Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Pyle900283  
#1 Posted : 06 January 2010 16:27:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Pyle900283

How often do you have to carry out PAT Testing , does it depend on the items you require testing
Alex Petrie  
#2 Posted : 06 January 2010 16:52:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Alex Petrie

It does yes. Have a look at HSG 107. Hope that helps.
Health and Safety Witney  
#3 Posted : 06 January 2010 16:53:09(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Health and Safety Witney

Take a look at the H.S.E web site which has a very useful table of testing frequencies for different appliances
Canopener  
#4 Posted : 06 January 2010 18:58:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

You don't NEED to do PAT testing but it is one way of ensuring that you comply with your duty under EAWR, and as has been said there is guidance on RECOMMENDED frequency in HSG107 and in INDG236 both free on the HSE website
Hally  
#5 Posted : 07 January 2010 14:13:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hally

Phil Rose wrote:
You don't NEED to do PAT testing but it is one way of ensuring that you comply with your duty under EAWR, and as has been said there is guidance on RECOMMENDED frequency in HSG107 and in INDG236 both free on the HSE website
I would love dearly to tell that to all the construction companies we deal with. I'd think the outcome would be us taken off their approved subcontractors if we had nothing in place to do Portable Appliance Testing. Even though there isn't the NEED i don't think most companies have the choice anymore.
Steven n  
#6 Posted : 07 January 2010 16:32:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Steven n

Hally is spot on whenever we are audited by clients or our 18001 auditor they always make a bee line for the PAT stickers to check when they were done irrespective of whether we are legally compliant.
Canopener  
#7 Posted : 07 January 2010 17:17:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

HGally - thank you for the almost invetable i.e. 'jumping on my comment'. I used capitals to add emphasis. There is NO STRICT legal requirement to TEST PA unless you can point me in the direction otherwise. PAT has been done to death on this forum any number of times.
xRockape  
#8 Posted : 07 January 2010 18:14:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
xRockape

Why all the misdirection, the q
xRockape  
#9 Posted : 07 January 2010 18:30:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
xRockape

Why all the misdirection, the correct guidance was given by the first two posts. If you cant be constructive why bother!! I am new to this posting lark, but it appears to me that there are many people requesting guidance from specialists and they are being given half answers. If you have not got the time please dont try. Sorry for the moan, hope i have not broken any rules, but us "professionals" in my opinion should always give the best advice possible.
Canopener  
#10 Posted : 07 January 2010 19:30:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Xrockape, I assume that was aimed at me? If so I take exception to the suggestion that I was ‘misdirecting’ or being ‘unconstructive’. I have spent a long time on this forum and I accept that I do often ‘challenge’ ‘traditional’ thinking at times, and clarify where I think this is needed. I think ,my post at #4 did just that. Without causing any offence to Alex or Whitney, the first two posts were only correct IN PART. The original post essentially asked TWO questions. 1. Do I have to do PAT? 2. Does it depend on the item? The answer to 1 is as I said in #4, there is NOT any strict legal requirement to test, unless you want to point me in the right direction otherwise (more on that later). The answer question 2 was as per # 2 and 3. No problem with that. If you read my post at #4 you will see that I also directed ‘Pyle’ to 107 AND added 236 into the bargain. If you care look at either of them you will see that the HSE ’recommend’ that some items of electrical equipment, essentially class 2, of which there is a fair bit about, DO NOT need to be TESTED. I fully accept that PAT testing is done by, most employers, and mostly, not always, for all the right reasons. I also fully accept that electrical items on construction sites, as per Hallys post (but I note that the original poster appears to be in the retail sector) and other high risk items SHOULD be tested, as PART of an overall maintenance and inspection regime. BUT the sad fact is that many employers and dare I say some H&S ‘professionals’ see PAT as the panacea of their electrical safety/maintenance regime; it so isn’t! Some employers (I would suggest a significant number) carry out PAT on items that they do not need to, and often at a frequency that they don’t need to. This is often because they have been poorly advised, they are ‘ignorant’, ‘scared’ or have been ‘duped’ by some company or ‘adviser telling them that they have to test ALL kit EVERY year. They do not. IMVHO, safety professionals also have to be commercially aware and their advice should be risk based and look further than the health and safety consequences of their advice but also the financial consequences to the company as well. I would hazard a guess that many organisations are spending money on PAT and many other things that they don’t necessarily need to or need to spend so much if they were properly advised, informed or dare I say ‘misdirected‘. I hope that satisfies your requirements for the best advice possible but welcome your own constructive comments on this particular topic.
xRockape  
#11 Posted : 07 January 2010 20:47:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
xRockape

Phil, I did not mean offence by my previous posting and am sorry if i offended you in any way. I simply ment that a full answer should be given where possible otherwise the poster can possibly misunderstand the answer or be led to the wrong conclusion. I will not post further on this thread as it may result in unnecessary conflict with the origanal post.
pete48  
#12 Posted : 07 January 2010 21:25:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

It might also be useful to refer to the IET fact file hsb34 Portable Appliance Testing which can be found on the IET website (iet.org.uk) under factfiles/health and safety. It contains in 2 pages a very good summary of why PAT forms part of best practice in any scheme to control risks from elec in the workplace. It may not be a legal requirement, it may not be well understood in many organisations but it remains best practice. The purpose is to meet the duty in EAWR Reg 4(2) and following best practice is a simple choice for most--but as Phil has reminded us that doesn't make it compulsory for all.
Alex Petrie  
#13 Posted : 08 January 2010 09:13:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Alex Petrie

Phil, you're correct. I'm fully aware that I answered the original question in part. Reason being I did not want to get drawn into a debate regarding the necessity to test portable appliances. He wanted to know if the frequency of testing depended on the type of appliance. This being so I thought appropriate to point him in the direction of the guidance document which provides the suggested timescales. I took it that because the question wasn't: "Am I legally required to carry out Portable Appliance Testing?", Pyle wasn't looking for such an answer. While others are quite correct to point out the fact that the regulations don't specifically require such testing to be undertaken it is a recognised method of maintaining electrical equipment. So, why not point him in the direction of the guidance? And if he's looking for further advice there is the HSE's infoline?
Hally  
#14 Posted : 08 January 2010 09:13:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hally

Phil Rose wrote:
HGally - thank you for the almost invetable i.e. 'jumping on my comment'. I used capitals to add emphasis. There is NO STRICT legal requirement to TEST PA unless you can point me in the direction otherwise. PAT has been done to death on this forum any number of times.
Phil, where did i say there was a legal requirement? I didn't and never have EVER... I was pointing out the fact that we have to supply major contractors in the construction industry a list of plant (i.e. any electrical tools taken to site) as otherwise they would start removing people from their approved lists, regardless of whether it is a legal requirement or not. And i'm fully aware that there will be many companies in the same situation as us. We do as a matter of course do yearly or three monthly checks dependant on the equipment to satisfy ourselves that the equipment is in working order nevermind to satisfy their so called legal requirements.
Canopener  
#15 Posted : 08 January 2010 13:12:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Alex - as per my post at #10 i did not intend to cause you any offence. The question(s) asked was "How often do you have to carry out PAT Testing , does it depend on the items you require testing". It seemed to me to be 2 questions in one. It seems to me that there shouyld be some debate about whether to test or not, after all the HSE guidance recommends that some kit doesn't need to be tested, and if your kit falls wholly or predominantly within those groups of kit then tehre is a cost saving to be made. I think I gave a pretty 'rounded' response at #10, explaining the balance between risk and cost and the fact that some employers test items when they don't need to and 'over test' those that they are recommended by the HSE to test. Perhaps I am alone in feeling that part of the H&S job is not just to go 'along with the flow' but to challenge traditional thinking, to analyse situations and to consider the cost benefit of carrying out whatever we might be recommending or being asked advice about. It has always seemed to me to be right to ensure that the employers money is used to the best effect possible. If money is being spent on testing kit that doesn't need testsing, then that is money that can't be used elsewhere. I accept that for many employers the overall cost of PAT is not great but for some larger organisations I suggest that there may well be significant savings available. although arguably the inspection side of it may actually be more costly than the test itself. In a very similar way, I FULLY accept that many clients and contractors insist on allsorts of things (not just PAT), as do our internal and external autitors and those auditing under 18001. I have found over the years that they are often requiring all sorts of interventions, changes etc that IMVHO often have little or no effect on managing risk whatsoever, but serve to tick the boxes on a audit sheet that has been created by someone with little idea of H&S or RM. I for one have happily challenged auditors requirements on a nuumber of occassions, and I am pleased to say that do sometimes listen. However, I accept that many organisations are compelled to 'comply' with clients or principal contractors requirements in order to gain or retain business. I recall a thread on here not all that long ago in which a client refused to use a contractor because they had. had more than 1 RIDDOR reportable injury in a year (or something along those lines). They seemed to think that was a good measure of an organisations safety performance (or not as the case was); I am not so convinced. No offence was meant, summary - I just feel that the accurate answer was, No NEED to test but MOST kit is recommended to be so. Hally - apologies. Your quoting of my comment did sort of suggest that my post was wrong and I probably jumped the gun. Looking back at #4 I think my post was entirely accurate albiet very succint, but hopefully I made up for it by expanding on my thoughts in #10? All's well that ends well.
David R Brown  
#16 Posted : 08 January 2010 15:22:05(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
David R Brown

Without wishing to tread on anyones toes... 1) There is no specific legal requirement for PAT. You will not find it referred to explicitly in the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. However, these Regulations do require that electrical installations and electrical equipment are maintained in a safe condition. How a duty holder complies with this requirement is left to them to determine, by way of risk assessment. Clearly, many will rely on PAT. Guidance on the HSE website to the question "How do I know if my electrical equipoment is safe?" states: "You can find out if your electrical equipment is safe by carrying out suitable checks, such as inspection and/or testing. The level of inspection and/or testing should depend upon the risks. A simple visual inspection is likely to be sufficient for equipment used in a clean dry environment. In addition, equipment that is more likely to become damaged or is operated in a harsh environment, is likely to require more demanding electrical tests. Checks should be carried out often enough that there is little chance the equipment will become unsafe before the next check. It is good practice to make a decision on how often each piece of equipment should be checked, write down the decision, make sure the check is carried out, and write down the results. You should change how often you carry out checks according to the number and severity of faults found. The best way to find out if specialised equipment is safe, is to have it inspected and tested by a person with specific competence on the type of equipment. This may be the original manufacturer or his authorised service and repair agent. A reputable servicing company that deals with the type of equipment should also be competent to check its safety." 2) Not withstanding the above, the HSE do suggest frequencies for testing of portable appliances. These can be found in INDG236 for low-risk environments (e.g. offices) and HSG107. Both are available to download free from HSE Books; http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.pdf (page 5) and http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg107.pdf (page 13). 3) Don't forget that your insurer may have a particular view on PAT as well; it's worth checking with them and the small print. They may "require" annual PAT regardless of what your risk assessment says!
barnaby  
#17 Posted : 08 January 2010 15:36:22(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

David R Brown wrote:
Without wishing to tread on anyones toes...
Toes fine, now know how to suck eggs! (I think Phil Rose made the same point above, but a little more succinctly)
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.