We have a vacuum cleaner on site that is owned by a contracted cleaning company, could someone please advise on who would be responsible for have it tested. Many thanks

Thank you Invictus

It's a myth that all portable electrical appliances in a low-risk environment, such as an office, need to have a portable appliance test (PAT) every year. The law simply requires employers to ensure electrical equipment is maintained in order to prevent danger – it doesn’t state what needs to be done or how often.

Sorry 'HSE doesn't want to see office equipment tested anually at all'.

It is just laziness to an extent, it is easier to just get everything done once a year, requires little thought or effort. But at almost £1 a time can be a little costly. Also if you are going to get someone in to visually inspect they just as well plug it in the tester. From indg236 Not every electrical item needs a portable appliance test (PAT) In some cases, a simple user check and visual inspection is enough, eg checking for loose cables or signs of fire damage and, if possible, checking inside the plug for internal damage, bare wires and the correct fuse. Other equipment, eg a floor cleaner or kettle, may need a portable appliance test, but not necessarily every year. Do you really want your employees " checking inside the plug" from the above? Even if you are happy to let them, who has the time, who will co ordinate, will they each be issued with their own screwdrivers. Laziness wins Yes I know not Friday yet.

Also the Electricity at Work Regulations do not specifically mention portable appliance testing and inspection; they simply require electrical systems to be 'maintained' in a condition so as not to cause danger. However, the only way we know if a system needs to be maintained is if it is inspected and tested, and so the need for such inspection and testing of a system is implicit in the requirement for it to be maintained. Anyone who inspects and tests and electrical system is, in law, a duty holder and must be competent to undertake such work.

Ahem. I have no problem with not having PAT tests annually for general office equipment. There are other means of proving sufficient maintenance and safety - see all the arguments already given. Signed A regulator NB. It is, of course, more complicated than that but please don't believe that its what we have to see to find an organisation legally compliant and will almost certainly be based upon the specific circumstances relevant to that organisation.

As the HSE are not the enforcing authority for most offices I don't think they would be bothered in the slightest. Might want to ask the local authority officer (EHO or similar) and I bet you get the same answer! better safe system than PAT once a year! I once saw a vacuum where I could see the bare metal wires in 6 places because the leed had been cut. But it had been PAT 7 months ok so everyone thought it was OK to use!

quote=Invictus]if for some reason it's late getting done and they refuse to use the equipment because the PAT is out of date.

But it might be part of the license conditions, in which case they can ask for what ever they want. Just as insurance companies etc often do.

OK, we all know that PAT is not required under statute law by “name”. To answer the OP, IF the vacuum cleaner requires PAT, then it is down to the employer of the user. It is also down to them to decide if it requires PAT. If your company requires that all equipment is subject to PAT, then you are legally allowed to insist upon it under your terms of contact, as long as this is within the contract. I would suggest that you check with your insurer to see what they require because I KNOW of a company that had an insurance claim for a Fork Lift Truck accident refused because there was no PAT regime in place. A PAT regime in accordance with the IET CoP was a condition of their insurance, thus they were in breach of their terms of insurance, thus un-insured. Now that brings in a whole new raft of potential issues does it not? I would hope that we all know that the requirement comes from HASAWA74, EAWR89 (primarily), PUWER98, MHSWR etc. Now take one of these, EAWR, look to reg 4, then 5, then 6, then 7, then 8, then 9, then 10, then 11. I would also suggest checking out reg 16. I’m sure that these can be checked out by those interested. In INDG107 & 236, HSE do state that PAT is not required. However, they do state that equipment must be safe. They do suggest that user checks are acceptable for some equipment. However, EAWR89 requires that those persons are competent to do these checks. So, yes rely on user checks, but, you need to ensure that the users are competent, and be able to prove this. These user checks would need to be documented, recorded & reviewed by a competent person, to ensure that you were compliant. Next, HSE suggest the following: Who should I talk to about electrical safety? In the first instance, a competent electrical contractor should be able to give advice on electrical safety and should also be able to direct you to a suitable electrical engineer for advice about specialist areas. Therefore I suggest that you would not need to look any further! ;)

Gerry; succinctly put! For those who disagree, please remember that we represent various types of organisations & in my world I have several clients who would not be able to find employees wiling or indeed capable of carrying out inspections. For their peace of mind they are happy to pay somebody 64p an item to come in & carry out the checks for them & before anybody comments, yes I agree with the MOT analogy, but surely that is the same for any maintenance regime?

We should all take note of the contents of the above posting - spot on Paul. Jon

Paul is absolutely correct. The site services manager at the office where I used to work hired the cheapest PAT company she could find. From memory, about 60 p per item, back around the year 2003. Along came a retired couple, who both looked about 70 (not that there's anything wrong with that), and their PAT tester. He plugged items in and rotated the selector for the different tests, while she wrote out stickers. Pass if the green light came on, fail if the red light came on. I asked why one item had failed: "The red light came on" was the answer. "Why" I asked: "Cos that's what it does when something fails". I kept watching, and when he passed an item with a damaged cable and broken plug, "Cos if the green light comes on, it's OK" I had them removed from the premises. The punch line - this was the marketing office of a major multinational manufacturer of electrical equipment! That site services manager didn't last very long, and we trained one of the maintenance guys to do our own inspection & test.

As the opening paragraph of post #21

What if it fails... I had an emergency call out one afternoon to a pharmaceutical manufacturer. They had been "tasked" with PAT by their insurance company. They selected their normal electrical contractor. They hammered them on price, to the extent it was not really worth doing. I know both companies well, the end user & the contractor. So, to make ends meet, the contractor sent in a newly qualified guy (C&G PAT, and partially qualified as an electrician, BS7671 wise). The "tester" had condemned one half of one of their critical production lines. Remember this is "light" industry/manufacturing. A lot of the equipment is 1ph < 3kW, so on BS1363 plug tops. This is convenient, and allowed. As they do washdown, deep cleans etc. they have the lines on plugs so that they can move them around to clean thoroughly and easily re-direct production, or combine/split lines to meet their customer demand. They have good control of their washdowns, so that is not an issue. The guy was PAT’ing the equipment and failing it because the “normal” PAT “machine” is not designed to test & check such things as VSD’s with up front LCR filters to control EMC, they are designed to be “leaky”. The BS1363 plugs were “just” in on their tolerance for leakage, but it was too much for PAT. They had various other complex systems that were not ever, designed to be subject to PAT as would be “normal”. Also, the guy was only testing up to the first NVR in the machine, so basically the supply cord up to the first contactor, and the start button circuit. Now this guy was above the level of your average PAT person. He had undertaken and passed the C&G courses. It is just that the training does not cover everything, and not everything can, nor should be subject to PAT as per the IET CoP. Some equipment is MUCH more complex, just because it has a plug, does NOT mean it HAS to be subject to PAT as per the HSE/IET CoP. I have supplied some equipment to schools, with an “appliance inlet” think caravan power inlet. I remove them and replace them with a suitable isolator. Yes our company is covered for this even if the equipment is CE marked. Yes there is a lot that goes with it, and the OEM is aware and has “rubber stamped” it. Why, because otherwise it has a plug & socket, thus people try to PAT it, and it is not designed to be PAT’ed. PAT is NOT the be all and end all. It is suitable for a LOT of electrical appliances portable and transportable, to apply it to complex fixed appliances is beyond the scope of a “normal” PAT person, because it is not taught on the C&G course, and is not covered by the IET CoP. Thus, it requires a much higher and different level of competency.