In message ,
whisky-dave writes
On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 14:32:11 UTC, Dennis@home wrote:
On 24/03/2015 12:43, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 09:20:21 UTC, 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.

It's a good way of passing along the responsibility of who to blame
should something go wrong. We get everything tested every year.



I doubt if you will get away with passing on the problem.

It does by those instigating it otherwise they wouldn;t have bothered.
There is a little contention here as what happens if someone does get
killed and the equipment had passed it's PAT test, no one seems to be
sure what differnce a PAT test will make.

Same as an MOT pass I suppose - it was all right on the day guv
--
bert