The answer is no as it is not a legal requirement to have the PAT test in the first place. If you look on the HSE web-site there is documentation that will tell you what inspections are required and when, PC's for example if doulble insulatated can be up to 5 years.

ahhh beaten too it. I was going to say - suggest to the PATer that doing the test isn't even a 'legal requirement', then tell them to jog on and find another supplier. That said you need some way of identifying inspection of electrical appliances and dates on labels provides a simple audit trail....

Of course NEITHER PAT or for that matter INSPECTIONS are a legal requirement, although both, along with pre-use checks are 'recommended' by the HSE, at various frequencies for various items of equipment in various environments etc i.e. on a risk basis, to manage the risks associated with the use of electrical equipment and to help ensure that you meet your duties under EAWR. This has been done to death on any number of occasions on this forum. BUT the original question was about the retest date. No, it isn't a requirement, but it makes sense to me that having gone to the effort of doing a test and/or inspection and putting a label on the kit, that you put the retest/reinspection date on it, as a quick easy visual reminder/reference. I am left wondering why you wouldn't want to have the retest date on it!

HSE website has a 'myth of the month' relating to PAT testing, worth a luck through the archive!

The code of practice for in-service inspection and testing of electrical equipment is helpful along with INDG236.

Though it's not essential for portable appliances to bear labels showing that they've been PAT tested and/or when they're next due for checking (i.e. formal inspection and testing), surely such labels are quite useful, especially for items like kettles and floor polishing machines for example which are frequently used and/or vulnerable to damage. They enable employees, employee reps and line managers to readily identify if such appliances are being formally checked and at what sort of intervals. They're also of use to OS&H advisers: For example if I see a kettle in a technicians' room in one of my employer's schools, I might have a look at it for a label. If there is one but it's several years out of date, it prompts me to advise management to take appropriate action. Also, the absence of a label could indicate that the kettle might be a dodgy old one brought in by an employee from home and has never been subject to any check. Bear in mind that labels can sometimes get damaged or unwittingly removed, so don't leap to conclusions about not seeing a label. In addition, to echo a pet theme of mine, a formal check system is just one part of trying to ensure electrical safety with portable appliances which by their nature need such checks. (Some organisations waste money and effort on regularly inspecting and testing appliances which either don't need checks or only on a less frequent basis.) Furthermore, formal checks should be considered as the equivalent for portable appliances of MOT tests for vehicles. Another important part of ensuring safety is for users of portable appliances to be told and reminded from time to time about the need to treat the appliances with reasonable care, to be vigilant for damage and what action they should take about evident or suspected damage!

Your right, I was just trying to point the poster in a direction.

Chris PAT testing is not a law how often do we have to say that? But if a company wants you have equipment pat tested before you plug it in, in their premises as part of their safe system of work that's up to them. The law is that electrical equipment must be maintained and safe what that means is down to risk assessment. I read your responses with great interest and value your contributions to this site but pat testing being law is as true as a chemicals data sheet being a COSHH assessment.

canopener... Exactly. In fact, if I were so inclined I could find it mildly insulting that having equipment with valid PAT test stickers (note the plural) on it having to be re-patch tested. Could this suggest that I was incompetent or untrustworthy? Incidentally, the equipment uses a probe that is placed on the worker's skin to measure skin condition. Has anyone ever asked me about the safety of the equipment? They are happy to take that on trust, but not the stickers? How logical is that! Chris

Brian I wasn't offended. It is just that I find sometimes there is an illogicality in some organisations approach to health and safety. The equipment has to be PAT tested, even though it is small scientific apparatus with an external power supply supplying just 5V to the apparatus itself. This seems to be a major concern. I have been kept waiting sometimes over an hour for someone to come and PAT test what is in perfectly sound condition, as a visual check would show. I appreciate that PAT testing for something such as a large portable electric drill or tile cutter makes sense, but where does one draw the line? So the small power pack has to be PAT tested. Yet no-one has ever questioned the safety of placing a probe connected to the apparatus on someone's skin to measure skin condition. How do they know that I am not going to apply a high voltage current to the worker's skin? It's a bit like the security checks at airports. I have taken this equipment through in hand luggage many, many times. They insist on checking my laptop, but the little box containing electronics and a 9v battery with a lead coming out ending in a cylindrical object the size of a detonator on the end is simply ignored. Gives me real confidence on the effectiveness of the security check. Incidentally, in one company I was told it had to be PAT tested, even when I was going to use it with the battery and not even connected to the mains! And we are the ones who are saying that industry is bogged down in red tape! Chris

That's a bit too black and white of a statement.