LOLER certificates for tractor and loader

[Bald n Grumpy]

Expense aside of the tests and the things that they reveal, it is quite comforting to have an MOT on my truck and car every year to make sure that it is safe to drive and that everything works.

Similarly for the Loler tests on my loaders although I am annoyed that they will ground one if that stupid piece of plastic paper on the dash board is missing for whatever reason.

From what I remember an MOT only says it's compliant on the day of the test. Have had it happen more than once when a brake pipe has gone within a few days after testing. Would say lower would be the same

 

[David.]

When we moved to NFUM, I specifically asked if their cover was contingent on our loader being Loler tested, and they said it wasn't. But as above, it is recommended, to be able to demonstrate best practice.

 

[farmerm]

Which suggests that my insurers are wrong.

Per chance, did they offer a testing service...

 

[robs1]

Maybe but I don't like that excuse. If you aren't competent to work out a SWL then how can you really consider yourself competent to use a piece of lifting equipment? It's fundamental information to use it safely.

We don't have tractor loaders anymore and use a dedicated telehandler which has LOLER in with the service. But why should we stick to the rules and people who use tractor loaders ignore them?

A swl is always well within actual safe limits as a lot depends on what you are lifting and how, a pallet of cement weighing two tonnes will act very differently to two bags of fert being carried on loops or a two thirds full ibc of liquid, then the type/ level of surface you are carrying it over and then the height to lift to, plus sometimes you might have weight on the links sometimes not etc etc etc.
The experience/skill of the driver is far more important and the tuition received from those more experienced is very important, luckily my stepson is properly qualified to do lolers and inspections of my maintenance, the only one we get done independently is the cherry picker and that's done by an ex work mate if his so also properly qualified.

 

[steveR]

That document is from 2007 [I think]
I don't think the rules have changed since then but their interpretation might have.
I had this argument when insured with the NFU. They accepted it didn't apply because there would not be anyone within the 'working area' of the lifting equipment.
Changed insurers and it hasn't been mentioned by any of the others.

NFU used to recommend one, but not a requirement. I have left and similiar response, however, I do have an annual test on Loader and FEL for peace of mind as much as anything.

 

[DrWazzock]

TBH I think safety inspections are a good idea. But this insistence that somebody external with no financial interest in the business must do the work is what annoys me particularly in a self employed owner operator situation. Provided I’m competent, I can’t see much of problem in inspecting my own gear particularly as saving my own life is a fairly strong motivation to get it right. The only conclusion I can draw with things such as sprayer MOTs, spreader tests etc is that the requirement for an externally sourced inspection is more about generating revenue for other businesses than any genuine concern for safety. At one time, being self reliant and training yourself up in a variety of skills was what made the smaller farmer or operator competitive. Now even that competitive edge, is being taken away from us as we are forced to go down the corporate route of hiring in all competences. It won’t end well in my view but of course that won’t matter to the mass.

 

[Interested in farming]

Legally PUWER and LOLER apply to farms no matter how many are employed, including self employed. As someone else pointed out earlier if you switch between tractors and the cert was issued against one set up then technically the cert will be invalid.

Insurers frequently get the legislation wrong and just because an insurer doesn't ask for for it does not mean that it isn't legally required.

Someone else also mentioned 'thin end of the wedge' well both PUWER (which requires maintenance and inspection of working equipment) and LOLER have been around for 30 years now. Although given this

https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/busi...r-fire-over-decision-to-stop-farm-inspections

I'd question how often you'll see them, although post accident they will ask.

 

[Interested in farming]

There's not such thing as a official (i.e. government mandated) LOLER certificate, but it is the law to have a 'thorough examination and inspection' - this is what is sometimes referred to as a LOLER certificate. But whether it is called a 'LOLER certificate' or a 'thorough examination and inspection' it satisfies the same legal duty.

(Sorry for weighing in on this with lots of posts but in a former life i used to be an appointed person for lift work in construction world. It's unlocking lots of memories! But I don't do our inspections because I'd struggle to prove competence and we just lump it in with the service... also why take the responsibility on my shoulders?)

There very much is

The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998

www.legislation.gov.uk

I think you are making a different point ie that there is no 'government stamped' form and the name can be confusing but there IS a legal requirement for what is in a report. Something people doing TE aren't always aware of.

 

[Interested in farming]

We've had our telehanders done both by a LOLER inspection company and in recent years by Vulcan. The Loler company were way more anal about it and would fail them on things the vulcan man will pass. The LOLER inspection leaves an official looking sticker in the cab too
So are you saying there is actually nothing official about a LOLER inspection? And it is basically the same as an engineering inspection but with some marketing?

No

The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998

www.legislation.gov.uk

there are inspections under PUWER and inspections under LOLER. LOLER is more specific and frequency is different if lifting people etc but in one sense a GOOD engineering inspection should meet what LOLER needs.

A Vulcan inspection SHOULD be a LOLER inspection but engineers like all trades vary. Some companies also have the engineers under huge pressure for volumes so some stuff can get skipped but then the people paying don't see a benefit and want a pass, as cheaply as possible, thanks.

Like all safety legislation it was designed to prevent accidents but like many things in life people want compliance as cheaply as possible and it can end up a tick box. I know about LOLER because a strange man came to my factory every year to look at the fork lift and leaf me paperwork ignored until one day I talked to him about it and read up.

 

[HatsOff]

There very much is

The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998

www.legislation.gov.uk

I think you are making a different point ie that there is no 'government stamped' form and the name can be confusing but there IS a legal requirement for what is in a report. Something people doing TE aren't always aware of.

Yes indeed - my meaning was there's not a template or specific form or certificate issued by the government / HSE.

A 'thorough examination and inspection' would by definition contain everything in Schedule 1.

 

[Interested in farming]

As I see it, if you consider yourself as a 'competent person' you could do a regular LOLER recommended check yourself. Record keeping of repairs and maintenance is a key feature of HSE.

You would need to demonstrate competence and then be independent ie; you can't check your own repairs.

 

[Interested in farming]

Yes indeed - but there's not a template or specific form. It does need to be a 'thorough examination and inspection' which would by definition contain everything in Schedule 1.

Would a leaking ram seal constitute a dangerous fault? Hardly.
What about metal fatigue? Can’t really see cracks until it’s too late. So when will we get to the stage as with aircraft when they are scrapped at say 5000 hours due the danger of catastrophic metal fatigue cracking? I’ve heard of a teiehandler boom snap like a carrot due to metal fatigue. It was entirely unpredictable other than machine age, number of lifting cycles.
I had a pin snap once but luckily I noticed one end starting to come out of the bushing. No inspection foresaw that, other than commenting that the machine is “old”.
I’m actually quite enthusiastic about safety as u don’t want myself or anybody else killed but I can see sooner or later older or high houred kit getting condemned purely because it’s old or high houred. That will be the finish of the small farmer.

A Ram Seal would likely be a fail. As for metal fatigue, every other industry seems to get on ok with these and builders do as well. Kit will not be condemned because it's old but because its unsafe.

 

[paul&mandy]

A tractor loader can't pass a loler type test. I think it was due to no check valves like a telehandler.

 

[Interested in farming]

A tractor loader can't pass a loler type test. I think it was due to no check valves like a telehandler.

HSE (who own the law on this) specifically mention loaders

LOLER in agriculture​

What is lifting equipment in agriculture?​

In agriculture, the term covers a wide range of equipment including:

• Tractor foreloaders, fork-lift trucks and telescopic handlers (telehandlers)

Some confusion comes from AIS28 which says

Thorough examination is to protect both operators and people in the vicinity of lifting operations who may be at risk if lifting equipment suddenly fails. Equipment which lifts loads over or in close proximity to people should be thoroughly examined.
Lifting equipment such as: ■ forklift trucks and foreloaders on tractors without adequate operator protection or where other people are working in the close vicinity will need thorough examination; and ■ foreloaders on tractors with safety cabs, telescopic loaders and forklift trucks with operator protection and where no other people work in the vicinity will not normally need thorough examination.
While thorough examination of tractor foreloaders will not normally be necessary, a regular check of a foreloader’s hydraulic hoses and mounting points for attachments should be part of normal safe operation and maintenance.


I think AIS 28 is withdrawn (HSE could tell you) but I know talking to people that 'where no other people work' can be difficult to argue ie: if you off load stuff being delivered.

 

[betweenthelines]

Insurers will insist on LOLER etc. as it demonstrates a responsible attitude to H&S which will reduce blame/liability in the event of an accident.
CMA work very closely with NFU Mutual on agricultural matters.

IMO farming should follow the example of industry where every piece of mobile plant (FLT, Tractor, Quad bike, trailer etc) is inspected at the start of the day by the operator against a checklist of safety related items -brakes, lights, steering, tyres, hydraulics etc) to ensure it's fit to use.

 

[kill]

Insurers will insist on LOLER etc. as it demonstrates a responsible attitude to H&S which will reduce blame/liability in the event of an accident.
CMA work very closely with NFU Mutual on agricultural matters.

IMO farming should follow the example of industry where every piece of mobile plant (FLT, Tractor, Quad bike, trailer etc) is inspected at the start of the day by the operator against a checklist of safety related items -brakes, lights, steering, tyres, hydraulics etc) to ensure it's fit to use.

Agriculture isn’t one man per machine. Most days in the winter I am jumping between 4 different tractors scraper, feed wagon, loader tractor and straw blower tractor. How feasible would it be to do a 15 minute check on each per day? I really don’t see a milk buyer paying extra for milk to cover this? And none of these will be on the road unless a repair off farm is needed.

 

[Blue.]

Agriculture isn’t one man per machine. Most days in the winter I am jumping between 4 different tractors scraper, feed wagon, loader tractor and straw blower tractor. How feasible would it be to do a 15 minute check on each per day? I really don’t see a milk buyer paying extra for milk to cover this? And none of these will be on the road unless a repair off farm is needed.

A milk buyer won't pay you what milks worth in the 1st place never mind bullshìt red tape.

 

[Flatland guy]

IMO have a proper LOLER test for one year. Be there when it is done and watch what the inspector checks etc. You will then know what to look for in your daily/ monthly checks and could include them in a checklist sheet for future reference/ monthly/ yearly records.
Then decide whether you need it another year or not. Having a LOLER certificate would be good in Court if you demonstrate what daily/ weekly checks take place. I do not have any faith in having a LOLER certificate if you cannot demonstrate your other checks taking place too. I know the checks are mainly common sense to most people but it is how you are able to prove it should the worst happen.

 

[gone up the hill]

Insurers will insist on LOLER etc. as it demonstrates a responsible attitude to H&S which will reduce blame/liability in the event of an accident.
CMA work very closely with NFU Mutual on agricultural matters.

IMO farming should follow the example of industry where every piece of mobile plant (FLT, Tractor, Quad bike, trailer etc) is inspected at the start of the day by the operator against a checklist of safety related items -brakes, lights, steering, tyres, hydraulics etc) to ensure it's fit to use.

Complete nonsense to have a checklist for every machine that needs to be done every day!

Who has the time for that let alone the cost??

Any other industry would be able to pass the cost on but farmers cannot so its just not feasible to check every machine every day before use, that could mean some farms spending 2/3 hours a day just checking machinery, and what if you found the tyre on the feeder wagon needed changing on xmas day? not feed your cows for three days untill the tyre place opens and then they cant get that tyre untill 3 days into the NY, long time to make the cows go hungry! ??

 

[DrWazzock]

You would need to demonstrate competence and then be independent ie; you can't check your own repairs.

Why can’t you check your own repairs?