Pat Testing

[Matt]

For my job I need to be able to pat test things, and being 17 I probably cant at the moment, and I am 18 in august so in september it should be ok, just wanted to clairify the age limit on Pat testing before I say/do anything.

 

If any other sort of tests etc... are necessary to work full time as a school technician (like pat testing or h&s) could you give me some info on age limits for them, if any.

 

Thanks.

 

Matt.

[Ike]

The first portable appliance testing I did was when I was 16. While you might not be able to take full responsability for a venues users H&S you can still check an appliance is safe as long as you know what your doing. PATs are not a legal requirement and there is therefore no specific statuary regulations as to who can cary them out however as with all work with electricity from turning on a lightswitch to installing a ring main you should be competant.

[Rob]

Moderation: topic moved to General forum as it's not really training or education related.

[Dave]

PATs are not a legal requirement and there is therefore no specific statuary regulations as to who can cary them out

I would respectfully disagree here.

 

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 are legally binding and breaking them is a criminal offence.

 

These regs require you to "maintain" anything electrical that could give rise to danger (regulation 4(2)).

 

How you apply this to portable equipment is entirely up to you. But if you don't do some sort of inspection and/or testing at appropriate intervals, you are almost certain to have broken the law.

 

Regulation 16 of the above requires workers to be competent, which is defined as possesing relevant technical knowledge or experience, or being under appropriate supervision.

 

So I would say that there is both a legal requirement to inspect/test and a legal definition of who can do this.

 

Going back to Matt's original question, providing that he is competent, he can do PAT testing whether he is 2, 102, or anywhere inbetween.

 

If he knows what to do and understands why he's doing it, for example by having read some appropriate guidance (such as published by the HSE), then I would say he's competent.

 

If he's done a course on PAT testing and passed an assessment, then he's almost certainly competent.

 

Most types of PAT testing do not require a high level of electrical knowledge, just the ability to carry out a visual inspection and use a PAT tester. Most organisations have a defined procedure as to what is done (often based on published guidance), and providing that someone is able to follow this, the chances are that they are competent.

 

Matt's employer or their insurance company might have a different view, but that's nothing to do with the law.

 

I think some older H&S laws did specify legal minimum ages for certain tasks (using a chainsaw comes to mind!). These are probably still in force. I'm not aware of any electrical age limits. But the legal framework for modern H&S, as has been noted, is generally based around competence, not specific qualifications or ages. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is open to debate...

 

Hope this helps,

 

Dave.

[Ike]

I agree that you must maintain equipment so as to be safe for its intended use and in most circumstances the best way of proving you are doing this is a regular, formal portable appliance test however this is not the only way.

 

Regulation 16 of the above requires workers to be competent, which is defined as possesing relevant technical knowledge or experience, or being under appropriate supervision.

A simple knowledge of electrical principles and safety could well be enough to satisfy this and there is no need whatsoever to even know what the initials PAT stand for.

 

I agree that by not doing regular portable appliance tests you leave youself in a bad position should something go wrong, much as if you didnt follow one of the HSEs ACOPS, however I stand by my original statement that it is not a direct legal requirement.

[Pete McCrea]

I'm with Ike. There is no legal requirement that an electrical item must undergo an annual PAT Test. However as you mention from the Regs Dave there is the requirement to maintaine equipment. So technically I'm not breaking the law by not having my laptop PSU PAT tested, I would struggle if It killed someone, and I was proved to be negligent by not having undertaken that maintainence.

 

Matt- I spotted a PAT testing course at my local college, which I half considered. Try having a search for one at your local clooege and getting the details about entry requirements from them. If your currently a student or under 18 there may well be some way you could wrangle it on the cheap.

 

Little DJ

[Brian]

PATs are not a legal requirement

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 are legally binding and breaking them is a criminal offence.

however I stand by my original statement that it is not a direct legal requirement.

I'm with Ike. There is no legal requirement that an electrical item must undergo an annual PAT Test.

 

I think this would occupy better legal minds than ours, however I'll throw a couple of scenarios into the mix...

 

You are paid a random visit by an HSE inspector who is just passing (it happens).

He spots a power tool/lantern/kettle without a PAT label.

He asks to see your PAT records. You don't have any.

He decides to prosecute you for failing to provide a safe working environment.

You now have to stand up in court and PROVE that it is safe not to have a regular PAT regime.

 

In this scenario you should remember that in an HSE breach you are automatically guilty unless YOU can prove you took reasonable steps. How many expert witnesses do you think you will find who will say that it is safe not to do annual PATs?

 

Scenario 2...

You haven't read the small print on your employers liability insurance which requires PATs.

Therefore your insurance is not valid.

Therefore you are guilty of having no employers liability insurance.

 

I know that these might seem a little contrived but I can assure you that they aren't. I have been in a company which was subject to an HSE inspection after an 'incident' and it ain't fun. Remedial measure always cost much much more than doing it right to start with. The report from the H&S adviser brought in afterwards makes very interesting reading.

[Andrew C]

Back to the original, you could do a lot worse than the City & Guilds 2377 "Certificate of competence for the inspection and testing of electrical equipment". Try your local Tech College, as they will be about 1/2 the price of "Business Trainers". Can't remember the exact figure, but including test and lunch, £150 or so.

 

The course I did explained the legal requirement in terms of "the need to maintain equipment, which you can't do unless you test to know what needs maintenance".

 

You don't need a yellow PAT test box. All the tests can be done with eyes, and discrete test equipment. IE. Low resistance Ohm meter and an insulation resistance Ohm meter.

 

As an aside, in my 10year experience of PAT, I would say that 99% of all faults are found during the visual inspection. This may be different in industries with harsher working conditions.

[Dave]

Ike/Little DJ,

I agree that you must maintain equipment so as to be safe for its intended use and in most circumstances the best way of proving you are doing this is a regular, formal portable appliance test however this is not the only way.

I'm with Ike. There is no legal requirement that an electrical item must undergo an annual PAT Test. However as you mention from the Regs Dave there is the requirement to maintaine equipment. So technically I'm not breaking the law by not having my laptop PSU PAT tested, I would struggle if It killed someone, and I was proved to be negligent by not having undertaken that maintainence.

At no point did I say that you need to do annual PAT tests. All I suggested was that some sort of inspection/testing is needed at appropriate intervals. If you can think of an alternative first step in fulfulling your legal requirement to maintain electrical equipment, please let us all know! As Andrew C said, if you don't know that something needs maintenance, you can't maintain it.

 

But for many things, a proper PAT-type test is essential, because it includes an earth bond test, and, over time, earth connections can fail.

 

You don't need a yellow PAT test box.  All the tests can be done with eyes, and discrete test equipment. IE. Low resistance Ohm meter and an insulation resistance Ohm meter.

 

As an aside, in my 10year experience of PAT, I would say that 99% of all faults are found during the visual inspection.

I don't disagree with that visual inspection finds most faults, but I've seen situations where an earth connection has substantially decayed (even down to a single strand of wire), but has not been broken completely. This might not be picked up by an earth continuity test, even with a low-ohms meter. A proper PAT tester puts an appropriate current through the earth wire and will detect this. I would question whether it is safe to omit that test. There is also the issue of time and quality of testing. I don't want to mess about with two meters when I've got 100 lanterns to test.

 

A desk PC that never moves may only need to be checked once every five years, which is likely to be more than its lifespan. Other things should probably be checked more often.

 

If Little DJ's laptop PSU is double insulated then no testing is required and all that is needed is a visual inspection, which he will effectively do without thinking each time he plugs it in. Likewise, he wouldn't use it if the mains lead had a hole in the insulation exposing the live wire. So, in this case, there's little point in doing any sort of specific periodic inspection. But in some situations, eg where the laptop's users are children or unskilled, it might be appropriate for a competent person to have a look at it once in a while to check that all is OK.

 

Brian quite rightly points out that the burden of proof in safety now goes against you. You have to prove that you are innocent, as by default you are guilty because you haven't done anything. So make sure you record what you are (hopefully) doing!

[Pete McCrea]

I choose the Laptop PSU cos it was the first thing that came to mind. I'm all for the PAT testing of equipment. I've got the majority of my personal equipment done. I also understand how the onus is on you once the HSE have found problems, and that the burden of proof is on the individual to prove that they are in the right or taking the correct steps.

 

It just irks me that so often people see PAT testing as the 'be-all and end-all' of portable appliance maintainence. I'm sure many of the people on this board have seen equiment that is 'in test', yet is highly dangerous.

 

Please don't get me wrong. There is no Law that states it must be done, but there are a multitude of regs, ACOPS etc that imply it is the best way to do things to 'cover your ass', if there were a problem.

[Ike]

One example of something that doesn't get a full PAT as most people think of it is our par64s. These tend to get quite badly treated but we have found that a regular good visual inspection including checking the cable for bumps and dents is fine.

[Matt]

Cheers for all you help guys, I will ask aroudn for it. I would like to say that I am very competent in working with the equipment that is likely to be tested, and I do have a pretty good knowledge of the way in which electricity is used. as you said about the legality of it all, the only reason why I am enquiring is because we are plannign to hire out some of our equipment to other schools etc... which requires an in date pat test certificate etc... so it would be nice if I could do it.

 

I am glad I can apply for it, but would my employer send me on it for free or owuld I have to pay for it (which I am willing to do anyway.)

[Ike]

your employer should send you on it for free, iirc the abtt do a PAT course which is probably your best bet

[Andrew C]

I am glad I can apply for it, but would my employer send me on it for free or owuld I have to pay for it (which I am willing to do anyway.)

They might do. It depends whether they see it as "An Investment In People", or a cost.

 

They wouldn't be under an obligation to, and they might be swayed by pointing out the savings they could make over getting someone in every year. (If it would make a saving!)

[Matt]

well I think they will see it as an investment in people, becuase I'll be the only person in the school who can do it, all the other people that have been doing it cant be bothered to do it anymore, they said they never got asked to do it, and some departments get contractors in to do it, so I reckon it could make them a saving.