I found a piece of lifting equipment at a site. A little hard to describe but here goes, it acts like a spreader beam. It is a plate with a number of holes to allow adjustment of the lifting points. The lower holes have a bolt through a bracket and this plate then through the bracket again. The bracket has a welded pin in its lower portion between the two side plates, with a wire rope on this pin and finally a hook on the end of that ( all times three if you include the top one).

The item was in house manufacture of a company which was then taken over by the company I work for. So access to original design is not possible.

The issue I found is the bolt going through the bracket and plate has a hole through it near the end for a split pin to prevent the nut coming off the bolt. I picked up the lack of split pin in an inspection. However since then the insurance company have been in for the LOLER inspection and said it was ok without the pin. I have been told that this was specifically mentioned to the inspector.

I feel they would not have had the hole for a split pin if not required, they do not want to put a pin in as they have to adjust it and so have to remove and replace the pin every time and they feel the inspector is happy with it the way it is. At a different site there is another one of these lifting accessories which has the pins in it.

I intend to insist there is a split pin put into it, but what are your thoughts. If the inspector is happy to sign off, should that be good enough.

Chris

LOLER is not an exact science unfortunately. We have our lifting equipment maintained by one organisation and our LOLER checks carried out by a different one - this way we have two sets of eyes and they will both come up with different issues at the same time but they tend to agree that it really depends on the emphasis an individual places on it.

On the other hand, my personal preference is the belt and braces approach, if it has a space for a split pin then you really should fit one - as Ian says, it's a few pence but you know then that it is right.

Urlrik,

I expect Chris means LOLER statutory examination by a engineering company appointed by the insurance company. That's the arrangement my main client has, but let's see if Chris confirms that.

Sorry if I didn't make what I was saying clearer.
I agree with you, fit a split pin. I am pretty sure I said that's what I would push for. If there is a dispute with that, which it sounds like there could be then its up to management to decide IMHO.

Where I talked about the cost v benefit was a more general point about when something goes beyond compliance and into best practice. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer. I am pretty sure no one would have acted on what was a throw away comment on a discussion board by someone who said they weren't an expert, but happy to clarify.

Sorry "Thorough examination"

Chris