The Lofstedt Report and the changes to PAT testing procedures which followed caused a little confusion when they were first announced. However, now these changes have been in place for a while, have they simply become a part of life or are people still finding them difficult to understand?

Electrical Safety First, in an article for Switched On magazine recently asked if it was time to reconsider how equipment in low risk environments is inspected and tested but is this really what is needed?

The 2011 Lofstedt report  stated that the problem with PAT testing was not the testing procedure itself but how the regulations were being understood, and concluded that the regulations were in fact being applied too often.

Another issue the Lofstedt Report identified was that the term ‘mobile equipment’ in the BS7671:2008 Regulations had been interpreted to include items of equipment which aren’t actually portable. These include items which are connected to the fabric of the building and should not be part of a PAT test, so things which are permanently fixed to the building’s wiring system. Equipment included would be;

  • Battery operated items, however any charge equipment would need to be tested in the same way as a power cord
  • Equipment with extra low voltage not exceeding 50V ac or 120V dc
  • Fixed equipment, like hand dryers or towel rails
  • Appliances built into kitchen units
  • Storage heaters, immersion heaters or central heating boilers

The changes brought about following this report aimed to improve and make clearer the requirement for PAT testing. However, one of the changes which confused people was to do with the recommendation for user checks. These were always recommended in PAT guidelines but they became more of a focus after the Lofstedt Report.
However, the user check should simply consist of users of portable equipment visually checking their equipment before plugging it in and switching it on. It is not meant to replace the visual inspection performed by the PAT Technician, but is meant to ensure that users are taking responsibility for their own equipment and safety. Users should be looking for simple things that make the equipment obviously unsafe, like broken insulation casing and the wires of a cable outside of the cable casing, etc.

The formal visual inspection on the other hand should still be carried out as usual, checking in all the usual ways, followed by the usual Class I or Class II test depending on the appliance being tested. In this respect the testing procedure hasn’t changed. Neither has the emphasis that the visual inspection is more important and many of the appliances which will fail, will do so at the visual inspection before they get to the electrical test.

The frequency of testing is another reason people have become confused over when and how often their appliances should be tested. Now, with a clearer focus on risk assessments, each item of equipment may require different periods of time between their tests. So more frequent tests for appliances deemed as higher risk than those deemed to be lower risk. It’s understandable why business owners have become confused as to the requirements for this part of testing, especially as it’s difficult to say which type of equipment should be tested more often than another. With factors such as the usage of the appliance, the type of appliance it is, and the business itself all being taken into consideration, it’s difficult to give business owners a definitive answer as to frequency.

Some PAT tester manufacturers have attempted to find a simple solution to this issue by creating PAT testers that can help with determining PAT frequencies through imputing of certain factors, the tester will then give a recommended retest date for that appliance. The Seaward Apollo 500 is one such tester.

However, is this the answer? What is your experience working to these newer guidelines; do they improve PAT testing in reality?

Written by Sara Thomson