Your answer lies within: http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/90-4.htm

Our insurers definately include hand pallet trucks in their inspection process, & from my experience the report was snt to the local authorities of the defects ( these was already out of service awaiting repairs) following that 1 week later i was contacted by the local authorities to discuss the defect report and what actions was taken, eg faxed proof of repair and disposal notess.

Brian, I totally understand that Puwer applies i am merley saying that during the insurance inspection of Lifting equipment following a defect this was reported to the LA, i know there is a requiement under LOLER to inform the authorities of decfects, i was not aware of the same notification applied under Puwer, I would have expected an advice note, Has previous when a FLT had an obvious defect with one of the tyres this was noted to site but not LA so one does ponder. for what it is worth my opinion is that they do not fall under LOLER, however recent experience as got me wondering. always will to learn though.

Dennish you are quit right that there is no formal report under PUWER. The insurance company will have made the report (incorrectly in my opinion) under LOLAR. What I was meaning was that having received a report that equipment was defective I would expect the LA to follow it up just like they would follow up a complaint to them. Does that make any sense?

quote=dennish] Our insurers definitely include hand pallet trucks in their inspection process, & from my experience the report was snt to the local authorities of the defects ( these was already out of service awaiting repairs) following that 1 week later i was contacted by the local authorities to discuss the defect report and what actions was taken, eg faxed proof of repair and disposal notess.

In an ideal world, the LA would be writing to the Insurance Company pointing out the error of their way, not writing to you. Me, I'd send both parties the link I gave you above. Shame on the LA for not knowing that.

Ron An enforcement officer receives information from a reputable engineer that a company has a piece of defective equipment that is so defective the engineer thinks its dangerous, and you think the LA should contact the insurance company and say this is not LOLAR so don't tell us about these defects? I hope the enforcement officer knows that lolar does not apply but I would still hope they would respond to such information I don't think a quick phone call to the employer is unreasonable. I would add that I think Ian made a very valid point about the different types of equipment available to day. My response has been based on the understanding that we are talking about traditional pallet movers that lift the pallet a couple of inches.

Brian, the reputable insurance engineer should have already brought the relevant matters to the attention of the employer, with appropriate recommendations. They shouldn't be wasting other people's time by incorrectly applying LOLER reporting to enforcing authorities.

LOLER and the need for a thorough examination etc is in relation to lifting equipment that can create a danger through failing. Small pallet trucks that lift up in inches I would not deem dangerous although PUWER would apply so some form of inspection would be needed. A pallet truck that lifts higher and could cause a sever injury I would look at as being potentially dangerous and therefore would have it inspected under LOLER. Most people tend to get them done as standard though to avoid any concerns or issues. Regards