Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Jonny95  
#1 Posted : 23 June 2025 14:15:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jonny95

Hi All, In my limited past experiences, what’s needed a 6-monthly or 12-monthly examination has so far been pretty clear cut the usual FLTs, cranes, MEWPs. 

We’ve now got a new machine a SYSPAL Tumbler. I won’t try link it or post a photo as that never seems to work properly on this forum for myself. 

Basically, it picks up a food eurobin, lifts it about a foot or two off the ground, spins it to mix the contents, then lowers it back down within its enclosed enviroment. I'm unsure if this needs a LOLER thorough examination. It does lift and lower loads, and it’s used at work (may have answered my own question) but does that need to be its principal function to be considered lifting equipment?

A Kurdziel  
#2 Posted : 23 June 2025 15:42:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I don’t think that there is a simple  answer to one.  The difference is that if LOLER applies then it MUST have an inspection every  12 months while PUWER says the inspection happens “at suitable intervals”   except that PUWER reg  6(5)(c) specifically excludes “work equipment for lifting loads including persons;” because I suppose LOLER applies which describes lifting operations as “an operation concerned with the lifting or lowering of a load”. Which means yes because the tumbler clearly lifts the load. On the other hand in the world of practical H&S what do the HSE think  LOLER applies. I suspect they are not that concerned about  something that is lifting a bin a foot off the ground.  Speculating a bit,  you could ask how the piece of equipment is likely to fail? Is it the lifting bit? Unlikely;  dropping a bin a foot or so won’t do much damage.  The final question is would the HSE prosecute because  this kit was not subject to that the statutory  annual inspection?  

Kate  
#3 Posted : 23 June 2025 19:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Has the manufacturer supplied this with a LOLER certificate?  What does the manual say about inspection and maintenance?

antbruce001  
#4 Posted : 24 June 2025 06:50:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
antbruce001

Just because equipment qualifies as lifting equipment doesn’t automatically mean it requires a statutory thorough examination (TE) under LOLER. For a TE under LOLER to apply, failure of the equipment must present a significant risk to the health and safety of people.

For example, while a forklift truck (FLT) needs a TE for its lifting components, a pallet truck normally does not, as its failure would simply result in the load lowering by a small distance — presenting minimal risk.

In many cases, lifting mechanisms that are fully enclosed within suitably guarded machinery are not subject to LOLER TEs, because any failure is unlikely to endanger health or safety. Based on your description — with the equipment being enclosed — it seems unlikely that a TE would be required.

Kate’s comment is quite correct: if a TE were required, the machine should have been supplied with a valid initial test certificate when it was first commissioned.

Edited by user 24 June 2025 06:51:07(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 3 users thanked antbruce001 for this useful post.
Roundtuit on 24/06/2025(UTC), Jonny95 on 24/06/2025(UTC), peter gotch on 24/06/2025(UTC)
Jonny95  
#5 Posted : 24 June 2025 07:32:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jonny95

Thank you all so far, 

Kate it wasn't something we purchased new. Our project manager purchased it from a previous employer of his and when I questioned if they had a LOLER certification at his old place he didn't know what I was talking about. I read the handbook and it stated 'LOLER compliance and examination schedule - Review, 10 Years.' 

This didn't really clear it up for me but I assumed it was reffering to reviewing the LOLER regs for changes that may bring the machine more within the scope of the regulations? 

Roundtuit  
#6 Posted : 24 June 2025 07:59:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

From what I can see the manufacturer is still in business.

You have the equipment which will likely have a machine plate (model, serial number, year of manufacture).

Why not contact the manufacturer given they will have created the technical file required to place "safe equipment" on the market?

It is likely your company will be engaging with them for any specialist maintenance and spares in the future.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Jonny95 on 24/06/2025(UTC), Jonny95 on 24/06/2025(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 24 June 2025 07:59:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

From what I can see the manufacturer is still in business.

You have the equipment which will likely have a machine plate (model, serial number, year of manufacture).

Why not contact the manufacturer given they will have created the technical file required to place "safe equipment" on the market?

It is likely your company will be engaging with them for any specialist maintenance and spares in the future.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Jonny95 on 24/06/2025(UTC), Jonny95 on 24/06/2025(UTC)
Jonny95  
#8 Posted : 24 June 2025 08:47:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jonny95

Update: Rang the company and asked the question to which they've informed that it would require a TE under LOLER. 

I don't understand the 10 year review statement in the manual but I think regardless, for what it's worth to get it done I'd have probably chosen to do it anyway based on the replies here and valuable learning experience. 

Thanks all.  

peter gotch  
#9 Posted : 24 June 2025 10:50:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Jonny

Figure 1 of L113 the ACOP and Guidance to LOLEL asks three questions of which the last is@

Is the load lifted free from supporting structures?

If the load is fully contained when having been lifted, then may be the answer to that question is NO and HSE would consider that LOLER doesn't apply.

To be honest, I don't think it makes much difference whether you deal with this under LOLER or PUWER as the 6 or 12 month period specificied in Reg 9 of LOLER comes complete with the alternatie of a periodicity set out in a Written Scheme of Examination.

AND as has been said this is about a failure that gives rise to danger. Whatever "examination" you decide is necessary under LOLER and/or PUWER should have its scope based on risk.

Nowhere in LOLER (or PUWER) does it say that a "Written Scheme of Examination" has to have that title so may be just do whatever it says in the Maintenance Manual (if you have one), and if you don't have that, then either ask the manufacturer for a copy or work out what is needed from first engineering principles!

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
Jonny95 on 25/06/2025(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.