Hello David,

If the lifting or lowering of loads is an application of the machinery then I would look to apply LOLER. There should be a record of thorough examination from the supplier prior to it's first use.

Are the lifting arms used by your employer? If so, I would look to get it thoroughly examined as per LOLER at the expense of your employer thereafter. . If it is the supplying company, there is obvious concern that they are not meeting their duties.

It may well be that the suppliers are ill informed or take a dim view of safety, but this is merely conjecture at this point.

Hi David

The guidance on LOLER in L113 includes the following:

Equipment and operations not covered by LOLER

30 A three-point linkage on a tractor is not considered to be lifting equipment.

31 In most cases LOLER will not apply to work equipment which does not have as its principal function a use for lifting or lowering. The three-point linkage mentioned above raises a tractor attachment, such as a plough, to clear the ground but this type of motion is not lifting for the purposes of these Regulations.

32 Other examples of equipment and operations not covered by LOLER include:

(a) a conveyor belt;

(b) winching a load where the load does not leave the ground;

(c) roller shutter doors;

(d) tipper trucks;

(e) eyebolts permanently fixed in the load (these form part of the load);

(f) dentist chairs; and

(g) fall arrest equipment, including eyebolts fastened to a structure to secure such fall arrest equipment, which are considered part of the fabric of the building.

33 However, a similar level of safety is required by PUWER in respect of the work equipment being used. Unassisted manual movement of loads that does not involve equipment, such as carrying a parcel, is not covered by LOLER or PUWER but would be covered by the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.

34 LOLER does not apply to escalators. This equipment is covered by more specific legislation, namely regulation 19 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

Now may be the supplier thinks that this is akin to a tipper truck, or even a conveyor, but HSE makes the point that if LOLER doesn't apply then PUWER will.

So, does it actually matter which Regulations apply.

Still a requirement to have an appropriate regime in place to reduce risk so far as reasonably practicable and it would be very difficult to justify the regime not including "through examination" (whatever you choose to call it) UNLESS you could be very confident that a failure of the load bearing mechanism is not a reasonably forseeable cause of risk to humans.

Remember that the prescriptive days of e.g. Factories Act 1961 Section 27 telling you what maximum period is allowed between thorough examinations have been swept away.

So, you could do a risk assessment and conclude that the usual 12 months between examinations could be extended - or equally reduced [!] - and develop a written scheme of examination (or whatever you choose to call it) accordingly.

Not sure, but there might be guidance on this from "WISH" - Waste Industry Safety and Health forum - WISH Guidance – WISH (wishforum.org.uk)

In my view LOLER applies.