I have been provided a thorough examination report for a site in the UK. However it refers to Republic of Ireland Legislation. 

I believe that the reference should be in accordance with LOLER Schedule 1. However getting pushback stating ther are just the same so it does not matter.

Hi Boston

I think you have to choose your battles or end up with people thinking that you are the Safety Bod who wants "Safety Gorn Mad".

So, the relevant part of Schedule 1 to LOLER is in paragraph 7 which says:

(7) In relation to a thorough examination of lifting equipment other than a thorough examination to which paragraph 6 relates — (a) whether it is a thorough examination — (i) within an interval of 6 months under regulation 9(3)(a)(i); (ii) within an interval of 12 months under regulation 9(3)(a)(ii); (iii) in accordance with an examination scheme under regulation 9(3)(a)(iii); or (iv) after the occurrence of exceptional circumstances under regulation 9(3)(a)(iv);

Here the purpose of the text which I have greyed is only to explain the rationale for doing the thorough examination, by providing a cross-reference back to Regulation 9.

I would need to check but I think you will find that there is a direct parallel to Regulation 9 in the Republic of Ireland equivalent of LOLER, or for that matter, in LOLER (Northern Ireland).

Suppose you hire in a crane from Northern Ireland would you expect that its Certificate of Examination cited LOLER or LOLER (NI)?

What do you think the politicians in Stormont or for that matter the Daily Mail would have to say if you immediately demanded a new thorough examination simply as the Certificate had been issued in NI and not Great Britain?

Unless the RoI equivalent of LOLER demands a different STANDARD is there any practical benefit in being concerned about the precise wording of the Certificate of Thorough Examination? The same engineer could be doing thorough examinations in GB, NI and RoI to what are effectively the same technical standards, then declaring the lifting equipment safe to use, safe to use subject to conditions, or not safe to use.

Now may be the examination has been done in GB and the company doing the examination has used the wrong template for the report, so perhaps you should ask them to replace the Certificate now, and certainly going forward. 

But a song and dance?

If this is up there as one of the more serious non-compliances in the organisation then it might be time to be looking for a job that is more challenging.

Edited by user 13 August 2024 14:59:56(UTC)  | Reason: Typos

achrn....

To quote the original post with the key words in bold....

I have been provided a thorough examination report for a site in the UK. However it refers to Republic of Ireland Legislation. 

I believe that the reference should be in accordance with LOLER Schedule 1. However getting pushback stating ther are just the same so it does not matter.

This is for the pedants going to come down to a comparison between the legislative requirements in RoI and GB and I previously used NI as, in effect, the bridge between.

I would be VERY surprised if RoI has not implemented the relevant bits of the parent EC Directive in similar manner to that done in the UK (GB and NI via parallel requirements) AND at the same time choosing to consolidate previous requirements contained in e.g. the Factories Act 1961 for GB and something very similar in RoI.

For the simple reason that the Irish have been astute and largely cut and paste legislation initially written in the UK which has a much larger population and thence can afford to employ more people to draft legislation.

So, if there is any gulf between the current legislative requirements I would be surprised.

....and if there isn't any difference in the practical standards then nitpicking as to whether the Certififcate of Thorough Examination is quoting the correct legislation is just....... nitpicking. Might be a technical breach ON PAPER.

Edited by user 14 August 2024 10:48:38(UTC)  | Reason: Minor amendments

Originally Posted by: antbruce001

It does not say ... that it must identify that it is in accordance with UK LOLER requirements.

What does item 7 of schedule 1 say in your LOLER?

Mine says that the thorough examination report must specify which of four options of a specific LOLER regulation the examination was done under.

Never could really understand why in GB (and NI) we have separate regulations requiring inspections and examinations in PUWER and LOLER except for the following reasons:

1. UK approach to transposing EC Directives has been generally one of cut and paste as much as practical to try and avoid "Gold Plating" the Directives.

2. Quite a lot of what is contained in the Regulations tranposing Directives has been a consolidation of previous UK legislation such as Sections 26 and 27 of the Factories Act 1961 [and some Regulations made under FA1961].

....and it seems that those astute Irish decided not to go for unnecessary duplication, so instead of PUWER and LOLER they rolled transposing the relevant Directives into the SHW at Work (General Application) Regs 2007 and produced guidance on how these apply to work equipment (INCLUDING lifting equipment) at untitled (hsa.ie)

where Regulation 30 is quoted in full (with LOTS of guidance).

Regulation 30: Inspection of work equipment

30. An employer shall ensure that—

(a) where the safety of work equipment depends on the installation conditions—

       (i) an initial inspection is carried out after installation is completed and before it is first put into                service, and

      (ii) an inspection is carried out after assembly at any new site or in any new location, and that                 the work equipment is installed correctly and is operating properly,

(b) in the case of work equipment which is exposed to conditions causing deterioration liable to result in a danger to safety or health—

      (i) periodic inspections and, where appropriate, testing is carried out,

      (ii) special inspections are carried out when exceptional circumstances arise which are liable to             make the work equipment unsafe, including modification work, accidents, natural                               phenomena or prolonged inactivity, and

     (iii) deterioration is detected and remedied in good time,

(c) inspections carried out under paragraphs (a) and (b) are carried out by a competent person and are appropriate to the nature, location and use of the work equipment,

(d) the results of inspections carried out under paragraphs (a) and (b) are recorded and kept available for 5 years from the date of inspection, for inspection by an inspector, and access to these records is made available to users of the work equipment upon request, and

(e) when work equipment is used in another place of work, it is accompanied by evidence of the last inspection carried out under paragraphs (a) and (b)

.....which quite neatly provides a parallel to the relevant requirements of PUWER and LOLER in Great Britain.

The OP has told us the site is in the UK - but not whether it is in GB or NI.

Hello Peter,

Having had the opportunity to conduct consultancy and auditing work in Northern Ireland, I've gained valuable insights into the province's unique Health and Safety legislation. I've found that most, if not all, of the legislation is a mirror image of what's written for Great Britain, albeit enacted a few years later.

When it comes to cross-legislative comparisons within the UK, such as between Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England & Wales legislation, I find no issues. For instance, fire safety legislation is a great example of this, where it is different in each country. All UK legislation can be easily accessed on the UK Government website (legislation.UK.GOV), which indicates that if it's recognised and good enough for the UK Government, it’s good enough for me.

However, I would not recognise and try to interpret the difference between the UK's laws and those of our European counterpart, albeit most of the laws stem from a European Regulation or Directive. This was the point I was making to the OP.

However, I'm confident we can all agree that the quality of the thorough examination (inspection) is paramount, regardless of the legislation it falls under. A report stating that the inspection has been conducted in compliance with BS7121-2-7:2012+A2:2022 Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Cranes, Inspection, Maintenance, and Thorough Examination is more meaningful than simply quoting the legislation on the examination report.