Pat testing length

[kerry davies]

P.K. it isn't just the item but (mostly) the environment which is high or low risk. 

Sunray, to answer a question with a question, which is safer, a table lamp handled daily by anyone from infant to geriatric while splashing coffee around or a pre-tested and examined parcan rigged by someone with basic electrical knowledge well out of punter reach? 

A real world example is that my kitchen and bathroom have D-type compact fluorescent lamps and the council went potty when I changed one. They expect me to change all the other bulbs but the D-types they have determined as a sparky job. Someone there risk assessed us crinklies stood on chairs and decided that's OK but not if we need to remove a diffuser. So the bottom line is that the inspection and test intervals are whatever the competent person decides when they make the risk assessment. 

 

 

[sandall]

11 hours ago, sunray said:

So where would people put stage lights that rarely get moved in that list?

In that list the key has to be "rarely moved", which puts them in the same category as Office IT equipment

[J Pearce]

10 hours ago, gareth said:

has it got a plug on it, or is it hardwired?

To go further down the rabbit hole - is a fitting setup with a plug-in ceiling rose hardwired or on a plug?

[sunray]

The last several replies indicate just what I was expecting.

3 hours ago, sandall said:

In that list the key has to be "rarely moved", which puts them in the same category as Office IT equipment

And a sentiment I agree with... but... does a 1KW stage lamp full of dust and smoke fluid oil present a bigger fire risk? If yes does that come under PAT?

13 hours ago, gareth said:

I'll answer your question with another very simple question - has it got a plug on it, or is it hardwired? This one simple distinction will go a long way to determining the outcome.

As it happens the spotlights, I mentioned, in the church are Minim 23s IIRC, one is on a 2A plug the other is wired directly into a junction box. The PAR 38s are a similar mixture.

In that church hall there are 2 gas boilers one is on a FCU the other on 13A plug.

I know exactly what the comments are now going to be and I understand why but equally does it make sense to treat them differently when the live and operate in identical ways?

[Simon Lewis]

Rather than splitting hairs over equipment designation and use, perhaps this (James Eade) quote from the preface to the 5th edition of the COPISITEE would help?

".... this code of practice reinforces the need to include all electrical equipment that does not come under any other established electrical safety management process in the workplace such as fixed wiring inspections".

So, for the church hall water boilers mentioned above, unless the one connected via an FCU is under an EICR (or similar) it would need to be part of ISITEE, along with the 13A plug version. Admittedly, the outcome of the testing risk assessment might vary slightly.

Eade's logic is quite straightforward - everything needs testing to ensure safety, it just depends which testing regime it comes under...

[sunray]

4 hours ago, kerry davies said:

P.K. it isn't just the item but (mostly) the environment which is high or low risk. 

Sunray, to answer a question with a question, which is safer, a table lamp handled daily by anyone from infant to geriatric while splashing coffee around or a pre-tested and examined parcan rigged by someone with basic electrical knowledge well out of punter reach? 

A real world example is that my kitchen and bathroom have D-type compact fluorescent lamps and the council went potty when I changed one. They expect me to change all the other bulbs but the D-types they have determined as a sparky job. Someone there risk assessed us crinklies stood on chairs and decided that's OK but not if we need to remove a diffuser. So the bottom line is that the inspection and test intervals are whatever the competent person decides when they make the risk assessment. 

 

 

Several years ago my father in law was in rented accommodation and the fluo tube in his kitchen failed, From another forum, April 2021:

Wednesday my 98 year old F-I-L reported his kitchen 4ft fluo light not striking to the sheltered scheme manager. Head office sent in their electrician (I think a local contractor) Thursday.

 

£85 call out charge found the fitting had failed and quoted £39 for LED fitting and £125  labour +VAT for next Wednesday. Leaving the internal kitchen with no light for nearly a week. I purchased starter and tube from Screwfix on the way there Friday morning, changed both and looks as good as it did new 2 years ago.

 

It's one thing conning the customer but leaving an elderly person with no kitchen light??

Bearing in mind the tenants are responsible for bulbs in all pendants but not the 4ft fluo in kitchen and 2D in bathroom, I sent an email to the warder manager explaining my repair.

 

At 03:37 Saturday I received a reply, so I suspect from HQ rather than the local manager and I quote:

...under electrical regulations, kitchen and bathroom are classed as special locations. As such all repairs may only be completed by fully trained and qualified electrical engineers...

 

...interests of economy our current policy regarding lighting... replace with low energy LED systems...

 

I'd estimate the kitchen light is in use for about 1 hour per day so my rough calculation is 0.04KWhx400daysx£0.2=£3 or 90 years to recoup the cost.

 

Or put it another way: 48 properties @2x £280= £27K. The problem is these costs are simply passed on the the tenants in the annual rent rise.

 

[sunray]

3 hours ago, Simon Lewis said:

Rather than splitting hairs over equipment designation and use, perhaps this (James Eade) quote from the preface to the 5th edition of the COPISITEE would help?

".... this code of practice reinforces the need to include all electrical equipment that does not come under any other established electrical safety management process in the workplace such as fixed wiring inspections".

So, for the church hall water boilers mentioned above, unless the one connected via an FCU is under an EICR (or similar) it would need to be part of ISITEE, along with the 13A plug version. Admittedly, the outcome of the testing risk assessment might vary slightly.

Eade's logic is quite straightforward - everything needs testing to ensure safety, it just depends which testing regime it comes under...

The last thing I want to do is split hairs, I wish to join them together to form a sensible cohesive regime. However one has to ask how to sensibly test a wired in and a plugged in device in the same testing routine and which routine to choose. Realistically many, if not the majority of, PAT testers would not have a clue how to test a wired in device. I know one who never takes a screwdriver with him when doing PATs. All he does is plug it into the tester, clips on an earth lead, presses 'go' and looks at the cable during the half second test.

[Simon Lewis]

I think there is a cohesive regime, but does requires an understanding that wired in devices are considered part of the inspection:
 

Quote

This Code of Practice provides guidance on the inspection and testing of: portable, movable and hand-held tools and equipment; equipment connected by means of a cable or cord connected to an outlet plate; appliances to build in; IT equipment; extension leads, multiway adaptors and suppressor adapters

The 5th edition code of practice also addresses how testing should be carried out:
 

Quote

15.2 Test procedures
Equipment that is supplied by a plug and socket-outlet connection can be readily tested by a dedicated portable appliance test instrument, by unplugging the equipment to be tested and plugging it into the dedicated test equipment.

Equipment that is permanently connected to a flex outlet type of accessory can more easily be tested using an insulation/continuity test instrument with the test leads connected directly to the accessory terminals. The supply to the accessory is required to be isolated and proved dead at the point of work before the testing commences. Note that if the apparatus has not been physically disconnected, the isolation device will also be tested with the apparatus

Admittedly, the person who just uses a standard "PAT" machine may well be out of his or her depth and may not have the equipment or competence to carry out the further tests required. However, in the example cited, one wonders how the formal visual inspection is carried out if he didn't even have a screwdriver to open up a 13A plug top?
In all of this, EAW regulation 16 requires that:
 

Quote

anyone working on electrical systems where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger must have the required knowledge and/or experience or be under suitable supervision

 

[sunray]

1 hour ago, Simon Lewis said:

I think there is a cohesive regime, but does requires an understanding that wired in devices are considered part of the inspection:
 

The 5th edition code of practice also addresses how testing should be carried out:
 

Admittedly, the person who just uses a standard "PAT" machine may well be out of his or her depth and may not have the equipment or competence to carry out the further tests required. However, in the example cited, one wonders how the formal visual inspection is carried out if he didn't even have a screwdriver to open up a 13A plug top?
In all of this, EAW regulation 16 requires that:
 

 

Oh how I wish that works in practice.

[Simon Lewis]

I share your sense of mild pessimism....

However, that's what the COP states!

[adam2]

My personal view, and what I actually did when in charge of electrical safety for a group of small businesses, was formal PAT testing at the following intervals.

High risk equipment, every 3 months. Included anything involving water and electricity, washing machine, electric kettle, dishwasher, ice maker, sump pump, etc. Also anything normally carried or held in use, power tools, cleaning equipment, hairdryers, beauty appliances. Extension leads if regularly moved, e.g. for cleaning equipment. Theater follow spot.

Low risk equipment, every five years .Most office and entertainment equipment, if seldom moved. Extension leads in semi-permanent use for such loads.

Standard risk, most other appliances. Once a year.

Theater lanterns, annually if regularly moved or handled. If largely fixed in place, then after de-rigging and before re-use, or after five years, whichever occurs first.

[Stuart91]

Adam's testing regime seems quite sensible. 

Frustratingly, what I often find is that insurers insist on an annual test so everything gets done regardless. This in turn means that the job goes to whoever is the lowest bidder  on the quantity. Which is how we end up with the situation where nothing is *actually* tested and instead someone is paid to slap on a green sticker and accept the liability. 

[sunray]

On 8/10/2023 at 3:20 PM, Stuart91 said:

Adam's testing regime seems quite sensible. 

Frustratingly, what I often find is that insurers insist on an annual test so everything gets done regardless. This in turn means that the job goes to whoever is the lowest bidder  on the quantity. Which is how we end up with the situation where nothing is *actually* tested and instead someone is paid to slap on a green sticker and accept the liability. 

And I have seen just that done:

Check previous sticker date, if less than XX months check look of cable apply new sticker, next?

[Jivemaster]

On 8/10/2023 at 3:20 PM, Stuart91 said:

someone is paid to slap on a green sticker and accept the liability. 

My last place of employment (5000 or so employees) stopped having periodic pat testing by contractor when things like manual paper staplers were labelled and charged by a contractor.

[Stuart91]

On 8/11/2023 at 11:13 PM, sunray said:

check look of cable

That's optimistic... I'm sure most don't even do that. 

I remember Bruce sharing a story here of how one testing firm lost a contract for his university.