Appendix VIII of the IEE Code of Practice, 'Checks to be made on a plug, a cable and an extension lead' is a very good guide, plenty of good graphics. http://www.theiet.org/pu...ng/books/wir-reg/cop.cfm

This DVD includes visual inspection and testing techniques: http://www.pat-testing-course.com/

A point of contention for me is that some of these resources include a removal of the plug top. I have reservations about allowing unqualified people to do this in the workplace. Any thoughts?

Are we actually talking about formal visual inspections (as you stated in the opening post), or user checks? Removal of the plug top (where possible) is an important part of a formal visual, whereas user checks are external only, and do not include any dismantling of equipment. More info can be found in chapters 12 - 15 of the IEE CoP.

Aye, there's the rub. I have 22,000 people spread over 1800+ workplaces, and I want to establish a system of annual formal (i.e. recorded) visual examination of appliances, particularly for those on a > 1year test & inspection regime (otherwise, I can include the formal exam within the competent person's annual test and inspection). I cannot make all our people experts. I believe there is a greater capacity for these people to do unsafe things if they are provided with a screwdriver. I refer to the HSE's own guidance at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/el...ricity/electricequip.htm wherein they make the statement (within a section I take to be equally applicable to a 'formal' process: "Check that the plug is correctly wired (but only if you are competent to do so)." Not a mandatory part of a formal visual in the eyes of HSE then? Of course, more and more of our equipment now comes with a moulded plug anyway. Comment?

The operative word in HSG107 being "could" (include removal of the plug top), not 'should' or 'must'.

Grizzly, I'm trying to adopt a pragmatic approach here, I want key people to be conducting formal (i.e. recorded, systematic) visuals as a confirmation that user checks are generally effective. But we are a very big Organisation.I do not want our people meddling with plugs and I don't have the resources to make them all competent to do so. There are issues of reasonable practicability here. I've seen far too many horror-show plugs (wired or fused by well-meaning people) in my time to appreciate that there can be no "half-measures" here. An alternative approach would be to have our PAT testers install decent tamper-evident labels or paint over the plug top fixing screw. In such instances both the user and those conducting formal visuals could "quarantine" any suspect item, pending investigation and label replacement by our PAT testers. The need for this will fall away as more and more appliances come into the workplace with moulded plugs. Anyone out there got such a system operating?

Cheers Phil. No need for figurative body armour in a debate with me, I assure you. So - if my "formal visuals" involve no more in the way of physical checks than my "user checks" what do I achieve? I achieve a formal (recorded) and systematic process involving a supervisory level in the organisation & a monitoring system which confirms whether or not "user checks" are effective. That'll do me nicely for starters. (It's a lot more than I've got just now). Now, if I don't include removing the plug top, what am I missing out on? My "higher risk" items are already covered by a cycle of annual (or better) combined inspection and test by competent persons - I don't need a formal visual regime for that kit. This includes the real wear-and-tear items like vacuum cleaners, floor buffers etc. What am I left with? Generally a vast array of office, audio-visual and PC related items. Most of that (as time passes) already has a moulded plug. Mostly, it stays put in a fairly benign environment. On balance, (I may already have said this) I consider I would be creating a bigger risk by giving my non-technical people screwdrivers to play with - irrespective of what they may be told and what they might retain from a days instruction. Don't even go there with replacement fuses. I'm still taken with the tamper-evident label or red paint over the screwhead of the removable plug top. Reasonable practicability? I think so. Could (there's that word again) I do more? Perhaps. In attempting more with the resources I have (and "resources" includes these non-technical people) Would I derive a greater benefit or would I merely invite a greater risk potential? You know where I stand. I was thinking of branching out from Health and Safety, and I have been keeping a close eye lately on a provider of Origami services, however I've just learned today that the whole operation has folded.