PA(T) Testing

[Mr Pounder]

The kettle was sited in the north of England where there is clean water.

[grimly4]

Probably quite right, too. If it was showing a partial short to earth, etc.

[grimly4]

If they're being sold out in the bush, who would know they're faulty?

[Andrew Gabriel]

Some companies choose to work that way. For example, if your records show that you aren't finding any faults in desktop computers up to 4 years old, you could decide that your strategy is to not test them any more, but replace them after 4 years. The cost of PAT testing them maybe more than they're worth at that point, and you have records to justify your strategy.

I would think that would be hard to justify with an extension cable though, certainly with a 10 year period. 2 year, maybe, as again, it may well be cheaper to replace than to test.

Some of this depends on usage too. Items used by the public really do need much more frequent testing. Hire shops will often to it between each hire. There's guidance for each type of usage and appliance in the guide.

[Frank Erskine]

Apparently _hard_ water (no, not ice!) makes the best cuppa :-)

[hugh]

In message , Mr Pounder writes

Which means he assumes it can't be repaired.

[hugh]

In message , [e-mail] writes

If the PAT testing procedure does not authorise you to do that then you have committed criminal damage to someone's kettle IMO

[grimly4]

I'd rather that than somebody lying dead.

[Man at B&Q]

How does that stop it being sold?

MBQ

[John Williamson]

Would *you* buy an item with half an inch or less of mains lead attached to it?

[hugh]

Then perhaps I should come and smash up your car just in case you might go out and have an accident.

The responsibility of the PAT tester is to conduct a test according to a specification and then pass it or fail it. I merely question whether it goes beyond that and extends to deciding whether the owner of the equipment is responsible or not - i.e. whether you are a nanny also.

[grimly4]

I don't give a damn what you think - if an item of kit is dangerous it gets condemned and put beyond use. I'm not averse (and have done it) to putting vehicles and lift trucks under red tickets if I find dangerous faults. The owners didn't like it at all - they would much rather have continued to operate them, risking life and limb of the driver and/or others.

[hugh]

Well if our not prepared to have a sensible rational discussion of principle then you might as go f*ck yourself.

[Adrian C]

Yes, it's a legal requirement under the UK Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) that "every employer shall ensure that work equipment is so constructed or adopted as to be suitable for the purpose for which it is used or provided."

And that the Electricity at Work Regulations are adhered to by anyone responsible, being a user, administrator, tester, director, manager, butcher, baker, candlestick maker. Oh, possibly a nanny as well.

PAT testers (people and equipment) are employed to aid a defence if later the matter comes up as part of a court prosecution. They don't inescapably descend like the VAT man (or in my case, woman).

It's however up to the users to take up a recommendation to take an item out of service as they are liable. IMO It's not the PAT testers job to go on a wreaking spree or dispose of faulty items. I'd bag item or the plug with stern notices of danger, log it and take a photo before leaving site. There is a possibility that *some* failing items can be repaired.

PAT Factfile here

[Onetap]

Surely criminal damage to someone's electrical scrap?