On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 10:02:04 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 24/03/15 09:16, Dennis@home wrote:
On 24/03/2015 08:23, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 8:22:50 AM UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 7:58:26 AM UTC, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

PAT is a nickname - "portable" doesn't appear in the real name.
The testing applies to all appliances, except the wiring installation
and any lighting which is part of the wiring installation, and also
excludes anything else which has its own testing regime defined in
other
legislation (such as a passenger lift).

I was once checking an office for PAT validity dates, and noticed
an untested plug-in air freshener. We were a little unsure
exactly what could or should have been done with it.

relabel it as an air polluter? New goods don't need PAT testing AIUI.

but if PAT testing is done in bulk every so often, better to test now
so it won't exceed its test interval later.


NT


By why PAT anyway? You don't need to do it at all.
You should train the users to give it a visual check before use if there
is any chance of damage being dangerous leaving it every year or two is
going to be against H&S laws. I get the idea that PAT is just an excuse
for inadequate training.

PAT has become just another admin chore in many places. No one cares if
the kit is safe - just that it has a little green label with an in-date
date scribbled on it.

In the hope that no one gets sued if something should go wrong.
Although I'm not sure if it'd actaully work I've seen something pass the PAT test (well it had a sticker on it) that should or would have failed my visual inspection.