Most people on this site should be aware that the HSE recently launched an FAQ page about PAT testing and a link to INDG236(Rev2) http://www.hse.gov.uk/el...le-appliance-testing.htm HSE have been heralding these changes as a major step in removing burdens on business. At first glance I was thinking yes this is great, but now I am not so sure. Class 1 (earthed) equipment does not necessarily need PAT testing yearly - it can be done 2-yearly - as long as you could prove that it does not get damaged or go wrong very often. Class 2 double insulated equipment does not even need to be PAT tested. Even better! INDG236 also says that visual checks on all class 1 and hand held class 2 items should be done 6m to yearly. OK, fine so far. However, it gives advice on how to visually check items. Here-in lies the problem. This advice includes opening up the plug - (I presume not applicable for the moulded variety) and checking for loose wires, wrong fuse etc. I'm not sure that I can reasonably expect our staff (social care workers) who work in small units for a large multisite organisation to do that level of checking. Perhaps I have misunderstood this, but I am finding myself drifting back to using a company to do the visual checks - at least annually. So, that leads me practically back to square 1 to of getting specialists in to do annual checks (even if those checks don't always involve testing). Have I understood this correctly?

Also I do think that PAT testing is bad, in that people wont actually keep an eye to their equipment, I think a sticker on the plug to say it has been PAT Tested is not the way forward.

All employees who use electrical equipment should be performing user checks each time they use most equipment (see page 2 of INDG236 via the link above). They should be doing this rather than relying on a sticker to tell them something is safe! This should not include opening up of plugs. User checks shouldn't be confused with visual inspections, which *do* include opening the plug, when possible. @BuzzLightyear: if you don't think your staff are up to the job of being trained to be able to perform visual inpections (they should already be able to do user checks!), then you may have to look elsewhere...

I agree with this point and have always had systems to ensure staff record visual checks - as in damaged cables or exposed inner wires leading into plugs. However, I have never gone as far as expecting staff to open up plugs - which seems to be what this guidance is recommending. But different if you have the luxury of a maintenance person or inhouse electrician.

I should clarify that this is not so much about whether staff are up to the job if trained. The vast majority are very capable. I just find from experience that most social care staff don't consider maintenance tasks to this level to be part of the job. In a typical care home I often find that the predominantly female workforce will 'delegate' jobs like checking the tyre pressure and depth of tread of vehicles to their one or two male colleagues. It's reverse sexism but it happens a lot. I expect the same response to checking plugs!

The (vast) majority of people in my office are significantly more expensive than the quotes we get from PAT testers. I can see a formal inspection regime, for which our QA processes will require a procedure, and a register of equipment, and someone to do the checks and go round opening up plugs being more costly in total and in particular more disruptive than a PAT contractor. It would take me longer to open up that many plugs than it takes our contractors to plug them into a machine and hit the button. They charge less for their time than we charge for almost all our staff. The secretaries may be cheaper, but then you run up against the same issue identified by others - secretaries don't see their job as including opening up plugs and fiddling around inside. So HSE are trumpeting this as a dramatic improvement, but getting in a contractor to PAT test everything looks easier to me than the 'new' regime.

Hi Buzzlightyear, I work in the same area as yourself and we have a protocol of regular visual checks on electrical equipment by the user. I will connduct a visual check also when on site visits/audits. We have an inhouse electrician and do not carry out PAT tests e.g. opening plugs/fuses etc but do conduct regular installation testing which is far more important as far as I am concerned. We also had the issues of delegation to male staff of car checks etc and even have MAN drawers in some units (tool drawers). We challenged this by ensuring each person employed know how to conduct checks and then specifying a particular day when checks were to be done on top of user visual checks. Works a treat! Kevin

Buzz Back in the mists of time when the hotel & leisure sector had complained enough about annually PAT testing kettles in guest rooms HSE issued guidance - much about the same as the recently issued notes - that tried to introduce the mythological ingredient 'common sense'. The success of this can be measured by counting the number of PAT stickers on kettles in hotel rooms today. I get to see a lot. This is not my area of expertise but I have tried to think of the last person in a domestic/office environment that was (a) fatally electrocuted or (b) electrocuted and survived that I have seen reported. I don't recall any. I am aware of 11,000 volt cable strikes; the occasional thief getting burnt trying to nick live copper cable; some instances of portable equipment being used in harsh environment with wires being held in place with wood and a nail fuse; and buildings with exposed live wires. Perhaps an analysis of the electrocutions associated with portable electrical equipment may help pinpoint where efforts should be targeted. I might be wrong of course but for equipment that is in a stable environment; where daily use does not lead to wires being used to pull a plug out - ie the plug is pulled out without any undue pressure on the wire - visual checks should suffice, as Paul indicates. Any faults found with wires being loose etc can then be rectified. If such equipment is used as a substitute rugby ball or simulated hammer throwing in mock Olympic games where the plug is the 'handle' then checking the wire connections in the plug may be needed or PAT testing at defined intervals. I am trying to find out how much the guidance is going to help boost growth in our austerity based economy but the information is proving to be elusive. On the other hand at least we now know that the repeal of the 7 Statutory Instruments in October this year will save employers in the UK not one single penny. Cheers. Nigel

I sat down with my engineering manager to discuss this his view 1 I have a budget of 500K, my PAT costs are £300 (three hundred) where is the huge reduction? 2 I employ a competent contractor who gives me a report that the items are safe (at the time of inspection of course, same as an MOT) am I going to replace a PAT test with a visual check which even if I open the plug may not detect a fault?

To be fair, the advice given in the free downloads is dam good and straight forward. Visual inspection (with open plug-top)If you can tell the difference between a BS1362 fuse and a nail you're half way there. A damaged plug-top is easy to spot as are damaged cables, loose cable grips and burnt contact pins. Belt and whatsit approach (and not a bad idea) would be to pop one of the team on a C&G course and buy a company P.A.T. Machine like a Robin unit.

Portable and transportable are fitted with plug-tops and, as Paul above says, quite correctly, items such as storage heaters and the like are NOT portable or transportable.

Test machines are far from infallible. They will readily indicate a pass on an appliance with numerous nicks in the cable with primary insulation showing. I wonder how many of those establishments who re-tested Chris' Laptop also thoroughly inpected the cable? "Check the cable, not the label."

I would echo Ron's comment. I once saw a label on a vacuum where the outer cable cover was cut completely through in 10 places, actually exposing the conducting wires in 2! Buzz I apologise as I have not read all the comments but HSE are advocating opening the plug where this is possible not on sealed plugs hope that helps. Brian

I would suggest that a metal type class 1 kettle, having the flex attached via a 'plug' type connection (as opposed to the base-type 'lift off' variety should be tested via P.A.T. machine or a continuity test meter as it would be essential that the cpc (earth conductor) remain in good order. The type is usually used with the lead attached and gets damaged due ti continued flexing. First test is visual. Then if required then inspection and test. The visual will pick up the lead, plug etc. As Ron says, quite rightly in my humble opinion... Check the cable not the label! It may well save your life.

The hazards have not changed. The risks remain the same so it follows the testing ...

Old periodics P.I.R. (if we are talking about Periodic Inspection Report) has never tested 'light fittings' just the supply wiring to them but the condition of any and all accessories would certainly be noted and coded. Immersion heaters as an item were not tested, as stated, but the wiring to them from the spur unit/DP switch would be noted by any good inspector. Incidentally, the enlightened electrician/tester would remove the Immersion heater cover to ensure the unit was indeed earthed etc. As said above, the condition of any and all fittings would be noted (and given a 'Code')as damaged etc but not in itself tested as such. Please note the difference between 'Inspected' and 'Tested'. The good news is that with the almost universal use of RCD's the world is getting a safer place provided of course that people do not substitute reliance on RCD's with a good inspection and testing program. Coincidentally, and importantly, RCD's fail closed (on) and they DO NOT protect if someone contacts Live and Neutral. AND (getting boring now I guess) but RCD's have no overload protection so use RCBO's if you need that as well. Sorry for drifting off the plot there!

tony. That "may" have been the case, and your last post "may" be your last, however, the PIR is no more as Zimmy is aware, and, now fixed current consuming "devices" are included in the EICR. So watch this space as the guidance for ISI&T is being updated at the moment. The issue that existed (exists) was (is) the lack of competence in "PAT Testers" to undertake competent inspection of 1 & 3ph fixed appliances as these are not "strictly" covered even in the C&G "PAT" exam.

My company has just bought another company out and I have been told they have an inhouse PAT tester that did a 1 day city and Guilds in the year 2000 but they have lost his certificate!

PIR = Perdic Inspection Report, a term that is common in the electrical industry and should be familiar to anyone dealing with such things. This is now an obsolete report, replaced by... EICR = electrical Installation Condition Report, again a term that anyone within or outside the electrical industry should by now undstand if they have anything to do with the. Anyone who is responsible in any form for fixed electrical installations should have sufficient competence to understand these terms else they should leave this to those that do. Neither are that new. ISI&T = In Service Inspection & Testing, this s and has been for some time the term utilised by the IET, & the electrical industry as the correct term for "PAT", again, really anyone who is responsible in any from for this work should understand this to be competent. There is an awfully large lack of understanding of electrical topics in the H&S profession it seems & this forum perpetuates that on an almost daily basis! I dare not post any more else I 'll end up banned because the mods round here don't like it when H&S "professionals" can be proven wrong or to have a lack of understanding.

To qualify the above before I get banned By qualified I mean someone who is at least a Tech IOSH, Time served electrician, with C&G 2391 in inspection testing and certification of electrical installations, 17th ed wiring regs (BS7671), 2377 'PAT' and if you're really lucky, then C&G 2400 (design etc) Then on top of that distinctions in NEBOSH Gen and Construction. Please don't take electrical advice of anyone less. :-)