I have just been involved in a discussion about lifting equipment that failed the LOLER inspection (with a type “a” defect). The question has arisen that if the piece of equipment has failed the inspection, do you just repair it and carry on or repair it and then get it re inspected, before you carry on?

My view is that it should be re inspected, but having reviewed L113, it does not seem to specifically say it must. There is a note saying inspect after significant repair, which I guess you could class all “a” type defects as, but not hard and fast. For any type “b” defects, we fix and wait for the next scheduled inspection, but do you do the same for type “a”.

What are your views?

Chris

As Sidestep IMO go for the thorough Examination again it will eliminate problems through a possible bad repair, and give you a better frame of mind than a regulation will.

Ta Alex

For my benefit, could you define what a LOLER type "A" failure is, please?

I am sure that everyone else just knows....................!

There are also ‘A N’ defects which are notifiable to the HSE, coming back to the post – when does a competent engineer stop becoming competent that he needs his work checking?

I was under the impression that all cat "a" defects were notified to HSE (Not seen a "AN" one). But it seems that HSE have never contacted the company I now work for and they have had some "a" defects.

Chris

From the OP - it really depends on the repair.

We have nearly 70 two-post vehicle lifts onsite. As an example, if the rubber pads on the lifting arms are badly worn the Inspector will issue a Cat A defect report. We can easily change these pads in less than 30s (simple push fit) and I would not be undertaking a re-inspection to check they have been fitted correctly. I trust our engineers/contractors to complete this repair correctly.

In reference to the other point raised by Billibob & Chris42 - I would argue that not all Cat 'A' defects are notified to the HSE. The RIDDOR ACOP for reporting Dangerous Occurences states: "The definition covers the collapse of any of the machinery or equipment listed, the overturning of any such machinery or equipment or the failure of any load-bearing part of it, whether used for lifting goods, materials or people. It does not cover the failure of ancillary equipment, such as electric operating buttons or radius indicators, or failures of lifting tackle or lifting accessories, such as chains and slings."

Taking account of this definition and comparing it to our Insurance definition, Cat A defect are "Defects which could cause a danger to persons". This is not the same as the HSE's definition - this is a far wider definition, I would guess, designed to capture the higher risk defects with the potential to lead to more serious consequences (some of which COULD be failure of lifting equipment/load bearing parts).

We have, in the past, had one Cat A defect which our insurer reported to the HSE. We had a wire rope badly worn on a ramp. If I remember more than 5% of the wire stands were broken. The engineer at the time insisted this must be reported to the regulator.

This is my take on it anyway.

Ok this is away from my original question of do others get it re inspected following repair, but curious about this now. So the HSE may have a different definition of what an “a” defect is to that of the insurance company doing the inspections for us (what was that story about a tower at Babel - except we can’t blame any God for this one).

So anyone know what the HSE’s definition is (oh and do they think you should get the inspection re done ?). In INDG339 there are the words “existing or imminent risk of serious personal injury”, is this the HSE definition.

It is slightly concerning that the people doing the inspection may not report something they should and also from INDG339 it states”If the report does not contain all the information above, you should not accept it, as this may place you in breach of the law.” So I would take it, not issuing a report at all when they should, is also on YOUR shoulders?

I should have added, it is also the view of the HSE

The definition on the reports I have noted above, indicate that the equipment should not be further used, which fits with the definition of existing or imminent risk. But is there two classes of type "a" defect ones which are and ones which are not reportable?

I would find it hard to believe that any defect so serious that you must stop using it immediately as per my post above, would not be reportable.

I don't mind them reporting, just wanted to understand; now it has been brought up. Always keen to find out more and improve understanding.

Thanks to all joining in the discussion, BTW.

Chris

Just to add to the comment by B Bruce, the Inspectors, (Engineer Surveyors as the insurers tend to call them) are trained to carry out these examinations but usually a surveyor would be required to examine many different types of machinery and not necessarily be an expert on them all. Using MEWPs as an example, some have an alarm that sounds when the machine is tilted too far and some have a light that does it. Some of the older machines will not have safety features of the newer ones but are still in service etc. If, as has happened on many occasions, the surveyor expects to hear an alarm and doesn't then he may file an immediate defect on the machine when in fact it was working correctly.

Because of this (and obviously, if there is a fault you will want to know about it smartish) there should be a close communication between the surveyor and the company when they are carrying out the examinations.

To answer chris42, no there is not 2 classes of immediate defect. If it is an immediate defect it is reportable and if it is a time specific defect it is not.