PAT testing of brand new appliances?
Trouble is VisitEngland & Quality In Tourism still think it is and still insist upon a PAT test certificate for their star rating system.
"Write something, even if it's just a suicide note"
"There is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise"
"As for my amnesia, I've had it as long as I can remember"
Real name: Steve
Gender: Male
"There is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise"
"As for my amnesia, I've had it as long as I can remember"
Real name: Steve
Gender: Male
Before all the bunting goes out, it might be worth taking a step back to review a few points in case anyone thinks we no longer have a responsibility under law.
First point:
1) There is, and always has been, a legal requirement that you maintain electrical appliances such that they are safe to use. How you choose to do that is not defined; however, there is a recognised Code of Practice for testing and inspection.
2) Because of the responsibility and liability associated with unsafe electrical equipment, employers and businesses have sought a way to demonstrate that they have done what they could to comply with the law. The accepted easiest way of demonstrating compliance has been to have regular recorded PAT testing at intervals appropriate to the type of equipment in use, in line with the Code of Practice.
3) PAT testing in itself is not a legal requirement; to reiterate, the legal requirement is to ensure your equipment is safe.
Nothing has changed there; the important point is perhaps that there has been confusion (and it has suited many people to propagate that confusion) surrounding point 2) leading to a belief that the PAT testing in itself is the legal requirement. The latest revisions seek to address that.
We still have the same legal responsibility, and need to consider how we would show we'd made reasonable endeavours to meet that responsibility if an unsafe piece of equipment resulted in injury to a guest.
Second point:
The leaflet that Lindisfarne references is entitled: Maintaining portable electric equipment in low-risk environments
It gives examples of a low-risk environment including offices, shops, and some parts of hotels. Given that the full Code of Practice has previously differentiated between those parts of hotels containing equipment used by the public and parts used by staff only, it's quite likely (but I don't know without seeing v4 of the Code) that any equipment intended or available for use by the public does not fall within the definition of low-risk environment. Hence the information in the leaflet may be only partially, or not at all, relevant to our businesses.
Third point:
Even within the low-risk environment in the leaflet, some types of equipment are marked as Formal Visual Inspection on a suggested 6 monthly basis, and testing on a 1-2 year basis. Hence there's nothing that reduces the existing suggested intervals.
Finally, it seems unlikely that we could demonstrate compliance with our legal obligations without a regime broadly in line with what is suggested in the Code.
So it's open to debate as to what the improved clarity might achieve.
Here's an interesting extra; currently PAT testing PASS labels have a "Next Test Due" date marked on them, and the equipment is out of test beyond that date. Under the new Code, it seems that requirement is gone:
The person carrying out the test should not assess when the next test will be due as this decision should be made by you on a risk assessment basis.
So to be in line with the Code, we'll have to assess a realistic safe interval between tests, and make sure we keep records. A whole new business opportunity for those who risk losing income previously earned by peddling the "PAT testing is a legal requirement and must be carried out by a qualified electrician" lies.
First point:
1) There is, and always has been, a legal requirement that you maintain electrical appliances such that they are safe to use. How you choose to do that is not defined; however, there is a recognised Code of Practice for testing and inspection.
2) Because of the responsibility and liability associated with unsafe electrical equipment, employers and businesses have sought a way to demonstrate that they have done what they could to comply with the law. The accepted easiest way of demonstrating compliance has been to have regular recorded PAT testing at intervals appropriate to the type of equipment in use, in line with the Code of Practice.
3) PAT testing in itself is not a legal requirement; to reiterate, the legal requirement is to ensure your equipment is safe.
Nothing has changed there; the important point is perhaps that there has been confusion (and it has suited many people to propagate that confusion) surrounding point 2) leading to a belief that the PAT testing in itself is the legal requirement. The latest revisions seek to address that.
We still have the same legal responsibility, and need to consider how we would show we'd made reasonable endeavours to meet that responsibility if an unsafe piece of equipment resulted in injury to a guest.
Second point:
The leaflet that Lindisfarne references is entitled: Maintaining portable electric equipment in low-risk environments
It gives examples of a low-risk environment including offices, shops, and some parts of hotels. Given that the full Code of Practice has previously differentiated between those parts of hotels containing equipment used by the public and parts used by staff only, it's quite likely (but I don't know without seeing v4 of the Code) that any equipment intended or available for use by the public does not fall within the definition of low-risk environment. Hence the information in the leaflet may be only partially, or not at all, relevant to our businesses.
Third point:
Even within the low-risk environment in the leaflet, some types of equipment are marked as Formal Visual Inspection on a suggested 6 monthly basis, and testing on a 1-2 year basis. Hence there's nothing that reduces the existing suggested intervals.
Finally, it seems unlikely that we could demonstrate compliance with our legal obligations without a regime broadly in line with what is suggested in the Code.
So it's open to debate as to what the improved clarity might achieve.
Here's an interesting extra; currently PAT testing PASS labels have a "Next Test Due" date marked on them, and the equipment is out of test beyond that date. Under the new Code, it seems that requirement is gone:
The person carrying out the test should not assess when the next test will be due as this decision should be made by you on a risk assessment basis.
So to be in line with the Code, we'll have to assess a realistic safe interval between tests, and make sure we keep records. A whole new business opportunity for those who risk losing income previously earned by peddling the "PAT testing is a legal requirement and must be carried out by a qualified electrician" lies.
Well I opened up a total can of worms there didn't I!
So basically the regulations haven't actually changed that much. I know and fully understand that landlords have to provide safe electrical appliances. Where the worst case scenario of a faulty appliance is death, any "proof" I can obtain to counter a possible manslaughter charge should a guest die as a result of a faulty appliance, is worth paying for. Whilst there is still some conjecture and different interpretations of the regulations, I would still advocate PAT testing as a valid record that the Landlord has been proactive in their obligations.
I also feel that certain appliances carry much more risk, ie irons, hairdryers etc, which are actually held during use and more likely to be dropped, knocked around and mis-handled, than kettles and toasters which are far more stable and only switched on and off briefly during use.
However, as with all periodic testing, it is only actually valid on the day of the test, and the integrity of the electrical item could be compromised as soon as the tester leaves the premises!
So basically the regulations haven't actually changed that much. I know and fully understand that landlords have to provide safe electrical appliances. Where the worst case scenario of a faulty appliance is death, any "proof" I can obtain to counter a possible manslaughter charge should a guest die as a result of a faulty appliance, is worth paying for. Whilst there is still some conjecture and different interpretations of the regulations, I would still advocate PAT testing as a valid record that the Landlord has been proactive in their obligations.
I also feel that certain appliances carry much more risk, ie irons, hairdryers etc, which are actually held during use and more likely to be dropped, knocked around and mis-handled, than kettles and toasters which are far more stable and only switched on and off briefly during use.
However, as with all periodic testing, it is only actually valid on the day of the test, and the integrity of the electrical item could be compromised as soon as the tester leaves the premises!
Brilliant & very useful thread! Thanks Cornish Maid for starting it. A range of thoughts & great info, especially GB ( I do like it when you don't get out much 
but sorry you were ill 
) for some really useful digging.
I can understand the desire to avoid the cost of a test, when it's not obligatory to do so. If you feel competent to check them yourself & provide proof of doing do in some way, then that's great. Are you comfortable in the "what if something happens" scenario?
My stance hasn't changed. I will use my electrician to do the PAT test because for the small sum involved, it helps keep an incredibly competent & nice guy in business. As he is happy to help when emergencies strike, & a valuable part of my rental "kit" then I simply regard it like paying a retainer.
but sorry you were ill ) for some really useful digging.I can understand the desire to avoid the cost of a test, when it's not obligatory to do so. If you feel competent to check them yourself & provide proof of doing do in some way, then that's great. Are you comfortable in the "what if something happens" scenario?
My stance hasn't changed. I will use my electrician to do the PAT test because for the small sum involved, it helps keep an incredibly competent & nice guy in business. As he is happy to help when emergencies strike, & a valuable part of my rental "kit" then I simply regard it like paying a retainer.