Who Can Carry Out a LOLER Inspection?

Who can carry out a LOLER inspection? Learn what makes someone competent, whether an in-house examiner is allowed and why independence matters.

cranes against a sunset skyline

Who can carry out a LOLER inspection? A LOLER thorough examination must be completed by a competent person with appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience of the particular lifting equipment. The examiner must also be sufficiently independent and impartial to make objective decisions about defects and continued safe use.

The competent person does not always have to work for an external inspection company. A suitably qualified and independent employee can carry out the examination, provided that they genuinely have the required competence and can act without commercial, operational or personal pressure.

A training certificate, engineering job title or familiarity with operating the equipment is not enough on its own. Competence must match the equipment, examination scope and decisions the person is expected to make.

Who can carry out a LOLER inspection legally?

The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 require lifting equipment to be thoroughly examined by a competent person in specified circumstances.

LOLER does not prescribe one qualification, job title or professional membership that automatically makes someone competent for every type of lifting equipment.

HSE guidance describes a competent person as someone with enough appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience to:

  • Detect defects and weaknesses

  • Understand how the equipment can deteriorate

  • Assess the significance of a defect

  • Decide whether the equipment can continue to be used safely

  • Specify appropriate remedial action and timescales

  • Determine whether examination or testing needs to go further

  • Produce a clear and compliant written report

The person must understand the particular equipment being examined. Someone competent to examine lifting accessories is not automatically competent to examine a tower crane, passenger lift, mobile elevating work platform or complex lifting appliance.

The dutyholder should therefore assess competence in relation to the actual assignment rather than accepting a general statement that someone is a “LOLER inspector”.

Is “LOLER inspection” the correct term?

“LOLER inspection” is widely used, but the statutory process is normally called a thorough examination.

A thorough examination is a systematic and detailed examination of lifting equipment and its safety-critical parts. It is carried out at specified times and concluded with a written report containing the information required by LOLER.

It is different from:

  • An operator’s pre-use check

  • A routine workplace inspection

  • Preventive maintenance

  • Servicing

  • Fault diagnosis

  • Repair

  • A lifting-operation plan

  • A conformity assessment completed when new equipment is supplied

Each activity has a valid purpose, but none automatically replaces a required thorough examination.

A person competent to service a machine may not have the knowledge, examination methods or independence required to complete its LOLER thorough examination.

What knowledge does a competent person need?

The necessary knowledge depends on the equipment, its design, use and foreseeable deterioration.

A competent examiner may need to understand:

  • The equipment’s design and operating principles

  • Relevant LOLER requirements

  • Applicable requirements under PUWER

  • Manufacturer’s instructions

  • Safe working loads and permitted configurations

  • Safety-critical components

  • Common deterioration and failure modes

  • Inspection and examination techniques

  • Relevant industry standards and guidance

  • Previous reports, repairs and modifications

  • The effect of the operating environment

  • The significance of defects

  • Reporting and notification duties

  • Their own limits of competence

For some equipment, the examiner may also need knowledge of electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, structural or control-system issues.

They do not necessarily need to perform every specialist test personally. Where non-destructive testing, detailed engineering analysis or another specialist activity is required, the competent person may use suitable specialist support. They must still understand the relevance of that work and incorporate the results into their overall judgement.

Why does practical experience matter?

Theoretical knowledge helps an examiner understand legal requirements, engineering principles and possible failure mechanisms. Practical experience helps them recognise how those issues appear on real equipment.

Practical competence can include experience of:

  • Examining the relevant equipment type

  • Identifying normal and abnormal wear

  • Recognising unsuitable repairs or modifications

  • Understanding how the equipment is used

  • Selecting appropriate examination methods

  • Interpreting measurements and test results

  • Deciding when dismantling or specialist testing is necessary

  • Distinguishing a cosmetic issue from a safety-critical defect

  • Communicating findings to dutyholders

An examiner may understand LOLER in general but lack experience of a particular lifting appliance. In that situation, they should decline the work, limit their scope or obtain suitable specialist assistance.

Competence includes recognising when a matter falls outside one’s expertise.

Must a LOLER competent person be independent?

The competent person must be sufficiently independent and impartial to make objective decisions.

This does not mean the examiner must always be employed by an unrelated external organisation. HSE guidance allows an employer to select a competent person from its own staff, provided that the person has genuine competence, authority and independence.

The examiner must be able to report defects and restrict continued use without fear or favour.

Potential conflicts can arise where the person:

  • Is responsible for keeping production running

  • Is judged against equipment availability

  • Approved the original design or installation

  • Completed the maintenance being assessed

  • Would be blamed for identifying a defect

  • Reports directly to someone pressuring them to pass the equipment

  • Has a financial interest in avoiding remedial work

  • Cannot withdraw equipment from use when necessary

Independence is about the quality and objectivity of the decision, not simply the examiner’s employer.

An internal examiner can be suitable where the organisation has robust reporting arrangements and protects their authority to make safety decisions. An external examiner can still lack effective independence if their commercial arrangements encourage superficial or favourable reporting.

Can the maintenance engineer carry out the thorough examination?

HSE guidance states that the competent person should not be the same person who carries out routine servicing or maintenance of the equipment, because they would then be responsible for assessing their own work.

This does not mean that every maintenance engineer is incapable of becoming a competent examiner. The concern is the conflict created when someone independently assesses work for which they were personally responsible.

An engineer may have valuable knowledge of the equipment but still be unsuitable for a particular examination because:

  • They completed the repair being evaluated

  • They selected or fitted the component under question

  • Their maintenance performance is being assessed

  • They lack independence from production pressures

  • Their experience concerns servicing rather than thorough examination

  • They are not competent to judge the significance of structural or safety-critical defects

Maintenance and thorough examination should support one another while remaining distinct activities.

The HSE guidance on thorough examinations explains the need for appropriate competence, independence and impartiality.

Can a trained employee carry out a LOLER inspection?

Potentially, yes. An in-house employee may carry out thorough examinations if the employer can demonstrate that the person:

  • Has appropriate knowledge and experience

  • Understands the equipment being examined

  • Is trained in suitable examination methods

  • Can interpret defects and their significance

  • Understands the relevant legal requirements

  • Has access to necessary information and instruments

  • Is sufficiently independent

  • Has authority to make objective decisions

  • Maintains their competence

  • Produces compliant reports

An employee should not be appointed solely because they are a senior fitter, experienced operator or health and safety representative.

The organisation should define the person’s scope. For example, someone may be competent to examine a specified range of simple lifting accessories but not powered lifting machinery.

Competence should be reviewed when:

  • New equipment is introduced

  • The person’s role changes

  • Examination methods or standards change

  • The person has not examined a type of equipment recently

  • Quality reviews identify weaknesses

  • Unfamiliar defects or configurations arise

Is a particular qualification legally required?

LOLER does not establish one universal qualification that every competent person must hold.

Relevant training, qualifications and professional development can provide evidence of knowledge, but they do not establish competence by themselves. The person must also have appropriate practical skills, experience and judgement for the work.

When selecting an examiner, the dutyholder may consider:

  • Relevant engineering qualifications

  • Examination-specific training

  • Industry certifications

  • Continuing professional development

  • Experience with the equipment type

  • Example reports

  • Professional memberships

  • References

  • Quality-assurance arrangements

  • Access to technical support

  • Instrument calibration arrangements

  • Insurance appropriate to the work

Some clients, insurers, industry schemes or contracts may impose additional requirements. Those commercial requirements should be checked separately from the minimum legal test of competence.

A recognised qualification can be valuable, but a certificate should not prevent the dutyholder from asking whether the person has actually examined comparable equipment.

Does the examiner need to be UKAS accredited?

LOLER does not impose a blanket requirement that every thorough examination be carried out by a UKAS-accredited inspection body.

UKAS accreditation can provide independent evidence that an inspection body operates competently against a recognised standard within a defined scope. It may be required by a client, insurer, contract or organisational policy.

However, accreditation and individual competence are not identical concepts:

  • Accreditation applies to an organisation and its specified inspection scope

  • Competence must still exist for the person and equipment involved

  • Work outside an accredited scope should not be presented as accredited

  • A non-accredited examiner may still satisfy LOLER if genuinely competent and impartial

  • A dutyholder should check any additional contractual or insurance conditions

If accreditation is important to the appointment, the dutyholder should verify the inspection body’s current schedule rather than relying on a logo or broad marketing claim.

Is an insurance inspector required?

There is no general rule within LOLER stating that the competent person must be employed by an insurance company.

Engineering inspection services have historically been associated with insurers, and some insurance policies include or require inspection arrangements. That does not make insurance employment the legal test.

The dutyholder should distinguish between:

  • The legal requirement for thorough examination

  • Any inspection service included with insurance

  • Conditions imposed by the insurer

  • The competence and scope of the appointed examiner

  • Insurance cover for breakdown, damage or liability

A thorough examination arranged through an insurer can satisfy LOLER where it is completed properly by a competent person. An independent specialist can also satisfy LOLER where the same requirements are met.

How should a business assess an examiner’s competence?

The employer or person controlling the equipment remains responsible for appointing someone suitable. Outsourcing the examination does not remove the need to make a reasonable selection.

Useful questions include:

Experience

  • What types of lifting equipment do you regularly examine?

  • Have you examined this make, model or configuration?

  • What industries and operating environments are you familiar with?

  • Can you provide relevant references or examples?

Technical scope

  • Which components will you examine?

  • What information do you need beforehand?

  • When would you use non-destructive testing or another specialist?

  • Can you examine every attachment and configuration we use?

  • What are the limitations of your proposed examination?

Competence

  • What relevant qualifications and training do you hold?

  • How do you maintain continuing professional development?

  • How is your competence assessed or reviewed?

  • What technical support is available if an unusual defect is found?

Independence

  • Do you also maintain or repair this equipment?

  • How do you manage conflicts of interest?

  • Can you prohibit continued use or specify repairs without seeking commercial approval?

  • How are disputed findings handled?

Reporting

  • Does your report include the information required by Schedule 1 of LOLER?

  • How are dangerous defects communicated immediately?

  • How are remedial deadlines stated?

  • How quickly will the report be supplied?

  • How are enforcing-authority notifications handled?

Quality and instruments

  • Are measuring and testing instruments calibrated where necessary?

  • How are reports quality-checked?

  • Are records protected and retrievable?

  • What insurance and quality arrangements apply?

The answers should be considered together. A polished quotation or low price does not demonstrate examination competence.

Does competence vary by equipment type?

Yes.

Back to all posts
Call NowGet Quote