I would have said that they are being used to apply a force very much as if they were being used for lifting (depending on the level of force required) and it may be simply a case of adding them to any existing lifting equipment register you have. In this case, the additional cost per item is very small. However, if they are permanently fitted to the apparatus, they may be considered to be "part of an assembly" and a simple visual inspection may be adequate if they are indoors, protected from corrosion , undue stress etc. At what percentage of their SWL are the components working? There is unlikely to be a precise answer, as long as you can justify the course of action you take.

http://www.legislation.g...8/2307/regulation/2/made : "'lifting equipment' means work equipment for lifting or lowering loads and includes its attachments used for anchoring, fixing or supporting it;" So LOLER says that lifting equipment is equipment lifting and lowering loads, not equipment that could in other circumstances be used for lifting or lowering loads. If it's not lifting or lowering loads I personally would not regard it as falling under the remit of LOLER. The ACOP says "Other examples of equipment and operations not covered by LOLER include ... winching a load on level ground. LOLER does not apply to this second situation because the load does not leave the ground." That is, it's not what the equipment is that matters, it's what you do with it. Merely using a winch to exert force does not automatically invoke LOLER. PUWER will presumably apply, but I don't think LOLER does.

While it may not necessarily be lifting equipment and subject to the requirements of LOLER, it is work equipment and subject to the requirements of PUWER. Under PUWER it needs to be inspected at regular intervals to ensure there is no deterioration - why wouldn't you just add it to your lifting equipment register and kill two birds with one stone? This way you have not only the peace of mind knowing that the equipment is safe, but the paperwork to prove it. If, as Toe says, there was an accident, you are going to wish you had the documentation to back up your claim that the equipment was safe. Seems like a no brainer to me.

I'm with achrn. The answer on the legal situation surrounding specific question is a fairly clear 'no'. Everyone else has raised valid points about testing regardless of use (and LOLER lays out a perfectly reasonable testing schedule) and there are arguments to make about 'what if they were then used for mistakenly used for lifting etc.' - so you could choose to follow LOLER. But that would be a choice rather than a requirement. If not used for lifting, its not defined as lifting equipment, so LOLER does not apply. Another good example would be fixed eyebolts in a roof. If you're using as an anchor point for fall arrest or fall restraint these do not fall under LOLER. The moment you use them for rope access then they do. Same equipment ... but the method of use determines the applicability of the legislation.