PAT testing is readily brought in house - nice simple test kit with built in printer and any "competent" electrician can spend their working day trudging from office to office - it is outsourced as whilst they are conducting PAT testing they are not available for other employed duties.

Compressors and lifting equipment is more about insurance (most 3rd parties have evolved from the insurance companies in-house test engineers such as Lloyds, DNV etc. to be independent service providers). Your MD would need a long conversation with your insurance provider to convince them you were bringing such risk under company control.

FLT's and similar is more about the change in a lot of businesses from outright equipment purchase to maintained rental agreements - here it is the hirers equipment and again a hard conversation for you MD to convince the renter your service would meet all their requirements.

Hi Ricky

You have a mix of things on the To Do list some of which are almost set in stone as regards what to do and how ofren, most of which were "consolidated" into current legislation such as LOLER from what was in place before.

So, as example, the current statutory examination requirements for eg. lifting equipment for people and other loads, and steam and air pressure vessels are almost word for word as written in the Factories Act 1961 and other legislation that has been replaced.

For instance under the previous legislation the lifting equpement used for loads other than people had to be "thoroughly examined" at least once a year. If carrying people, then at least every 6 months. Now the same numbers are there in LOLER but with an option for a "written scheme of examination" in which you could justify the case for more or less frequent examinations. [VERY RARELY actually done as most simply continue with the tried and tested frequencies!]

Traditionally many of these examinations were done by engineers employed by Insurance Companies as much to keep the insurance companies happy to continue covering their clients as anything other reason - and your insurers may well continue to want to keep this themselves as condition of coverage.

Then there are all the other things where you have to have a system in place for maintenance, testing etc etc but generally without any clear recommendations as to what to do and when. Up to you to assess the risk and decide what is reasonably practicable and thence decide what to do, who to do it.

Absolutely no reason why some of these tasks could not be done in house if you have people competent to do them. 

Sometimes it might be a case of balancing the cost of upskilling in house people and ensuring sufficient in house resource against the cost of outsourcing.

Suggest you make a table of what all the tasks are, work out which are "statutory" and which are the result of the risk asessments made by your organisation and then you are in a position to make the arguments for and against doing these in house or outsourcing.