One of our workshop operatives undertakes basic electrical repairs on portable items such as drills, grinders, screwdrivers, and transformers, for around 8 years.
He has no electrical qualifications but we allow him to undertake this task based on his experience and apparent competency in doing so for this length of time.
He is however qualified to PAT test and does so on all equipment everytime an item is repaired.

Any comments on this approach regarding his lack of qualification against his proven competency/ experience to do so would be greatly appreciated.

ctd, the Institution of Engineering and Technology provide advice regarding qualifications and training I believe. May be worth a call.

There's a phrase within HSG107 which states "within the limits of there skills and experience" which is a bit wooly to say the least as I'm not sure this is even a quantifiable statement regarding someone's competency.

I've had a chat with the employee who undertakes our repairs and PAT testing and he basically restricts himself to hand tools and leads, which for us probably covers 99% of our items, so I'm kind of happy with this.

The cover-all is the requirement to PAT test ALL items before they are returned to service.

dbs - I take your point with regards to the acid test, we get a 'proper' sparky in for fixed installations and the other 1% of portable and transportable electrical items so I'm comfy with this if we stick to the above.

Here is a definition of competence that I adopted and found to be quite useful that may be of some use to you in your quest

"A Competent person is defined as someone with suitable qualifications, training, practical and/or theoretical knowledge and/or experience to enable them to function in a specific area of responsibility, who has the requisite ability and qualities to be capable of predicting potential hazards, the authority to take action to eliminate such hazards, and the maturity to seek such specialist advice and/or assistance as may be required to enable them to make necessary judgements based on the supporting opinions of other specialists."

Might help in justifying this persons "Competence"

From a pragmatic point of view I think this sums the situation up very well.

My only concern, as raised above by SafetySmurf, is whether insurers would have the same view.

Why not ask an electrician... Even us electricians go and sit the C&G 2377 (please forget any other so called P.A.T.qualifications... They are a joke and a scam end-of!

Repairs are fine as long as one knows how to test and how to intemperate the results of such testing... Far too many cowboys out there without the our H&S crowd adding to them with well intentioned but misplaced views on electrical safety

I trust this does not upset anyone but if it don't really care. I'm just fed up with untrained people getting hurt.


And before anyone kicks off with 'anyone can PAT' think on. Even people like me with full testing tickets take the 3-day 2377.

To echo what zimmy has mentioned - the PAT course should really be the City and Guilds awards to have any faith in the quality and merit of the qualification. Lesser courses should be avoided.

It has been the case in the past that experience gained from apprenticeships was sufficient to gain proficiency and competency in a trade to allow those persons to perform tasks at a standard equal to their peers - those tradesmen did not require formal qualifications obtained by attending college. The modern apprenticeship has changed that, where an ability to understand the theory is also required. However, peer acceptance is the real acid test. If he can perform basic plug/connector replacement with a selection of cords and cables as good as an "electrician", try to get that specific competence documented.

Repairs to equipment should really only be limited to fitting plugs/connectors - and this would also be the case for a fully qualified "electrician" who would not be competent to undertake more complex repair of internal elements of electrical equipment. That task is reserved for manufacturer approved repairers who will have received specific training. So, if your operative has really only been changing flexes, cords and plugs then I wouldn't be too concerned.

Basic electrical competency training courses are available for delivering basic electrical practical skills - to include termination of different types of wiring/cables and connectors. Perhaps this could something to explore - else establish and in-house training session and have a good electrician set and evaluate basic electrical practical skills for various cords and plugs. I am sure if planned properly it is better than nothing at all. Of course this training and skill should be strictly limited to those basic tasks mentioned and should not suggest competency to tackle anything more and would not suggest he is an electrical professional.

The question I would ask myself is where would you stand hypothetically if one of these tools cause a injury to someone I am sure the insurance company would not pay out yes he is experienced but qualifications. Where I work all our PAT testing is carried out by electricians who have also have PAT testing certification which is two fold they are experienced and competent

Please take a long hard look at the EWR 1989

Zimmy, I'm not sure if that was a response to my post or not. If it was: I don't believe that however hard you look at the EAWR you will find anything to the effect that "If the employer does something wrong such as failing to provide training and thereby is liable for an injury, the liability insurer need not compensate the injured person." Indeed that would defeat the whole point of liability insurance. It is when the employer has done everything right that there are grounds for a liability insurer not compensating an injured person!

Sorry kate, wires crossed again. I was pratting on about the first post and was in a rush :-(

Way too many people getting kit from B&Q,a book of sorts from the library and off they go. Next day (if lucky) they phone a spark to sort it out.Basic electrical courses etc help people get hurt.


Betta S :-) good to hear from you mate.

Not broken Mark, just sucking air! Letting my softer more fem side show through. In battle on an other forum and I'm not able to talk about it on here.

ctd suggests: "The cover-all is the requirement to PAT test ALL items before they are returned to service."..

Can anyone tell me where this 'cover all requirement' comes from?? Its not in the Regs...

Steve