Q)
Do PAT test labels have to display the following information:
Test date and next test due.

My initial thought is no, as long as they have been tested and an electronic record kept this is sufficient.

Just need clarification - Thanks

Hi Cantona,

Since there is no requirement to PAT test, and no requirement to label equipment as having been tested, I guess labels can say anything you want. If you are testing (and almost everybody does) and using labels then it makes sense for them to have date of test and a re-test date, but as you say, as long as the information is recorded somewhere and can be easily retrieved that's all that matters. Electrical equipment has to be safe (SFARP), PAT is one way of demonstrating due diligence in this regard, but it's not in itself a requirement,

John

Thanks for that.

I take your points on board but as I initially thought its not a legal requirement...therefore I'll go down the pragmatic route and place barcoded stickers/cable wraps on all appliances thus cutting out the cost of purchasing new labels year on year to replace old ones.

Interesting to see that its the pat-test label companies that state a test/re-test date should be displayed, or am I just being sceptical?

Anyway thanks for your time.

Whilst all of the above info is correct.
IF you are PAT testing, and your testers are trained to the C&G syllabus, then they should be abiding by the "bible" the "IET COP".
Now in its 3rd revision, IIRC it is referred to in HSE guidance.
There in on page 38 Chapter 8.4 Labelling.
It requires that appliances are labelled with a unique ID, whether they have passed or failed inspection, the date on which re-testing is due or the last test date and the period to the next test.
So in short if you are going to PAT, the only “quasi official” guidance you have is the IET COP which says you must label with this info.
So the choice as they say is yours…

PATs are undertaken as a result of an ACoP, Currently 17th Edition.

The ACoP (section 8, if I remember correctly), states that the label should display the date of test and the retest date. So thus the “smiley face” labels which say “I’VE PASSED”, do not meet the requirement of the ACoP.

Which takes us onto the legal status of PATs and ACoPs.

Bretta,

You are mixing things up here.
There is NO ACoP with regard to PAT.
You mention the 17th Edition. This sounds very much like you are referring to the IEE Wiring Regulations 17th Edition, AKA, BS7671:2008 Requirements for Electrical Installations. (On my desk beside me as I type)
IF this is the case then you have your facts mixed up.
The “17th” stops at the “wall”, the socket outlet the light, the isolator. It does NOT extend to portable appliances, or other devices which are connected to the fixed wiring in the structure of the premises.
I have NEVER seen this ACoP section 8 to which you refer, the nearest thing I can find is Chapter 8 which I refer to in my earlier post in the IET CoP, NOT ACoP, ISBN 9 780863 418334. (Also on my desk beside me as I type this.)
Where in my quote I refer to the chapter, paragraph & page number of the labelling requirements, this is the 3rd edition of this CoP document.
PAT has no legal status, the legal requirement is under PUWER98, EAWR89 etc (you all know the statutory requirements don’t you) for ensuring that equipment is adequately maintained to ensure that it is safe to use.
PAT is worthless once the sticker is put on and the equipment is returned to service from a “true” engineering standpoint. Just like the MOT on your car, once it leaves the testing station.
ACoP’s are another beast that I am not prepared to enter into debate over.
Suffice to say having spoken to Snr. HSE inspectors wrt electrical work etc. I am not prepared to comment or discuss these things on internet forums, even this one, as they are so complex wrt electricity and other engineering matters.

HTH,
Paul,
(Qualified;
Electrician
PAT tester
Designer, inspector & tester of fixed electrical installations,
& electrical engineer.
BSc. (Hons), MEng, IEng, MIET, oh! & TechIOSH)

;-))

Phil sorry the are!
However I hear what you are saying.
It is basically "due diligence". Which should keep you "out of the smelly stuff"!
HOWEVER, I have a friend of the family who runs his own MOT station, so let me give you a true example.
He has a taxi in for MOT. He fails it on tyres, insufficient tread.
The taxi driver takes it out of the test garage. Gets on the phone and get's another taxi up there from the same co. of the same make.
The "new" taxi parks up outside.
They swap wheels, he did not realise what was happening as he was undertaking the next test. (It was only after the fact did he get to find out what happened when he tried to find out how things went on so quickly!)
The original Taxi is now returned for test with the "good" tyres, he is legally bound to pass it.
They pull the 2 taxis on to the road outside and swap the wheels back.
The car he has just passed now has illegal tyres.
He is powerless to intervene!
A similar situation can occur with PAT.
Once the item is passed and returned to service it is out of the control of the "tester".
So, it could be the case that the "user" when they return the equipment to service drops it on the floor and smashes the case, because they don't normally have to transport the equipment.
Thus, the PAT test is invalid before the equipment is returned to “normal” service.

Just an example, for the PAT, the MOT is a true situation, however, with regard to the PAT it is a feasible situation.

PAT is NOT the BE ALL & END ALL.

I would SCRAP PAT as it stands completely if I had my way.
Sorry!
There are other better ways. The reliance on discrete assessments of condition is unacceptable, take MEWPS & PASMA, they are "similar" engineering situations and are subject to rigorous user checks prior to use to comply with statutory requirements.
The only difference is the level of training/instruction etc. required.

NOT that simple I know but I hope that it draws a similarity.

Duck! Flying pig! ;)
Most users I come across are not actually competent or otherwise bothered to undertake user checks, expecially once there is a "PAT" sticker on the kit!

Phil,
Sorry I don't want a tit for tat either, it was late last night when I posted perhaps it would have been better not to!
Your points,
, Ok it does go to proving "due dilligence" in a manner of speaking.
My point was not made well. An annual formal inspection & test is OK on some kit, unnecessary on other kit, and woefully inadequate on other kit.
As part of a regime of in service inspection & testing of electrical equipment including user inspections, checks and formal inspecitons & tests then that is acceptable.
My gripe is the way it is run by a lot of organisations.
2, it is not worthless, IF it consists of more than an annual formal inspection & test of all equipment.
This is the bit that gets me, where everything is formally inspected and tested annually regardless.
LOLER & other inspections are covered by ACoP's PAT is not, it is ONE way of complying, NOT the only way. This is another of my gripes with it. Everything must have a valid PAT test label, which is NOT correct.

OK I did not word my post overly well!

However, once the examination, any examination is over, & the equipment is returned to service etc. then it is in control of the user, so the results of the examination of whatever type could be "changed" in seconds by damage, overloading etc.
My point is to try and make people think that just coz it has a PAT sticker it is safe, and if it does not it is not safe.
Also, with LOLER, MEWPS, PASMA stuff then it is inspected prior to use is it not?
My point with PAT is that users don't do this, they don't understand what to check, how to check and have the opinion that if it has a sticker it is safe to use.

I just feel that the blanket view is not vaild and is in danger of bringing in a complacent attitude.

IF there is a good regime of encompassing the whole of the PAT system then it can be good.
However, you cannot correctly undertake a full formal visual inspection & test on an item of electrical equipment and correctly and adequately document this @ 50p per item, nor £1, nor £1.50.
The system is failing as it is cost driven, not safety driven.
Also, the buck shifting is an issue I have, Regina Vs Octel is somethign I often explain to potential PAT customers who want to pay less than £1 per item.

The laast issue IMHO is the interpretation of PAT. Which is why I feel that it is inappropriate.
It is NOT the once a year (etc.) formal visual inspection & test, it is a safety management system of electrical appliances and other equipment.

I think that once again forum users are getting in a pickle about different uses of terms. In this case I think people are using the term 'legal status' to mean different things. PAT is not a legal requirement but it can be used as evidence in legal proceedings.

Yep we all know that PAT is not a legal requirement but do we all use the term PAT to mean different things?

Lets get this clear that PAT in it's own right will not clear you in court if something has gone wrong becuase it is just one of a range of measures that needs to be employed. As others have said PAT just shows safety at that moment in time and so unless regular visual checks are made as well you would not have done enough.

Nothin annoys me more than an item of equioment with an 'in-date' PAT label and bare wires showing or damaged cabling.

If we use the MOT analogy that is being used and combine it with the tyres example then you can apply it to safety of electrical equipment.

MOT a car and it says that is safe at that point in time but you can still get nicked 5 mins down the road for having bald tyres. The MOT is not a get of jail free card.

Equally your item of electrical equipment can have a PAT lable on it but if the cable is damaged an inspector can put a prohibition on the item (or when I was doing it ask them to cut the plug off!!). Again PAT is not a get out jail free card.

PAT (And MOT) are only one of a range of measures that need to be taken to comply with the overall requirement. It's where many companies are falling massively short of doing what is necessary.

By the way there is no legal requirement to display test dates, it may be best practice though.

Thank you Clairel, as I understand it that is very similar to the stance taken by some of your ex-colleagues I have talked to who are fellow members of the IET in my area.
I won't mention the organisation, if I understand your background then suffice to say we have all heard of it?
My comment on dates comes from the IET CoP.
My idea being if you are going to do it you should do it as per the nearest thing you have to an ACoP, which as I see things is the IET CoP. This is referred to in several HSE documents as I understand things?

sorry about the typo

Toe,
This is at least part of my point!
The dodgy tyres bit can be fixed and then unfixed though as per my post!
Also your point about cost vs safety driven is again part of my argument.
I have come across large fixed electrical equipment with wiring on the verge of catching fire, it had melted to the extent that it caused a no start fault, at which point I was called. However it had recently been PAT tested! The kit weighed over 12 metric tonnes. It was 3ph on a Y/D starter with a DC inejection brake.
It was fixed to the stcutcture of the building and the control system was part on the machine & part on the building structure.
The control system does not comply with PUWER98, however regardless it has been given a PAT pass within the last few weeks.
The wiring defect had been previously reported, and dismissed because the PAT co. had not picked it up and the company that highlighted it did not have it as part of their service provision remit. Even though they were more competent to assess and report on this equipment. Obviously given the state of the wiring etc found! This is another "problem" with PAT it being taken out and applied to equipment that it was never intended to cover, along with utilising personnel that are not capable of inspecting complex and unusual systems of which they have no experience and that would not have been covered on any standard PAT course, the C&G one included.
How?

Pete48,

Thanks for that comment I know I did, however, my reasons for continuing the thread were to basically challenge the thoughts etc. to ensure that the general perception of PAT is brought into the real world.


I notice that there have been no statements of fact from the relevant IET documents to dismiss or refute my comments!
BTW mine are still along side me should anyone wish to point out where my interpretation is wrong and then I will look up their references and provide appologies etc. based on those references if necessary.

Paul

I shouldn't worry about it too much, Paul.
I reckon Betta realised he/she had got hopelessly confused, and was talking complete rubbish, and so just decided to be a bit facetious with their second post.