The new edition of the PAT Code of Practice puts responsibility for setting test intervals, record keeping etc on the 'duty holder'. Many work places already have named duty holders for EWR purposes. Is the PAT duty holder necessarily the same person? I'd assumed so but the more I look at the new CoP and the EWR the vaguer this term seems to be. The EWR seem to allocate duties to just about every employee.

It's obviously going to be important to know just who this person is - can any of you clever folk clarify?

Nik

1.1.2 of the COP refers to Persons managing a maintenance scheme, and 1.1.4 then goes on to consider landlords, company directors, managers and building services managers.
The duty holder is the person who has the resources and ability to prevent danger within the undertaking, so this can be anyone; but ultimately the MD of a company would bear a portion of the responsibility.

-------------------------
http://www.niceic.biz

Thanks kj! The way it's put does seem to suggest that the person managing the maintenance scheme is the 'duty holder' referred to later in the CoP who is to set retest intervals etc. In our case he is not the existing building services duty holder who deals with fixed wiring issues. I can see no reason why the PAT 'duty holder' can't be a different person so long as we decide who he is and record it in writing (I doubt is going to want to be this duty holder after something goes wrong when everyone is looking for someone to blame if they've not already been identified).