Electrical code Compliance - PAT Testing in UK

Author

PAT Testing in UK

Chas Gill

2007-10-08, 9:25 am

Is this the right place to seek advice about this? If so, could anyone
enlighten me as to the interpretation of "portable" in respect of "wall
warts", i.e. mains to low voltage adaptors used (in this case) to power
radio microphone receivers (12V DC). Are they subject to PAT testing if
used in public places?

A second question, if I might push my luck: When an item (in this case
portable multi-way 240V mains distribution board, usually white plastic with
a cord and plug top) is purchased brand new from a retailer does it require
a PAT certificate from new, or is there a period of grace during which a
certificate is not required, on the basis that it is new and (in theory)
safety assured when it left the factory?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Andrew Gabriel

2007-10-08, 9:25 am

In article <-oidnXtGXZO3nJfanZ2dneKdnZylnZ2d@bt.com>,
"Chas Gill" <Chas.Gill@gollum.btinternet.com> writes:
> Is this the right place to seek advice about this? If so, could anyone
> enlighten me as to the interpretation of "portable" in respect of "wall

The word "portable" doesn't appear in any of the formal names
for this testing. Think of "portable" as applying to the tester,
rather than the appliance, meaning the testing should be done at
the location of the appliance as far as possible, so it's the
tester which is portable. The testing is not in any way restricted
to portable appliances.

> warts", i.e. mains to low voltage adaptors used (in this case) to power
> radio microphone receivers (12V DC). Are they subject to PAT testing if
> used in public places?

This would be prudent, yes. They can be damaged by being dropped,
crushed, used in the wet, etc., so there's plenty that a PAT test
can check for.

> A second question, if I might push my luck: When an item (in this case
> portable multi-way 240V mains distribution board, usually white plastic with
> a cord and plug top) is purchased brand new from a retailer does it require
> a PAT certificate from new, or is there a period of grace during which a
> certificate is not required, on the basis that it is new and (in theory)
> safety assured when it left the factory?

This is up to an appropriately qualified person to decide on
the basis of a risk assessment, and that's going to depend on
the environment in which it's used, and the quality of the
product purchased -- there's no hard and fast rule. If the
Purchasing and Goods-in quality control is such that items
purchased are from known reputable sources and of a consistent
quality, and no faults are found in new items purchased this
way, then I would say you have sufficient grounds to decide
that the risk of a faulty item is low enough that testing
at Goods-in isn't merited. Ideally you would need to check the
odd one at random and keep records of subsequent failures to
be sure this assumption remains valid. Your record keeping and
record of your risk assessment would be evidence that you
weren't being negligent, should it ever be required in court.

However, you have also mentioned two negative points which
can require additional/extra testing. Items used by or
accessible to the public generally require significantly more
frequent inspection. (At the most extreme end, a children's
fareground ride should have a daily PAT test.) Taking your
distribution board, there's plenty of scope for the public to
damage the item, by misuse, accident, or deliberately, so
you're going to need to inspect quite frequently anyway, and
avoiding an initial inspection might not save much.

The second point is that extension cords are something of an
anomoly. Having tested and passed an appliance, if you then
plug it into an extension cord, you can find the appliance
and extension cord combination would not pass a PAT test due
to the earth resistance going too high. If several extension
cords are coupled together, they will likely fail a PAT test
even though each one is OK in itself. This brings up the
important point I hinted at earlier -- the testing should be
done at the appliance (or extention cord) in its normal
operating location. Part of a PAT test is checking the item
is suitable for its environment and use. Using the example of
an extension cord, you are only going to find it's too long
with loads of wire coiled up, or too short with several cords
daisy-chained, if you see them in use, and these should be
PAT test failures as the item isn't suitable for its use,
even though there may be nothing wrong with the item itself.
So skipping the initial PAT test at the point where the
distribution board is first connected up is missing the
possibility of finding inappropriate use of the item.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Chas Gill

2007-10-08, 1:25 pm

"Andrew Gabriel" <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:470a2ec4$0$641$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> In article <-oidnXtGXZO3nJfanZ2dneKdnZylnZ2d@bt.com>,
> "Chas Gill" <Chas.Gill@gollum.btinternet.com> writes:
>
> The word "portable" doesn't appear in any of the formal names
> for this testing. Think of "portable" as applying to the tester,
> rather than the appliance, meaning the testing should be done at
> the location of the appliance as far as possible, so it's the
> tester which is portable. The testing is not in any way restricted
> to portable appliances.
>
>
> This would be prudent, yes. They can be damaged by being dropped,
> crushed, used in the wet, etc., so there's plenty that a PAT test
> can check for.
>
>
> This is up to an appropriately qualified person to decide on
> the basis of a risk assessment, and that's going to depend on
> the environment in which it's used, and the quality of the
> product purchased -- there's no hard and fast rule. If the
> Purchasing and Goods-in quality control is such that items
> purchased are from known reputable sources and of a consistent
> quality, and no faults are found in new items purchased this
> way, then I would say you have sufficient grounds to decide
> that the risk of a faulty item is low enough that testing
> at Goods-in isn't merited. Ideally you would need to check the
> odd one at random and keep records of subsequent failures to
> be sure this assumption remains valid. Your record keeping and
> record of your risk assessment would be evidence that you
> weren't being negligent, should it ever be required in court.
>
> However, you have also mentioned two negative points which
> can require additional/extra testing. Items used by or
> accessible to the public generally require significantly more
> frequent inspection. (At the most extreme end, a children's
> fareground ride should have a daily PAT test.) Taking your
> distribution board, there's plenty of scope for the public to
> damage the item, by misuse, accident, or deliberately, so
> you're going to need to inspect quite frequently anyway, and
> avoiding an initial inspection might not save much.
>
> The second point is that extension cords are something of an
> anomoly. Having tested and passed an appliance, if you then
> plug it into an extension cord, you can find the appliance
> and extension cord combination would not pass a PAT test due
> to the earth resistance going too high. If several extension
> cords are coupled together, they will likely fail a PAT test
> even though each one is OK in itself. This brings up the
> important point I hinted at earlier -- the testing should be
> done at the appliance (or extention cord) in its normal
> operating location. Part of a PAT test is checking the item
> is suitable for its environment and use. Using the example of
> an extension cord, you are only going to find it's too long
> with loads of wire coiled up, or too short with several cords
> daisy-chained, if you see them in use, and these should be
> PAT test failures as the item isn't suitable for its use,
> even though there may be nothing wrong with the item itself.
> So skipping the initial PAT test at the point where the
> distribution board is first connected up is missing the
> possibility of finding inappropriate use of the item.
>
> --
> Andrew Gabriel
> [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Thanks, Andrew, for a very comprehensive and informative response. Our
Local Authority-run theatre insists upon PAT-tested everything (by asking to
see sticky labels and sometimes the certificates to back this up) but they
NEVER insist that these tests are done on the premises - rather they expect
the equipment to arrive already tested. Methinks this makes a bit of a
mockery of the whole thing?

Chas

Andrew Gabriel

2007-10-08, 1:25 pm

In article <nvednXKqb5Ks35fanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>,
"Chas Gill" <Chas.Gill@gollum.btinternet.com> writes:
> Thanks, Andrew, for a very comprehensive and informative response. Our
> Local Authority-run theatre insists upon PAT-tested everything (by asking to
> see sticky labels and sometimes the certificates to back this up) but they
> NEVER insist that these tests are done on the premises - rather they expect
> the equipment to arrive already tested. Methinks this makes a bit of a
> mockery of the whole thing?

Most of those involved in PAT testing don't understand it,
and that includes electricians who undertake it, worryingly.
It may be that what you describe is the best they can do given
the way the theatre is run and the manning level they have,
and their risk assessment has decided this is good enough,
which it probably is in their circumstance.

If you are interested in persuing PAT testing further, there
are a pair of City and Guilds courses you might be interested
in taking; 2377/001 (Management of In-service inspection and
Testing of Electrical Equipment), and 2377/002 (In-service
inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment). They are
taught as 1 day courses each on 2 consecutive days, with
an exam each evening. The HSE recognise these as indicating
sufficient competence to undertake PAT testing. They are
intended to be accessible to non-electricians -- you will
need to know how to wire a plug and the difference between
megohms and milliohms, but you don't need to be a qualified
electrician. There is quite an overlap between the two
courses too. These are based around the following book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Practice-Se...t/dp/0852967764

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Chas Gill

2007-10-08, 5:25 pm

"Andrew Gabriel" <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:470a4f4c$0$641$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> In article <nvednXKqb5Ks35fanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>,
> "Chas Gill" <Chas.Gill@gollum.btinternet.com> writes:
>
> Most of those involved in PAT testing don't understand it,
> and that includes electricians who undertake it, worryingly.
> It may be that what you describe is the best they can do given
> the way the theatre is run and the manning level they have,
> and their risk assessment has decided this is good enough,
> which it probably is in their circumstance.
>
> If you are interested in persuing PAT testing further, there
> are a pair of City and Guilds courses you might be interested
> in taking; 2377/001 (Management of In-service inspection and
> Testing of Electrical Equipment), and 2377/002 (In-service
> inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment). They are
> taught as 1 day courses each on 2 consecutive days, with
> an exam each evening. The HSE recognise these as indicating
> sufficient competence to undertake PAT testing. They are
> intended to be accessible to non-electricians -- you will
> need to know how to wire a plug and the difference between
> megohms and milliohms, but you don't need to be a qualified
> electrician. There is quite an overlap between the two
> courses too. These are based around the following book:
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Practice-Se...t/dp/0852967764
>
> --
> Andrew Gabriel
> [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Thanks again, Andrew. I'll definitely follow this up.

Regards

Chas

hrhofmann@att.net

2007-10-09, 8:25 pm

On Oct 8, 4:52 pm, "Chas Gill" <Chas.G...@gollum.btinternet.com>
wrote:
> "Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:470a4f4c$0$641$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks again, Andrew. I'll definitely follow this up.
>
> Regards
>
> Chas- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Can you enlighten a "west of the big pond" resident what you mean by
PAT testing. I'm not familiar with that particular term.

H. R.(Bob) Hofmann

andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk

2007-10-10, 3:25 am

On 10 Oct, 01:38, "hrhofm...@att.net" <hrhofm...@att.net> wrote:
> Can you enlighten a "west of the big pond" resident what you mean by
> PAT testing. I'm not familiar with that particular term.

PAT = Portable Appliance Testing
This is the common name (somewhat misleading as you'll see from
earlier in the thread) for what is more properly called "In-Service
Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment". This is a periodic
inspection and test regime which performed on electrical appliances to
ensure they remain safe and are retired/replaced/repaired before they
become dangerous.

UK law requires employers to ensure they provide a safe working
environment for their employees and the public. The law doesn't make
any specific requirement for PAT testing, but this is the most
recognised method to ensure compliance as far as electrical equipment
is concerned. Following a PAT testing regime reduces the chances of an
employee or member of the public being injured by a faulty appliance,
and in the event this does happen, it provides the employer with some
protection against being claimed negligent.

PAT testing normally covers all equipment except that covered by
inspection and testing of the fixed wiring installation or other
equipment which is subject to specific testing of its own (e.g. lifts,
fire alarms, etc). Typically this is all portable appliances, but it
isn't limited to just portable appliances.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

hrhofmann@att.net

2007-10-10, 1:25 pm

On Oct 9, 10:11 pm, and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk wrote:
> On 10 Oct, 01:38, "hrhofm...@att.net" <hrhofm...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
> PAT = Portable Appliance Testing
> This is the common name (somewhat misleading as you'll see from
> earlier in the thread) for what is more properly called "In-Service
> Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment". This is a periodic
> inspection and test regime which performed on electrical appliances to
> ensure they remain safe and are retired/replaced/repaired before they
> become dangerous.
>
> UK law requires employers to ensure they provide a safe working
> environment for their employees and the public. The law doesn't make
> any specific requirement for PAT testing, but this is the most
> recognised method to ensure compliance as far as electrical equipment
> is concerned. Following a PAT testing regime reduces the chances of an
> employee or member of the public being injured by a faulty appliance,
> and in the event this does happen, it provides the employer with some
> protection against being claimed negligent.
>
> PAT testing normally covers all equipment except that covered by
> inspection and testing of the fixed wiring installation or other
> equipment which is subject to specific testing of its own (e.g. lifts,
> fire alarms, etc). Typically this is all portable appliances, but it
> isn't limited to just portable appliances.
>
> --
> Andrew Gabriel
> [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Thanks. Here in the USA, if you bring your own coffee pot into work
to make your own coffee, I don't know who would be responsible for
checking safety. I suppose someone would try to sue their employer if
they got a shock from their own appliance, but I doubt if they could
win.

On the other hand, there's that case of the lady who sued McDonald's
because she spilled a cup of their hot coffee on herself, so anything
is possible.

H.R.(Bob) Hofmann

Andrew Gabriel

2007-10-10, 1:25 pm

In article <1192028021.970566.155370@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"hrhofmann@att.net" <hrhofmann@att.net> writes:
>
> Thanks. Here in the USA, if you bring your own coffee pot into work
> to make your own coffee, I don't know who would be responsible for
> checking safety. I suppose someone would try to sue their employer if
> they got a shock from their own appliance, but I doubt if they could
> win.

Most UK employers have some type of rule which will either
prevent you bringing your own appliances in, or require them
to be tested. Often the rule is not enforced at all, and they
provide no way to actually have your appliance tested.

My current employer is probably the best I've come across.
They allow your own appliances but very strictly enforce
the requirement that everything must be tested before use.
They have staff available 24x7 to do this normally within
about 15 minutes of you requesting it. This means everyone
respects the rule including visitors with laptops or test
equipment.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Paul E. Bennett

2007-10-10, 1:25 pm

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

> In article <1192028021.970566.155370@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> "hrhofmann@att.net" <hrhofmann@att.net> writes:
>
> Most UK employers have some type of rule which will either
> prevent you bringing your own appliances in, or require them
> to be tested. Often the rule is not enforced at all, and they
> provide no way to actually have your appliance tested.

Our place picks up on the personal appliances during the regular testing
regime. Personnel are also supposed to contact the tester (on-site) if they
bring in a new personal appliance. The cost to the company for this
additional testing disappears in the noise as there are so many other items
of portable or luggable equipment on site.

> My current employer is probably the best I've come across.
> They allow your own appliances but very strictly enforce
> the requirement that everything must be tested before use.
> They have staff available 24x7 to do this normally within
> about 15 minutes of you requesting it. This means everyone
> respects the rule including visitors with laptops or test
> equipment.

Our tester is kept busy with the volume of stuff and may take a couple of
days to get round to covering request for testing.

--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

LinkBot