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
pat testing
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lojikglos  
#1 Posted : 30 May 2011 16:14:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Lojikglos
hi everyone

just a cheeky little question re PAT TESTING

is there a legal requirement to get BRAND NEW office equipment PAT tested assuming it already comes
with CE markings etc

Thanks for any advice offered in advance
Back to top
Canopener  
#2 Posted : 30 May 2011 16:27:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener
There is NO strict legal requirement to PAT ANY equipment new or old. There have been numerous threads on this, including one reasonably recently to do with new equipment. You might want to try the search feature, if only to save us all regurgitating the same old arguments about PAT! My personal experience is that I wouldn't assume that new kit is necessarily 'safe'.
Back to top
Lojikglos  
#3 Posted : 30 May 2011 16:31:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Lojikglos
LOL
Sorry
It was a bit lazy of me
Back to top
Guru  
#4 Posted : 30 May 2011 17:41:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Guru
I would ensure all appliances are PAT tested regardless if new or not.

Reading online, there is apparently a section of the IEE Code of Practice for the In-Service Inspection and Testing of Electrial Equipment (section 6.4) that talks about not needing to test new appliances.

I dont have the CoP, so cant provide much more detail than that.
Back to top
paul.skyrme  
#5 Posted : 30 May 2011 18:19:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme
As per both replies above.
My CoP is not to hand.
I would say though that IF you decide to test new equipment it will prove that it is safe for use and will give you a bench mark reading against which to compare further in use readings against.
Also it gives you the opportunity to trap the relevant data when the equipment enters the organisation.
Back to top
Grizzly  
#6 Posted : 31 May 2011 09:46:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Grizzly
The section of the IEE CoP mentioned above is in the first paragraph of 6.4 (page 31):

"It is normally not necessary to test new items of equipment as the manufacturer has already tested them."

However, along with guru and paul.skyrme, I would always test new equipment before deployment, as part of the process of resource management, and to catch any faults that may have slipped through the manufacturer's testing (many more than you'de think/hope).
Back to top
Ron Hunter  
#7 Posted : 31 May 2011 12:45:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter
You should consider this from a PUWER compliance perspective.
Reliance on the CE mark alone is not sufficient due diligence. You should and retain a copy of the Declaration of Conformity and that the item is fit and suitable for purpose.
Ensure you have a robust supply chain, sourcing from reputable suppliers.
Misapplication of CE mark (both in UK and imported goods) is still a problem. Any concerns should be reported to your local Trading Standards.
With all that said: No, you don't have to test new equipment!
Back to top
m  
#8 Posted : 31 May 2011 12:54:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
m
I recommend a visual inspection of new equipment as a minimum. It will detect shipment damage as well as anything the supplier may have missed. It could save arguments later if an item is found to be damaged.
Back to top
djupnorth  
#9 Posted : 01 June 2011 13:56:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
djupnorth
Phil, from a purely legal perspective the opposite is true. Any purchased equipment (new or old) unless declared to the contrary at or before the time of purchase must be of satisfactory quality and fit for its intended purpose. Otherwise it could constitute a breach of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and/or the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

I accept however that does not guarantee the safety of a piece of equipment - but then neither does PAT.

Regards.

DJ
Back to top
Safety Smurf  
#10 Posted : 01 June 2011 14:31:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf
Great. I'll start shopping in Eutopia then.

Some stuff just doesn't work properly when it comes off the production line. Generally speaking, if you spend more you get better quality (less faults in production, better QA process, etc) but even industry leaders let through the occasional dud.

It takes hardly any effort at all to give it a once over and maybe a run up to see if something is working before putting it into service. I would stop short of doing a resistence test but then that's relative to my given risk.

If you think manufacturers test every single product that leaves their factory you are very much mistaken, not even the best of them. (I'm talking about portable electrical appliances not aircraft components).
Back to top
Ron Hunter  
#11 Posted : 01 June 2011 14:56:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter
That's an entirely different argument there, Safety Smurf. Routine PAT regime may well ensure the item is safe, but it won't tell you that it actually works as it is supposed to do!
Dud does not necessarily mean unsafe.
(It's Utopia by the way)
Back to top
Safety Smurf  
#12 Posted : 01 June 2011 15:12:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf
ron hunter wrote:

(It's Utopia by the way)



Thank you. :-) Shows you how often I go shopping!
Back to top
Safety Smurf  
#13 Posted : 01 June 2011 15:16:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf
What I was trying to say was that no matter how reputable the manufacturer or whether or not it's CE marked (which they got off the back of the 'ONE' they sent for approval). Even if it is new you should check it before issuing it or putting it into service.
Back to top
Canopener  
#14 Posted : 02 June 2011 13:57:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener
quote=djupnorth]Phil, from a purely legal perspective the opposite is true. Any purchased equipment (new or old) unless declared to the contrary at or before the time of purchase must be of satisfactory quality and fit for its intended purpose. Otherwise it could constitute a breach of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and/or the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

I accept however that does not guarantee the safety of a piece of equipment - but then neither does PAT.

Regards.

DJ

Errrrrr, possibly, but back to the real world, feet on the ground. The fact is that there are countless cases where kit, new and old is sold that isn't fit for purpose; I am sure that the vast majority (all) of us have had cause to return something that isn't!

Without wishing to reignite yet again the old PAT testing arguments (yawn) and while I accept that PAT doesn't guarantee safety, I would rather use kit that is part of a comprehensive maintenance regime, including PAT where appropriate, than not. However, underlying my reply was personal experience of a brand new extension lead out of the packet that was subsequently found to have the wiring at the plug end in reverse polarity.

I suggest that new kit should 'come onto the books' having been subjected to an appropriate inspections and test, so that it can at least be logged and identified for future maintenance purposes.

Hey, I think that's the third time that I used the quote button!
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET