the fixed installation? This requirement is contained in the IET CoP. How many persons who demand PAT, buy on price, and actually realise that no matter how good the earth on the portable appliance, extension lead, etc. is, that IF the earthing in the fixed installation is inadequate and a fault occurs where the case of a Class I appliance becomes live it can still KILL, even IF the appliance was PAT tested on that day and passed and is actually still safe and in the same situation as it was. Please refer to my previous comments on extension leads and 4 gang leads etc. Do you check that persons doing your PAT & PIR's have Professional Indemnity insurance? Why, because they are providing an intangible professional opinion on the condition of your appliances/systems. If they are wrong, someone could die and your employer/you could be prosecuted! Regina Vs Octel anyone? (IIRC) I am willing to discuss this further and explain myself and my comments and give background, if anyone wishes, please PM, as I am a little cautious about the public forums. Sorry. Rant over, but these are real issues that I really have seen and continue to day to day and boy does it wind me up! Paul

Well, sort of. Isn't it actually "All systems shall at all times be of such construction as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger", which is surely achievable?

FWIW, This may over rule my advice earlier with regard to test periods based on condition? http://www.hse.gov.uk/el...ctricequip.htm#condition Paul

Yes, but even if something is only achievable under certain circumstances or with certain people it is still achievable.

Paul. well done and top marks to you, this is something I was looking for earlier but failed to find. Now that I know where it is it will be in my favourites, how sad is that? I will add that anything the HSE have on their web site they look upon as serious stuff. Fail to take note at your peril!

True. Lots of answers throughout which gives a mixed impression of who is / is not right. Like the HSE always say, its only provable in court and by then its a bit too late for someone, and the publicity would probably cripple the person/company. What the HSE do say though is; this is the guidance that you dont have to follow. You just have to prove that you have implemented somethin just as good. So, summary. What I gather is that PAT tests are not mandatory but 'integrity' must be proved. And these are only effective when used with other 'mitigations'. But I dont see many doing them or even aware of them despite being mentioned in several regs (equipment must be safe etc). 'Recommeded' electrical tests of fixed systems (the 240v behind the walls) is not mandatory but again, we must ensure the electrical systems are safe. We have not records of any equipment failing due to electrical faults, no system overloads, nothing and therefore no indication that the fixed systems are unsafe. Therefore, where would we stand. And fixed electrical testing (5 years for business, 10 years recommendedfor domestic houses) is also rarely done. Okay, I'll check again for an answer later tomorrow. Thanks

Ian, your second paragraph here is not quite right? The HSE comment at the front of their ACOPs usually goes on to say something like, "but if you do follow this guidance you are usually doing enough" or words to that effect. That, to me, says that if I do follow the guidance I should be OK?

Toe, you don't actually say it's not dengerous but it's the way you say "On a majority of the sites I have been involved with (not many) only 110V equipment was allowed on site which will only give a belt of 55 Volts if a fault arises. Therefore only the transformers require to be tested and therefore 6 months testing would be sufficient for these." It just appears a bit casual as if you think the hazad/risk is very small if non existant. 110 v tools on construction site should be tested 3 monthly, in my opinion, and also according to the opinion of the HSE inspector that visited a site managed by one of my "ex" clients.