Strictly speaking, equipment does not pass or fail a thorough examination. A thorough examination is not a test with a pass mark: it is a competent person's written opinion on whether the equipment is safe to continue in use. What you receive is a report that either records no defects, or records a defect together with the time by which it must be put right. The word people reach for is "failed", but what has actually happened is that a defect has been found and a timescale has been attached to it, and the timescale is the part that determines what you do next.
That distinction changes the question you should be asking. It is not "did it pass?" but "what has been found, how urgent is it, and what must I do now?" This post covers what happens from the moment a defect is identified through to the equipment going back into service. For help interpreting the document itself, our guide on how to read a LOLER report walks through each section in turn.
What does the report say when a defect is found?
Under LOLER 1998, the report of thorough examination has to record particulars of any defect that is or could become a danger to people, and state the time by which that defect should be remedied. It is that second part that carries the weight. A defect noted as requiring attention before a specified date sits in a very different position from one that makes the equipment unsafe to use immediately.
In practice, defects fall into a rough hierarchy. Some make the equipment unsafe to use now. Some will make it unsafe if left, so a date is set. Some are observations about wear or condition that do not yet affect safety but need watching. A well written report makes clear which of these you are looking at, because the duty holder has to act on it without interpreting the engineer's intentions.
The same principle applies across the other regimes. A PSSR 2000 examination produces a written report from the competent person, and a PUWER 1998 inspection produces a record of what was found. The format differs, but the logic does not: the finding is only half of it, and the timescale is the other half.
Who has to be told when a defect is serious?
This is the part that catches people out. Where a thorough examination under LOLER identifies a defect that is or could become a danger to people, the competent person must notify the duty holder straight away, not simply write it up and send the report later. And where the defect involves an existing or imminent danger, the competent person must also send a copy of the report to the relevant enforcing authority.
The enforcing authority is the Health and Safety Executive for most industrial premises, or the local authority for some other workplaces, including much of retail and parts of the care sector. The duty to send it sits with the competent person, not with you. It is not a punishment and it is not a prosecution: it is a notification, and it exists so that a genuinely dangerous piece of equipment cannot quietly stay in service. PSSR 2000 works on a comparable principle for pressure systems, with the timescales set out in the regulation itself. What matters to you as a duty holder is that a serious finding does not stay between you and your engineer.
Can you keep using the equipment?
If the report says a defect makes the equipment unsafe to use, the equipment comes out of service. That is not a matter of preference. PUWER 1998 requires work equipment to be maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair, and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places a general duty on employers regarding plant that is safe and without risks to health. Continuing to use equipment that a competent person has identified as dangerous is difficult to defend against either.
Taking it out of service properly means more than telling people not to use it. Isolate it where you can, tag or lock it off, and make sure the people who would normally reach for it know why it is unavailable and who to speak to. Equipment that is merely "not being used at the moment" has a habit of being used.
Where a date has been set rather than immediate action required, you can generally continue to operate within that date, provided the equipment's condition does not change. If it deteriorates, or is involved in an incident, that date stops being meaningful.
What happens after the repair?
The repair itself is not our work. We examine and report, and we do not carry out remedial work on the equipment we examine, because doing both would compromise the independence of the examination. What you need afterwards is evidence that the defect has been addressed by someone competent to address it, kept with the report that identified it.
Whether the equipment needs re-examining before returning to use depends on what was done. A repair affecting the safety of the equipment, or any substantial alteration, is a trigger for a further thorough examination rather than a paperwork exercise. Replacing a worn chain sling is not the same as rebuilding a crane's braking system.
Keep the chain of documents together: the report that found the defect, the evidence of what was done about it, and where relevant the further examination confirming the equipment is fit to return to service. That chain is what demonstrates you acted, and it is far easier to assemble at the time than to reconstruct a year later.
Does a defect reset the examination interval?
No. The examination cycle belongs to the equipment and to the regime it sits under, not to the last thing that happened to it. Lifting equipment used to lift or lower people is thoroughly examined at intervals not exceeding six months, other lifting equipment at intervals not exceeding twelve months, and lifting accessories at intervals not exceeding six months. The alternative to those fixed maximums is examination in accordance with an examination scheme drawn up by a competent person, which can set different intervals for a particular item and duty.
A repair partway through the cycle does not buy you another twelve months. The next scheduled examination still falls when it falls. Our inspection frequency guide sets out the intervals across all five regimes if you need the full picture.
Getting a clear answer quickly
Safe-Lee Inspection & Consultancy is an independent practice based in Irlam, covering Manchester and the North West. Lee Charnock, EngTech MSOE MBES, carries out the examinations himself, so the person who found the defect is the person you speak to about it. Reports are issued in one to two working days, which matters most when equipment is standing idle waiting on paperwork.
Because we carry out no repairs, there is no commercial reason for us to find a defect that is not there, and none to overlook one that is. If you want to discuss a report you have received, or arrange LOLER thorough examinations across your equipment, get in touch.