On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:16:07 -0000, Tx2
mused:

In article , Lurch
of , felt we'd be interested in the
following...


Not overly convinced on the legality of just buying a PAT tester to
avoid paying a trained person to do the job.
Can't see a great difference tbh.

Of course there is a difference.

The PAT tester records the test, and cross references asset and test
numbers; thereafter the result is uploaded onto a computer, and the
record is kept in line with legislation.

Sticking a sticker on without testing is quite clearly falsehood.

The test results are only of any use if the operator knows exactly
what they are doing.

I'm confident our site manager is operating within the law.

In fact, legislation seems to say:

"The IEE Code of Practice states, those carrying out the inspection and
testing must be competent to undertake the inspection and, where
appropriate, testing of electrical equipment and appliances having due
regard of their own safety and that of others."

Our site manager is certainly competent, as are members of our IT Team.

By competent, do you mean competent as in 'are trained to operate the
test equipment and have certificates to show this' or competent as in
'they look like they know what they're doing to me'?

If you can offer legislation which states someone must be specifically
trained, certified or whatever is required, i'd be interested to read
it.

I never said they had to be specifically trained, but to just buy a
PAT tester and have anyone test appliances is not what is meant by
competent.
--
Regards,
Stuart.