Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By WilliamTell
Ian what a great answer, unfortunately not to the original question which has been my point all along.
Original question was in relation to office equipment not some chemical reactor.
Original question was in relation to PAT test not guarding.
It really boils down to risk assessment and the level of risk involved in working with the said equipment....which again has been my point all a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Decimomal
Sorry for going off at a tangent Michael.....
Kirsty,
Your initial response said
“We need to answer two questions here;
1) What is CE marking? What is it's purpose?
2) Are Items tested prior to being sold?
Also we need to know that we do not need to have a pat test on machinery which has been relocated from one point to the other. (Even though shipment can cause the damage)”
Your latest response said
” I believe that CE marking on the product means that the product is constructed in line with EU specifications and legislations. Also all the products are tested once assembled for quality, safety and integrity. In response to argument that product might not be safe to use after being shipped & installed, my question would be, ‘what is the guarantee that product will be safe to use (until the next PAT) after a PA Test. And also do we carry out a PAT test every time we relocate an electrical equipment?”
I guess my confusion is that your first response posed two, (or was it three?), questions that did not seem relevant to the discussions. Your second response went on to answer your own questions and I am struggling to find your point, and what the purpose of asking the questions in the first place was.
That’s all.
PAT Testing or PA Testing?
RIDDOR or RIDDO?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Futcher
William Tell
I seem to remember a run in with you before about some comments I made; old habits, eh?
Please feel free to take a careful look at both the first and the last full paragraph I worte where I make it clear that I am INCLUDING electrical equipment, and trying to apply a Principle to all circumstances, and a proposal of applying it at a sutiable level in all circumstances.
Please don't fall into the trap of not reading the whole of the submission.
Sometimes, to answer a question suitably and sufficiently, it needs to be put into a context (old quote: a text out of context is a pretext).
As someone said (was it this thread or another?): Just answering "no!" usually elicits a "why?".
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anderson8
Listen guys it's Xmas, and at the end of the day you could all be right in your own environments. It's all down to risk assessment, if that tells you it's needed, say for example in a harsh,wet, tough environment then do it. If the assessment tells you the likelihood of damage is low, say again for example on office environment then it's probably not necessary. Don't beat yourselves up about it, it's really that simple.
Take it easy all, happy Xmas
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RCH
Guys / Girls,
It’s been a while since I have posted but I have been reading intently for well, years now and the discussions never fail to amaze me, make me smile, laugh, want to cry etc.
One thing I love about this particular thread is the responses it has caused and the battles. Now don’t get me wrong in our profession we have enough to deal with than to start fighting between ourselves but I think it only go’s to show just how passionate some people are about what they do and I know some of the arguments are due to not reading properly or grammar etc. but if the posters weren’t bothered they wouldn’t even respond in the first place.
All im saying is it’s nice to see how passionate some of our colleagues are and to such a simple question.
Merry Christmas all (and New Year of course).
RCH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
I must of made an impression then, however I can't say I remember you.....Anyway back to the thread...
I quote
"....trying to apply a Principle to all circumstances, and a proposal of applying it at a sutiable level in all circumstances".
I'm slightly confused Ian, becuase if you have read my threads I have stated all along its about what is reasonable in the circumstance - and IMHO its not reasonable to PAT test the eqpt from Michael's original post!!
So to qoute you again
"Please don't fall into the trap of not reading the whole of the submission".
Have a good Easter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RCH
William, you never fail in making an impression for right or wrong thats whats so great about this site its hours of entertainment and education.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
RCH - welcome back....
I must agree - if i'm honest I've enjoyed this thread as well....it beats christmas shopping with wife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RCH
See thats what I mean yet another completly valid and factually correct point, couldnt agree more!
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
I wasn't going to rise to this but .........
My point has nothing to do with electrics or PAT testing.
It is this. If a member of the public logs onto this site and see's some of the downright rude responses made to people who are only expressing an opinion it is hardly likely to enhance our reputation as a profession.
If one professional disagrees with another professional they discuss it, listen to each others point of view and find a mutally satisfactory outcome. They do not use phrases such as 'if you are attempting to antagonise then congratulations'.
Anyway I'm off to do some work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Decimomal
It's not Xmas it's Christmas!
(Bah Humbug)
Before the Festivities get in to full swing here are a few 'Festive' incidents from 'Christmas Past': Were you silly enough to be counted in any of the following? ...
3 Brits die each year testing if a 9v battery works on their tongue;
31 Brits have died since 1996 by watering their Christmas tree while the Christmas lights were plugged in;
142 Brits were injured in 1999 by not removing all the pins from new shirts;
58 Brits are injured each year by using sharp knives instead of screwdrivers;
19 Brits have died in the last 3 years believing that Christmas decorations were chocolate;
British Hospitals reported 4 broken arms last year after cracker pulling accidents;
101 people since 1999 have had broken parts of plastic toys pulled out of the soles of their feet;
18 Brits had serious burns in 2000 trying on a new jumper with a lit cigarette in their mouth;
A massive 543 Brits were admitted to hospital in the last two years after opening bottles of beer with their teeth;
5 Brits were injured last year in accidents involving out-of-control Scalextric cars;
In 2000, eight Brits cracked their skull whilst throwing up into the loo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Gardner
QUOTE WilliamTell: "I'm slightly confused Ian, becuase if you have read my threads I have stated all along its about what is reasonable in the circumstance - and IMHO its not reasonable to PAT test the eqpt from Michael's original post!!"
I'm sorry William, but this is a big change from your earlier posts on this thread, which seemed to boil down to: The law doesn't say you have to PAT new equipment, so don't do it.
Make your mind up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
Sally.
Lets not forget we are all consenting adults on this forum working in a very tough industry where we have to be critical and take criticism on the chin......seriously if you think that my statement
"if you are attempting to antagonise then congratulations"
is as you put it down downright rude then we have very differing definitions of rude.
I find the fact that you single me out wholly unprofessional and as you put it downright rude also!!!
It really does'nt bother me that members of the public come on here and can see what we discuss...I've certainly not got anything to hide and as someone else has pointed out it demonstrates passion and opinion...so before you hijack a discussion and I quote you
"My point has nothing to do with electrics or PAT testing"
with your own personal views, I suggest you start your own separate discussion on rudeness or contact a moderator if you have a complaint.
Ian,
Again your slightly confusing me...I must see a brain surgeon because my brain seems to work in a different way to yours...not quite sure what your getting at but i'll attempt to answer it...
1.There is no law what says you have to PAT test new eqpt (or any eqpt for that matter)
2.I would'nt pat test new office eqpt becuase for me its not reasonable to do it
Still not sure what your trying to get at???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Futcher
Can we put the question another way: What are the circumstances where a NEW piece of 240v electrical equipment (a) MUST or (b) MUST NOT be PA tested?
I'd be interested in seeing a few practical pointers for a Checklist that I might design (and sell at a hugely inflated consultancy price! - j/k)
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
Ian,
doesn't matter how many different ways we re-phrase the question, the answer is still that we don't have to PAT test anything, whether new or not.
Going back to the origional post.... simple pre use and regular visual checks would suffice in an office environment.
Its good to talk...
tabs still open at the bar if anyones interested.
Holmezy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
Typical
You try and answer a perfectly simple question which has been posted to get a quickie answer and this is what you get - a drawn out protracted argument - is really any wonder why we have such shocking GREY, jobsworth, dithering reputation......
Lets put it another way....imagine this question appeared on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire -
Does new office equipment, CE marked, require PAT testing prior to use?
Enough said - you can all put whatever spin you want on it to make yourselfs look like a fountain of knowledge but the guy wanted a quick answer not a two day debate!!
Happy Halloween
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
In all circumstances, new equipment should be installed by competent persons - I would expect that to include visual and functional checks. If either of those raised doubts (or if other quality issues such as damaged packaging, scratches, dents, bits coming away in the hands as it is handled) I would expect further test / investigation.
Much of the equipment hitting our workplace requires inspection rather than testing.
Ian, I don't think the word "must" applies to PAT - there is no legal requirement, just a business case. It is for the individual employers to set their own operating standard (in consideration to the considerable guidance available).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
and when I said "Tabs still open at the bar" I was referring to my offer of a peace keeping drink, not a slur on the poster called "Tabs" who may or may not have a need for alcohol.
No offence mean't.............
way off post this time...sorry.
Just say NO to PAT!!
Holmezy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
I admit to reading that a couple of times and then agreeing LOL. 'tis the season (and all that) :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
and when I say NO to PAT, I mean PA Testing, not Pat, who by all accounts is athoroughly nice person.
No offence meant..
Holmezy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Gardner
QUOTE: "Lets put it another way....imagine this question appeared on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire -
Does new office equipment, CE marked, require PAT testing prior to use?
Enough said - you can all put whatever spin you want on it to make yourselfs look like a fountain of knowledge but the guy wanted a quick answer not a two day debate!!"
Missing the point again, William.
Any question like that would need the qualifier: 'According to HSE or IEE guidance...'
Does the law require it? No.
Does current guidance require it? No
Is it still a good idea to do it, as part of your asset management system? Yes, IMHO.
You may disagree, but that doesn't mean your's is the 'right' answer. Just another opinion. And we all know the thing about opinions...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Decimomal
Is it now time to pull the plug on this discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Futcher
HSG 107 - Maintaining Portable and Transportable Electric Equipment, Para 12 states: "EAW Regulation 4(2) requires that all systems be maintained, so far as reasonably practicable, to prevent danger. This requirement covers all items of electrical equipment including fixed, portable and transportable equipment. Particular actions that can be taken in order to maintain portable and transportable equipment, and thereby prevent danger, are described..." in a later Paragraph.
So – because the statutory instrument does not mention PAT, yet even though the HSE issues HSG Guidance that mentions maintenance, we don’t have to PAT? I am now confused and think that my 10 previous years in safety were wasted.
Please will someone explain why guidance is issued that you are now saying we can ignore. This is a Real Question, I an truly in a quandary.
Thanks a bunch guys.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
yes probably its getting slightly boring now...Ian I think its you that is missing the point...you still don't get it do you....I merely answered the original question....there is no law which requires new office eqpt to be PAT tested - FACT.
You are now moving the goalposts to fit your answer by suggesting that it is a good idea to do it as part of a mgnt system - which was not the original question - was it? be honest now
So for a million pound
Does new office eqpt require a PAT test?
Your phone a friend has gone - no more 50/50 whats it going to be Ian?
NO
Well done you've just won a £million
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By S T
ST rejoins as a safety officer….
Peeps through this forum…..
Crys in frustration…..
Visits Holmezy’s bar…….
Gets drunk………..
And runs towards no-man’s land where there’s no signs of Health and Safety (safety consultants)...
Arrggghhhhhhhhh!
Sacks himself (from safety officer’s post)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ITK
I think Ian makes a good point re testing new items. However not all employers have the luxury of an on site PA tester.
If people want to contribute their experiences to the "discussion" forum then they should be allowed. Would you close someone down in a pub conversation because their opinion was different to yours.
Everyone on here has the right to contribute and debate shouldn't be stifled by the "I know the law" brigade.
ITK. (former law enforcer).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Futcher
Yes I am missing the point - that's why I am asking a genuine question for a genuine answer, to be genuinely educated on this missing point; I'm not asking for a smart-alec Millionaire jibe answer
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
Ian F,
If you stand by your earlier thread pls read the submissions - the millionaire question was intended for Ian G and not you....
To answer your question you will not find in any legislation any mention of PAT test it simply states employers have a duty to maintain - most employers to ensure eqpt is maintained PAT test. simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Futcher
Oh how remiss of me not to spot the invisible "G" in the reference to Ian
Getting hacked off now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
Chill!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
INDG236 is more relevant. It provides the criteria for the testing and inspection of office equipment and includes the requiremetns after any modification.
It does not include a requirement for initial testing for newly purchased equipment.
I'm surprised that no one else has picked up that one contributor seems to have evidence that something like 2% of their new equipment is electrically defective and to such a serious extent it is returned to the manufacturer. If true, this has major ramifications both for the users and the manufacturers. I find that quite frightening.
Should we, as an institution, be taking this up with other bodies?
Ian, could I suggest you put your latest question (of the many) onto a new thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
My goodness - I've got to laugh or else I'd cry...is this what happens when you answer a question openly and honestly...and the moral of this discussion forum is....next time go Christmas shopping with the wife:-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Seamus O Sullivan
Just to let you all know one of my extension leads failed a PAT test, I did the test myself with a robin 5000, the lead looks perfect and even meters out ok with a 500 volt insulation resistance and a resistance tester finds the earth continuity to be very low. I found a fault occurred when I plugged in a 13amp plug-top into the socket outlet on the extension lead.there is a defect in the socket itself. The earth connunity breaks somewhere internal in the socket. It is old, hardly ever used but looks new.
For me this shows the value of carrying out a PAT test.
If I did a visual inspection of this I would say it is perfect, even using the basic test meters it would seem ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Gardner
It's what happens when YOU answer a question, and expect that to be the end of the matter. Doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
Still not sure what point your trying to make Ian?
Anyway semus thanks for the information. No one has ever disputed the value of PAT tests just whether it is reasonable to suggest that all new office eqpt under goes one.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Gardner
Point(s): That you steamed in here, accused me of antagonistic posting, demand that you were correct, change your mind halfway through...
You don't really appear to appreciate the subject you are talking about, so you have substituted knowledge for rudeness.
Whatever...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
Thanks for that Ian - very professional I must say...I hope you don't get that wound up at work!!
Jump on the rudeness bandwagon - its so easy - all aboard!
Anyone reading this thread can see I have not altered my opinion, I appreciate the subject matter and understand the legislation so please there is no need to be derogatory.
As they say if you can't take the heat....
Have a good day and remember....relax its christmas soon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Futcher
I've just read through HSG 107 again and it shows a Portable Appliance Tester. Am I really that thick? (can't be - I have an IQ of 145) - it says (I know, I'm paraphrasing and simplifying Paras 47 - 52 quite a bit) that you should use it to show that an item is electrically safe.
OK it doesn't explicitly say new equipment must be tested, but it also does not say that new equipment does NOT need testing. That was the point I was asking about above (When Must/Must-not be tested)
I can't understand why HSE would issue guidance with this sort of information, and we are not supposed to follow it. Still not heard a convincing argument from this thread.
"We haven't found any new equipment is ever faulty" - oh, why is that? "because we don't test new equipment". Sure way to never find a fault then I guess.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Gardner
"Thanks for that Ian - very professional I must say...I hope you don't get that wound up at work!!
Jump on the rudeness bandwagon - its so easy - all aboard!
Anyone reading this thread can see I have not altered my opinion, I appreciate the subject matter and understand the legislation so please there is no need to be derogatory.
As they say if you can't take the heat...."
Leaf out of your own book, please Mr. Tell, leaf out of your own book...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Ian F - I think you are either being argumentative, or have not read the many posts which have clearly said there is no law - how can people show you that is fact? It is easy to quote the name of a law that exists, but not a law which does not. If you read the HSE website about PAT you will see that they say pretty much the same thing.
Guidance is guidance - there is no law saying you must follow it. It is however a way to show the judge that you complied with the law that says electrical equipment must be safely maintained.
Quoting your IQ is odd, mate. Read the posts and then make up your own mind. It appears none of us can convince you either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.