- Reaction score
- 4,180
as long as they have fullfilled their legal requirement to have it done thats all that matters. Thats how these guys get away with it.
There is no legal requirement to PAT test per se.
Discuss The great pat testing scam in the Electrical Testing & PAT Testing Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
as long as they have fullfilled their legal requirement to have it done thats all that matters. Thats how these guys get away with it.
oh and Aberystwyth university were charging £25.00 per item to test students equipment last year
at that price per item i would do it all day long
Recently during an interview with a large PAT testing company I was told that they expect 1,100 assets inspected and tested per week and that they believe it is quite achievable on many sites, and suggested that they might offer bonuses beyond 1,100 assets.
This means they were aiming at 220 units per day.
i was supprised by the amount of people that pulled a face on the first day in the workshop on the 2330 when they had us doing plugs and commando plugs
It will take an MP's relative to be injured before they tighten it up like Part P. At the moment anyone with a spare £200 can attend a bogus course and go off supposedly competent.
Sounds like Part P. Part P didn't tighten up anything apart from a tax loophole. I have seen to many BS 7671 non compliant installations done with part P notification to realise the previous government was part of the if you can't beat them join them culture and created a scam to remove money from hard working electricians pockets
What PAT testing needs is for a duty holder or two to be given the maximum sentence which I believe is £20,000 and/or 6months in one of the HM hotels for failing to provide the proper duty of care to their employees and allowing someone to be seriously injured
"
These 50p a test boys will find themselves coming unstuck soon, and it won't be the clients being fined, it will be the PAT companies doing the work. Directors & Engineers.
I agree that they should be partly held responsible, but by rights if they can prove that they thought they were hiring a competent, insured outside company to handle this aspect of their health and safety then it's the pat company that us responsible.
After all, if u agree to test and inspect 120,000 appliances for a big company or council at 50p a test then that pat company surely must be competent and no judge would see differently.
Just the fact that a company advertised as a pat provider demonstrates fraudulent intent if the end result is that Pat testing is carried out correctly.
Hawkesworth protect themselves by ensuring that every pat test engineer are "self-employed" but they will come unstuck because the definition of self employed is that u can accept or refuse work whenever u choose an that u don't just work for one employer.
Hawkesworth tells u that you're working 6 days a week, and doesn't really help u understand all of the implications of being self-employed.
If he ever comes under scrutiny by the taxman or the work of "his" engineers ever comes to light, all of his hard work and lovely profit will be for nothing.
Sorry cupcake, I'm married.£2 per item bendoverken
Starting a caravan park next week with the first batch of 156 units containing 6 items, 3 class1 and 3 class 2. Flat rate of £10 per unit and will be done in 6 days. Boring, YES, but an easy start to the year, then another 193 before Easter!!!
To explain, with the advent of the 17th Ed regs as we all know, the standard for circuit protection was to install RCD. In line with this, the CoP for PAT was changed to allow the earth continuity testing to be conducted at a lower test current simply ensuring that the earth circuit of the appliance under test would withstand fault current to allow the circuit protecting RCD to come into play.
Havent got CoP to hand, but no mention of 25A test anymore!This is particularly confusing as the C o P dosn't actually lower the the test current globally but gives the option of a "Hard" or "Soft" earth bond test - 25A & 100mA respectivly. But any guidance on what equipment is not given.
However its generally recognised that IT equipment should be given the "Soft" test and all other equipment the "Hard" test. Hence the importance of a tester capable of conducting these two forms of test and thus providing "meaningful" test results.
Yes "purple/lilac" cover is 3rd (and latest) edition. As NovusSparkus adds in his post.... p73. Check it out !!Havent got CoP to hand, but no mention of 25A test anymore!
Not sure of edition, but has a purple/lilac cover!
Reply to The great pat testing scam in the Electrical Testing & PAT Testing Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.