How often do you have to carry out PAT Testing , does it depend on the items you require testing

Take a look at the H.S.E web site which has a very useful table of testing frequencies for different appliances

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Toes fine, now know how to suck eggs!



(I think Phil Rose made the same point above, but a little more succinctly)