IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: COP 4th edition, inservice inspection and testing of electrical equipment.
Topic Summary: PAT labels.
Created On: 09 January 2013 03:06 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 09 January 2013 03:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



BILLYBOY65

Posts: 35
Joined: 11 May 2011

Hi

Does anyone know a good place to purchase PAT labels that comply with the new PAT Code of Practice 4th edition.

We get through a few thousand every month.

Cheers

Billy
 09 January 2013 04:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



alanblaby

Posts: 346
Joined: 09 March 2012

Is it out now then?

For the Regs, there is a 6 month changeover period for the forms, so I would presume this would apply too to PAT labels.
I doubt many/anyone has new labels, as it hasnt been publicised at all.
 10 January 2013 10:30 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4478
Joined: 06 May 2002

The new CoP says "The date for re-testing should not be marked on the label" (see 8.4).

I've only seen one other comment anywhere on this issue yet, but I suspect that when more people have read the new CoP, this will change.

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
 10 January 2013 10:59 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Legh.
Legh

Posts: 3472
Joined: 17 December 2004

I've still got a bucket load of old labels to dispense with...So I might just continue using the ones that i have already and just replace the date of next inspection with a line or refer to RA.

Legh

-------------------------
Why do we need Vernier Calipers when we have container ships?

http://www.leghrichardson.co.uk

"Science has overcome time and space. Well, Harvey has overcome not only time and space - but any objections."
 11 January 2013 09:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for zeeper.
zeeper

Posts: 1407
Joined: 11 July 2008

The date for re-testing should not be marked on the label



Whats the point in that, less is more.
 11 January 2013 10:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for BigRed.
BigRed

Posts: 558
Joined: 10 November 2006

and as PAT is still not a legal requirement in its own right (yes i do know about responsibilities under EAW and HASAW) use the old labels, just don't fill in the retest date.
 11 January 2013 12:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6107
Joined: 04 July 2007

That's what i've been doing recently BigRed, I don't do much PA Testing but the ones I do the client asks for it every year, although I tell them they don't have to have it done,

Dave.
 11 January 2013 09:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for slittle.
slittle

Posts: 3463
Joined: 22 November 2007

I've got two clients exactly the same Dave, Neither "need" doing every year but they insist we do it.


Stu
 11 January 2013 10:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Legh.
Legh

Posts: 3472
Joined: 17 December 2004

I've just gone back to a client to retest equipment that may have been damaged due to the recent floods. All checked out Ok and all functionally tested Ok.
I explained to the client that he is now the responsible person, for which he thanked me profusely, and that I may not be able to specify a date of next test since I had no remit to do so. he laughed and said thank you.
Now I did explain that some of the equipment, particularly the class III types do not necessarily require testing for a minimum of 4 years, if at all, for which he thanked me.
He's an ex mechanical engineer which I said was and is an honourable profession and he thanked me.
I think this new code of practice seems to have a positive effect
Well thank goodness for that !

Legh

-------------------------
Why do we need Vernier Calipers when we have container ships?

http://www.leghrichardson.co.uk

"Science has overcome time and space. Well, Harvey has overcome not only time and space - but any objections."
 11 January 2013 10:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1710
Joined: 21 November 2008

It's not that "they don't have to have it done" it that they have to take the responsibility for when they have it done. They may decide they want things testing or inspecting every 3 months or every 5 years.

It's not longer being left to "the professionals". You know, the ones that carried out tests on fully insulated class2 equipment.
 11 January 2013 10:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1710
Joined: 21 November 2008

Sorry Legh, you beat me to it!
 11 January 2013 10:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6107
Joined: 04 July 2007

the ones that carried out tests on fully insulated class2 equipment.
-----------------

Maybe there should be a "double insulated tick-box" on the PA test labels Leckie!!

Dave.
 11 January 2013 10:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1710
Joined: 21 November 2008

You naughty man Dave!
 11 January 2013 10:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6107
Joined: 04 July 2007

Just couldn't resist it Leckie!
 11 January 2013 10:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Legh.
Legh

Posts: 3472
Joined: 17 December 2004

I haven't a clue what you two are up to.....

Legh

-------------------------
Why do we need Vernier Calipers when we have container ships?

http://www.leghrichardson.co.uk

"Science has overcome time and space. Well, Harvey has overcome not only time and space - but any objections."
 13 January 2013 06:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



lyledunn

Posts: 607
Joined: 13 August 2003

No need to stick those labels on at all! With an appropriate management system you could argue that labelling is superfluous.

-------------------------
Regards,

Lyle Dunn
 13 January 2013 10:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11299
Joined: 13 August 2003

With an appropriate management system you could argue that labelling is superfluous.

That's what worries me - relying entirely on management systems in an imperfect world. Quite a few years ago I used to test a few appliances - just internally for the company I worked for a the time. We tested things on a rolling basis - a few every week, which worked better for us than a 'blitz everything at the same time once a year', both in terms of minimising disruption, spreading costs, and allowed different equipment to have different test intervals. It was a small company (< 20 employees), just one office, everyone knew everyone and had a reasonable idea what was going on. Even then, every now and again, bits of equipment couldn't be located when they were due for re-test. Whether they'd been taken out on site, moved somewhere else (perhaps the back of a cupboard somewhere), borrowed (taken home), etc. Usually they'd turn up 6 months, or several years, later. In bigger places there must be a lot of equipment that falls off the testing radar for all sorts of reasons.

The problem for me is what happens when this "missing" equipment turns up again? Under the old system the users could see at a glance that it was overdue for a test. Under the new one, it appears to have a valid test sticker and the 'management system' thinks it's lost - so it woudl stay untested for the rest of time.

- Andy.
 14 January 2013 10:38 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Patnik

Posts: 171
Joined: 25 June 2008

I agree with Andy's concerns. Working in a large educational institution with over 25,000 appliances on the database there is no way whatsoever we can run a system based solely on management sending out us test techs to check equipment the database flags as due. For starters much of our equipment will change location several times between tests (usually 2 or 3 year intervals) so we'd have no way of finding it in our 4 large buildings. Also a lot of equipment, 100s of items, 'disappear' then 'reappear' after a few years. Users will have no idea whether equipment they are using was due for test a month or a decade ago. The H&S guys would have no way of determining whether equipment is 'safe' when they do their walks. Our 'duty holder' knows little about appliance safety and is more likely to go reducing test intervals to once a year' to be 'on the safe side' than to do any sort of risk assessment.

I get the impression this change to recommended label information was made with the sole aim of limiting the ability of a few over the top contract firms to milk their clients without having any regard for how PAT actually works in many places. I'll be advising that we ignore this change and carry on with our current system of PAT techs touring the building and re-testing all equipment that the labels states will be due before the next visit - can't see what's wrong with this.

Nik

Edited: 14 January 2013 at 10:59 AM by Patnik
 14 January 2013 05:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Legh.
Legh

Posts: 3472
Joined: 17 December 2004

I get the impression this change to recommended label information was made with the sole aim of limiting the ability of a few over the top contract firms to milk their clients without having any regard for how PAT actually works in many places. I'll be advising that we ignore this change and carry on with our current system of PAT techs touring the building and re-testing all equipment that the labels states will be due before the next visit - can't see what's wrong with this.


I agree, I can't see a problem with this method either.
I can also see the benefits of reducing the 60p/label chappies ....
This new strategy does, however, place the onus on each company to have a Duty Holder in place to manage the H&S side of things.
but then the other concern is many companies don't have someone who is electrically competent to make these decisions which brings us back to where we started from.

Legh

-------------------------
Why do we need Vernier Calipers when we have container ships?

http://www.leghrichardson.co.uk

"Science has overcome time and space. Well, Harvey has overcome not only time and space - but any objections."
 15 January 2013 07:42 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



BILLYBOY65

Posts: 35
Joined: 11 May 2011

I t sounds as if there are some sparky's that never knew about the new COP out there?

The company I work for probably test about 20,000 items a month - To me, testing yearly has just been a money making excercise, especially in low risk environments.

Obviously industrial locations, construction sites etc are definately up for regular full tests.

I think the new COP will put the new PAT requirements
in to perspective as long as building managers/owners are informed of the changes.
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.