Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi just seeking clarity around servicing & LOLER regarding tracking and mobile hoists used in the care industry. Recently just be informed that the person who services the equipment should not be the one that carrys out the LOLER. Is this a legal requirement or a good standard to be followed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It is HSE best practice guidance (refer to their LOLER leaflet INDG422 I think).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Thank you I will follow it up
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Bateson31062 wrote:Hi just seeking clarity around servicing & LOLER regarding tracking and mobile hoists used in the care industry. Recently just be informed that the person who services the equipment should not be the one that carrys out the LOLER. Is this a legal requirement or a good standard to be followed? I came across this issue a year or so ago. An environmental health officer was initially insisting that we used a different person to do the LOLER examination than the person doing the servicing. He was referring to the HSE leaflet INDG422 which clearly supports this assertion. However, the wording in the leaflet seems to have been taken out of context compared to the guidance in the LOLER Regulation/ACOP/Guidance book L113. The Guidance in L113, para 295 - seemed to be talking about independence for inhouse engineers - independence from the people who use the hoist/the management/staff team. At least that was my interpretation. I checked this with our national contact at the HSE and he advised me that it was not necessary to ensure that the LOLER examiner was a different person to the servicing engineer. He said the situation is very different for tower cranes which are far more complex and high risk but considered such a recommendation on applying the same rules to people hoists would be OTT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Thanks Buzz thats really helpful
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sorry, should have added this bit directly from the document:
"An employee nominated to carry out this work should not generally be the same person who performs routine maintenance, as they would be responsible for assessing their own work. Competent persons should be able to act with impartiality and independence. The employer should consider independent verification of any ‘in-house’ competent person’s work"
I think that statement is pretty self exlanatory and demonstrates where the responsibilities for maintenance and inspection lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The operative word in the guidance is "should". Not shall, not must, but "should".
This IMHO allows some lee-way for a pragmatic approach in lower-risk situations and instances where a separate 'competent person' would add no more value than the person supervising (even on a sample basis) those undertaking the maintenance/servicing.
Due diligence shouldn't mean breaking the bank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.