Posted By Graham Sargeant
Yes, and don't just rely on the PAT test, make sure you have some kind of operator pre-use inspection before use of this equipment, and clearly defined route of action this is not in good condition.

Posted By Mike Miller
I would say yes in the interests of good practice. It states in Reg 5 of PUWER amongst other things that 'every employer shall ensure that where any machinery has a maintenance log, the log shall be kept up to date.

The best place to start the log would be at the point of delivery of new equipment. inspect it, record it and issue it. check it on return or periodically and make record. Other wise where do you start, when the item first becomes a problem?

Mike

Posted By Jack
I'm with Geoff on this. Although it may not be a 'big deal' in many circumstances, it can be fairly onerous in some such as if the checks are made by an external contractor. My advice would be to put them on the equipment register so they are included in the next round of checks.

Posted By GWB
If in doubt just get it tested anyway. Its in our policy to test every thing new.

It also helps because we have an in house tester.

Posted By Linda Westrupp
I would say No on the grounds that some time ago a new piece of equipment which was PAT tested on purchase and before going into use broke down and the manufacturer refused to replace/refund as the PAT testing counted as 'tampering' with the equipment. We now add the item to the register for testing next time round but not during it's guarantee period but only if it is CE marked. If not CE marked it would be tested but in practice we do not buy any items not marked. Hope this helps, although with two distinct 'camps' emerging it looks as if you are going to decide which to join!
Linda

Posted By Nigel Singleton BSc
Sorry I'm a bit late on this one - definitely YES, YES, YES. I have PAT tested many items (as new) and failed quite a few of them, some straight out of the box. The question to ask, is, if an employee gets injured by the piece of equipment, who will be to blame, the manufacturer or the employer for not maintaining in a safe and efficient manner. I would have thought that as soon as the item has been unboxed, it would be difficult to prove fault with the manufacturer, where as the item only needs to be on the premises and faulty, for the employer to be at fault.

Posted By Graham Sargeant
Yes all 110voltportable and transportable equipment on site must be tested, and because its use and environment is harsh you should consider more frequent testing.

Posted By Laurie
I'm a bit late too, but definitely yes, yes, yes!

I have had equipment straight out of the box that was lethally defective, only once, but that's once too often.

Laurie

Posted By Ron Hunter
I'm definitely in the NO camp, on 4 counts:
1.new equipment from reputable suppliers has been QA inspected for compliance with essential safety requirements by the supplier/ importer you are perfectly entitled to ask for and receive a copy of the relevant certificates of complaince -providing you take reasonable steps to ensure the equipment is up to the job you require it for, this would satisfy PUWER;
2. PAT testing really isn't good for electrical equipment and in itself promotes earlier breakdown of insulation;
3. Reasonable practicability. A large Employer such as mine has reasonable systems where competent persons test/inspect all items to a set program. Imagine the complexity of arranging ad hoc test of new items across 750 business units/22,000 employees?
4. in the context of reasonable practicability, the Law doesn't say that any item of low voltage electrical equipment has to be tested, it has to be 'maintained so as to prevent danger'?

It's important to have good 'goods inward' supplier quality assurance systems - we've had a few things ordered through the wrong channels that weren't CE marked, etc.
Not suggesting this applies to any forum members, but some of us remember the amount of kit that was destroyed (or "failed") by the over zealous application of high test voltages to inappropriate electronic parts of appliances. Many items cannot be tested 'straight out of the box'- this inevitably leads to the destruction of sensitive electronic components and new items being thrown directly into the skip!
HSG 150(rev) worth a read on this issue, table on page 86 gives expectations of good practice for a range of equipment types in construction industry. This table suggests that (e.g.) 110v equipment be tested before first use on site then at 3 monthly intervals - (this doesn't mean that the equipment is necessarily new!)If in doubt then, you'll join the YES camp and apply (e.g.) the good practice described in HSG150!

Posted By Dave Wilson
If its 'new' then we would add to the register and test at next date, if its not 'new' it would be tested before first use on site.

Free leaflet on PAT testing on HSE www.

Posted By Geoff Burt
'Reasonably Practicable'

Much maligned words but still, to the best of my recollection, meaning to balance the risk against resources.

Risk is low to non existent - agreed?

Show me the figures for the numbers of people in the UK who have been electrocuted by new equipment being faulty - then I'm happy to reconsider.

Therefore no action is required - agreed?

It is much better to talk about these things logically rather than being emotive.

Posted By Laurie
I accept the logic of your arguments, but repeat my earlier response - I have had equipment straight out of the box that was lethally dangerous. Only once, but once is too often. "The clock that once strikes thirteen is forever suspect"!

Laurie

Posted By Laurie
Sorry Geoff, but we're going to have to agree to differ on this one!

However remote the possibility, I am not willing to wait until someone is electrocuted before implementing testing of new equipment.

Laurie

Posted By Geoff Burt

You may remember the HSE got it totally wrong regarding 'PAT' when the Electricity at Work Regs were first introduced.

It all depends on the risk - or it should. But if you have unlimited resources go for it. The rest of us use them where they are most use.

Posted By Adam Foyster
I run a nationwide electrical testing business and wouldn't expect to test any 'new' appliances, unless specifically asked to by any client. Appliances are safety tested after production and therefore should be safe to use as new.

Adam Foyster

Posted By Paul Bellis
I am in the NO camp -if it is new piece of equipment I recommend it is not subjected to a combined inspection and test (pat)for 12 months in an office or low risk environment -however equipment must be inspected prior to use and periodically (dep on equipt and use) this would pick up the majority of defects - after all the HSE say the equipment must me maintained - pat testing is only one part of the process. Construction sites and high risk environments are different - they should be before initial use and then 1 monthly - 3 monthly etc dep on environment age and use etc etc.
My opinion for what its worth folks.

Posted By Martin Kingman
To further the Ginger Beer point (Donoghue v Stephenson 1932) - It was never proved at court that there was actually a decomposing snail in the ginger beer! It was just taken to be so.

There is obviously strict liability on the manufacturer if the product is faulty. This is defined as "Product liability" under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, but note the
General Product Safety Regulations 1994 do not apply here (as these are only in relation to domestic goods). Other Sale of Goods Act 1979 points also arise.

I believe that in accordance with:
s2(1) HSWA 74 ".... so far as is reasonably practicable...." PAT testing should be done sooner rather than later.

Posted By Kevin Benson
Hi Jonathan
PAT testing is not a legal requirement, however it would be in your own interest to have documented regular user checks.

Posted By Shane Johnston

Yes, lets PAT test everything before first use and then every week thereafter .... but wait .. a fault could still develop after testing .. so lets provide every work area that uses electrical equipment with rubber mats, boots and gloves.

Oh, and while you're at it why not relocate to a single story building because stairs can kill ... remember "better to be safe than sorry. - One "avoidable" death is one too many".

Just where are you intending to draw the line ?

Shane.

Posted By Jack
I'm with you Shane and we should extend it to home safety - everything to to be tested before it's plugged in. And another thing, it can't be sensible to wait 3 years for MOTs.