i-FM: The online resource for facilities professionals

To find the legislative foundation for electrical safety we begin with the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. This piece of law is supported by the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, which state the requirement that all reasonable and practicable steps are taken to prevent danger from electrical systems.

Naturally we have to ask what ‘all reasonable and practicable steps’ might be and to interpret this the electrical industry takes its guidance from the British Standard BS7671:2008, 17th Edition. This standard requires tests and inspections to installations and recommends periodic installation testing.

As the HSE confirms, ‘Installations which conform to the standards laid down in BS7671:2008 are regarded by the HSE as likely to achieve conformity with the relevant parts of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989’.

However, test and inspection is not often where compliance is complete. It may be where the process starts. And here we find the first major pitfall: when testing is done and results reported, many organisations either ignore or overlook the faults detailed and consequently fail to undertake the required remedial repair work necessary for the installation to be rendered ‘satisfactory’.

And this problem can be partly explained by the nature of the reporting. The test report is a thorough technical document that sets out details of the testing conducted and the results found. Arguably it doesn’t make it immediately visible what the overall finding for the installation is. For this you need to turn to page two in section G of the test report where there is a box that states the overall assessment of the installation. In this box it is highly likely to say ‘unsatisfactory’ – suggesting that the tested site isn’t electrically safe. But this crucial piece of information isn’t immediately obvious to identify and countless people miss it altogether, sometimes with fatal implications. And that includes some of the UK’s largest organisations!

Ignorance or negligence?
Putting this plainly, it could mean that a site has been tested, dangerous faults found (including those that are life threatening) and then left untreated. For the duty holder, it means stepping from ignorance into negligence. If an accident or incident subsequently occurred then it could be clearly proven that the duty holder had been informed of the danger by the test reporting and that, through their negligence, the identified dangers or risks remained undealt with. In the worst of possible outcome, the Corporate Manslaughter Act springs to mind.

Many busy FMs focus so intently on getting their testing done that when the reports come in they skim read them at best and then file them. That means that there could be a long list of coded faults being reported but unless the test report is read, understood and acted upon, the journey to compliance is only part complete.

Test reports codify faults found on a scale from one to four. Code One, ‘requires urgent attention’, used to indicate that persons using the installation are at risk, with Code Two, ‘requires improvement’, indicating that the observed deficiency requires action to remove potential danger. Code One and Code Two faults must be addressed for compliance to be achieved.

How to, what to, when to
Taking the compliance process step by step, the first thing that the HSE recommends is to conduct a risk assessment to establish hazards and necessary precautions. That assessment should inform what is subsequently done in terms of a test regime, and this should be conducted according to that assessment and in line with IEE recommendations by a ‘competent person’ (the definition of a ‘competent person’ in Reg 621.5 is ‘a person who possesses sufficient technical knowledge, relevant practical skills and experience for the nature of the electrical work undertaken and is able at all times to prevent danger and, where appropriate, injury to him/herself and others’).

As part of the testing regime, frequency of test often causes confusion. However, guidance on frequency of test is available from the IEE: for fixed installations, consult IEE Guidance Note 3: Inspection & Testing. The maximum period between tests varies according to the site and will be set from a matter of months up to five years in frequency.

Once testing is underway, it will result in reporting, which will, in turn, inform the duty holder if there are any faults and specify whether the installation is satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If ‘satisfactory’, then compliance has been achieved.

More likely is the report finding of ‘unsatisfactory’ and, in this case, it is necessary to appoint a qualified expert to rectify any and all Code One and Code Two faults, as a bare minimum. A Minor Works or Completion Certificate should be sought from the expert undertaking the remedial work for repairs completed, and these certificates, when held together with the original unsatisfactory report, form the proof of compliance. Some suppliers have started to streamline this process but for many this somewhat awkward arrangement is the method of the moment.

From an objective point of view, this process may be sequentially logical, but it certainly isn’t user-friendly. The gaps between steps in the process can be fallen into and the associated documentation appears to be far from ideal. So could there be a better way to achieve and prove compliance? Can you outsource it?

With a careful investigation of the market, it's certainly possible to find an expert supplier that will help you, advise you and manage the practical steps necessary to reach a complaint state. But you can’t delegate your duty of care, so it’s in your interest to understand, as far as possible, what the implications of a testing regime are, so that you can truly satisfy yourself that the precautions being taken are adequate and appropriate. On the flip side, you also want to ensure commercial viability by achieving compliance without overspend or being encouraged to do more than is necessary.

Compliance cost control
Outsourcing to experts has many benefits, but care must be taken to ensure that your spend is kept in control and within your budget.

The obvious thing to do is to get competitive quotes or tenders. Normal good practice, you might consider, but take care to ensure you have comparable quotes, rather than comparing apples with oranges. You must check that your prospective suppliers are quoting for the same thing or you could end up taking a cheap deal that turns out to be unsatisfactory in the long run. For example, suppliers that are hungry for business will use cut price testing to entice you and then back-load the price of resultant remedial repairs which are usually the greater part of the expense.

When you go out for tender or quotes make sure you make your exact requirements clear, keep the testing straightforward and to IEE recommendations. It’s common for quotes to be compiled on guesswork and approximations, so when the work is conducted the billing can exceed the estimate. The sure way to avoid this unpleasant surprise is to be diligent in your specification.

One budget-spreading option is to phase your testing schedule over time rather than in one big project. This means you can spread the cost out and plan it to your budget. However, take care when scheduling that no element falls outside the IEE recommended frequency of test.

To drive down the price of testing, you can use flexibility to your advantage. Unsociable hours cost the most and short timescales can also mean you pay more. Plan in advance and build all the timing and site access flexibility in that you can. Communicate that intention to your supplier and ask them to find a way to reduce their prices in return for considerations on your part.

As in buying a fixed price energy deal, negotiate a longer contract for testing that will span three, four or five years and you are sure to get preferential pricing. The supplier wants the business on the order book and hence you should be able to drive a deal on price. Another tip in the same vein is to link the buying of your periodic installation testing and PAT so that you maximise your buying power.

Finally, remember that ensuring electrical safety is only part of your duty of care. You are likely to also need to consider fire, emergency lighting, gas and other services, depending upon your site. There may be advantages in terms of efficiency and price if you single-source all your compliance requirements, with the added advantage that you have one supplier to contract and manage. If they can reduce the number of engineer visits required to fulfil your various compliance requirements, their costs should be lower and so too should be your invoice for this work!

Paul Caddick is Operations and Technical Director at PHS Compliance.