Loler testing.
- Thread starter nelly55
- Start date
- Location
- North Notts
If you have an accident with a defective machine you will be up sh!t creek, the test could be used as a paddle but will does not guard against prosecution.
Last edited:
- Location
- Huntingdon, UK
All lifting equipment must be inspected by a qualified person. Telehandlers and attachments etc normally every year. If you have a man cage then it and the machine lifting it must be inspected every 6 months.
The definition of a competent person:
■ should have enough appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience of the lifting equipment so that they can detect defects or weaknesses, and assess how important they are in relation to the safety and continued use of the equipment;
■ should not be the same person who performs routine maintenance as they would be responsible for assessing their own work;
■ should be sufficiently independent and impartial to make objective decisions;
■ may be employed by a separate company, or selected by an employer from members of their own staff.
If it was the NFU they probably suggested Vulcan who is related to them. However as you can see from the above criteria it is not law for them to do it. Just make sure whoever does it documents it well and you document any repairs to.
Source:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg422.pdf
The definition of a competent person:
■ should have enough appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience of the lifting equipment so that they can detect defects or weaknesses, and assess how important they are in relation to the safety and continued use of the equipment;
■ should not be the same person who performs routine maintenance as they would be responsible for assessing their own work;
■ should be sufficiently independent and impartial to make objective decisions;
■ may be employed by a separate company, or selected by an employer from members of their own staff.
If it was the NFU they probably suggested Vulcan who is related to them. However as you can see from the above criteria it is not law for them to do it. Just make sure whoever does it documents it well and you document any repairs to.
Source:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg422.pdf
eddyginner
Member
I was under the impression that anything used for lifting was supposed to be tested annually if you are doing things by the book that includes lifting straps, Jack's ect ect but is far as I can see most people don't bother (well I don't know a farmer who does) and that includes myself
I would suggest this is more to do with protection of employees than a LAW , my insurance Zurich have never asked for a loler test certificate
Better get my back tested annually too then.........
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
I’ve banned Vulcan from all inspections on any business we manage. Totally incompetent jobs worth. Plenty of companies do it better and fairer and I do believe it is important to do. Same with air receivers ( compressors) they’ve been banned.
- Location
- Huntingdon, UK
Having the inspection is not law as such, however the employer has a duty of care for his employees (and the self employed has a duty of care to himself) to ensure all lifting equipment is safe under the loler regs. Your insurance company will assume therefore that your machine will pass a loler inspection.
If HSE come visiting however, if you cannot prove your lifting kit is regularly inspected then you will get prosecuted - it's like the PUWER regs but for lifting.
- Location
- Huntingdon, UK
Not true. If you are self employed and use the equipment for work you can be prosecuted by HSE. See my link above.
ACEngineering
Member
- Location
- Oxon
just to add if you are with the NFU you do not have to use Vulcan for the test, you can use who ever you like.
I use Farmers and Mercantile http://www.fandmgroup.co.uk/engineering-inspections/
I think they are £140 first machine and about £90 for a second one if on same site. (telehandler that is)
I use Farmers and Mercantile http://www.fandmgroup.co.uk/engineering-inspections/
I think they are £140 first machine and about £90 for a second one if on same site. (telehandler that is)
Ah right therefore i can only assume that vulcans standards have improved considerably recently.
Last time they did our loader they spotted a worn boom ram bush (which when we removed it found it to be perfect) but completely missed the fact that all 4 track rod ends were Fecked. Despite me specifically asking the question knowing they were worn.....
I've banned them as well.
On the other hand if you have a fecked old crock of a loader which needs a valid ticket, there the boys to ring....
- Location
- North Notts
How many teleporter accidents are down to mechanical failer opposed to driver error.
Courier
Member
- Location
- M62 - M1 - M18 triangle
Bet they would ask for one if you had a loader/handler related injury at work claim which they might want to find a way of reducing their liability
HSE have a page on LOLER in agriculture: http://www.hse.gov.uk/agriculture/topics/maintenance-4.htm
The following link takes you to a very useful guide to what should be inspected on various types of machine, including the front loader on an agricultural tractor: www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2002/crr02429.pdf
The following link takes you to a very useful guide to what should be inspected on various types of machine, including the front loader on an agricultural tractor: www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2002/crr02429.pdf
Simon Chiles
DD Moderator
- Location
- Surrey/ Kent Border, UK
As far as I understand it, bearing in mind that I used to sit on the joint agricultural health and safety board, was that tractor foreloaders and telehandlers did not normally come under loler in agriculture under normal circumstances. It’s only when you start lifting people in man cages, using them for lifting objects in place that you might be working on or in circumstances where people are around during lifting operations. Your normal lifting a few bales, loading grain lorries and shovelling sh*t doesn’t count. Here is the quote from the HSE’s AIS28
■ 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.
Obviously if you employ a few staff it’s always advisable to have a loler certificate as it would be fairly safe to assume that they are going to be operated in the vicinity of other people. Don’t forget that they all come under PUWER regardless of whether it’s subject to loler or not.
I’ve just had this conversation with my insurance company only a few days ago and they agreed that it wasn’t necessary, I suspect they soon realised that I knew what I was talking about.
Having a working relationship with some of the people higher up in the HSE I found it refreshing that they were genuinely interested in sensible solutions to improving health and safety at work without trying to tie the industry down with a load of bureaucratic twaddle, after all the more complicated something becomes the less likely it is to be implemented. Sadly this point seems to get lost as the message moves down the chain.
■ 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.
Obviously if you employ a few staff it’s always advisable to have a loler certificate as it would be fairly safe to assume that they are going to be operated in the vicinity of other people. Don’t forget that they all come under PUWER regardless of whether it’s subject to loler or not.
I’ve just had this conversation with my insurance company only a few days ago and they agreed that it wasn’t necessary, I suspect they soon realised that I knew what I was talking about.
Having a working relationship with some of the people higher up in the HSE I found it refreshing that they were genuinely interested in sensible solutions to improving health and safety at work without trying to tie the industry down with a load of bureaucratic twaddle, after all the more complicated something becomes the less likely it is to be implemented. Sadly this point seems to get lost as the message moves down the chain.
Tarw Coch
Member
- Location
- Bottom of Wats Dyke
Very sad if that's true, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Presumably that means you could get prosecuted for having a machine with nothing wrong with it.
- Location
- Huntingdon, UK
I doubt they would prosecute you if it was in full working order, however if they found a fault then looked back and found no records it would probably get you a ‘double whammy’.
A loler inspection doesn’t have to be official. If you have a mechanically minded neighbour with a telehandler, just get him to have a 30 minute check over the machine and document it all. According to the HSE link I posted earlier that would be acceptable.
So this is an NFU initiative like red tractor , and they have another vested interest @gone up the hill
Wonder how many injuries/fatalities are proportioned to certified as against uncertified lifting equipment.
Wonder how many injuries/fatalities have been reduced by PAT testing electrical equipment. Is it cost effective?
What if instead of inspecting, a nominal levy was diverted into the NHS?
Wonder how many injuries/fatalities have been reduced by PAT testing electrical equipment. Is it cost effective?
What if instead of inspecting, a nominal levy was diverted into the NHS?
- Tags
- mercantile