The great pat testing scam

[Guest123]

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

That was my first day on the 2360 too.

 

[Phil]

funny how the noisy ones go quiet, and most of the ones complaining were in the trade and "i already know how to do a plug im not stupid" aaah how quick was that shown to be untrue

 

[Guest123]

We were all 16 year olds at the time and you can imagine most of their attitudes......this is boring......cant we do something else etc.


A lot did drop out after 2 weeks or so, and we were day release!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Burnt Fingers]

Its so common. I charge £2.00/appliance because I hate it but still have plenty of customers - we have an honest approach - test when required - and that can mean extending test periods if we have data to suggest frequency of use - and we repair at the time of test where required. I have seen companies just sticker everything and it makes me sick.

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.

 

[RexT]

Hi Burnt Fingers,

Yes I believe you are right. It probably will take some thing like the death of an MPs relative to tighten it up. Isnt that how Part P started?
Best wishes
Rex

 

[Burnt Fingers]

Part P: I think - I might be wrong, originally was brought in to try and prevent kitchen fitters from running rings (or more likely radials and spur spurs) by shortest distance - you know, those diagonnal wild --- runs you see in kitchens and extensions.

This was shortly after the daughter of an MP (I think) was killed after trying to drill a hole in her kitchen a good way away from sockets.

I might be wrong like I say, but that story has stuck with me. I kinda hung up my sidecutters at Part P until now - most of part P is just good practice really - they should have just regulated kitchen fitters.

 

[UNG]

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

 

[Burnt Fingers]

Forgive my lack of understanding of Part P, UNG, I hung up my tools before then and went to communications...haven't seen any domestic since...

 

[RexT]

Hi UNG,

I think you are right. There does seem to be a money culture only and as you say, it is really down to how it is policed. Some very good points and well put.

Best wishes,

Rex

 

[Liberator]

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

" [FONT=&quot]The operator of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) must pay nearly £500,000 in fine and costs after a
member of the public fell on the track and was crushed to death by a train.[/FONT]"

I see about 4-6 stories a week like this, highest fines I've seen for injory/death is £1million pounds, and prison sentences inline with manslaughter/murder.

This is since the Corporate Manslaughter / Corporate Homicide came into Act and would be the same for deaths caused due to negligent PAT testing.

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.

At least Im confident I won't be finding my way there....... not only that, the additional cost in complying, and making sure I won't get into hot water causes increase in the cost of PAT testing.

Under old laws, The fines were £5,000 per offence (nothing states that 4 offences are the max, i.e. £20,000. I have spoken directly with magistrate and crown courts in reference to this a couple of years ago, but its all changed now)

Touch wood, I haven't been called in front of a Coroners Court, but its something we all have to be prepared to do, because we can all end up there, all it needs is for a death in a clients site, our fault or not. And if it was a fault on one of our systems of work, we have to prove everything was done right.

 

[UNG]

"
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.

While the PAT company may be liable the client would IMO be liable also for placing an order for the sub standard work and not checking it is up to the required standard

 

[Liberator]

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.

 

[UNG]

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.

I think if some one was letting a £60,000 contract then I assume they would undertake "Due Diligence" on the company being employed to undertake that work. At 50p per appliance I would certainly be wary if I was letting a contract, even with the current economic situation you don't hear of the pound shops discounting to 50p for some of the tat they sell

I have always been told ignorance is no defence

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.

Again this is an area dicussed quite a lot on this forum with the "Visual Check" being accepted as the lowest form of PAT test when no actual testing takes place

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.

The tax investigation team are only a phone call away!

 

[Burnt Fingers]

Just to clarify, in case a lynch mob is on it's way, my reference to "bogus courses" was exclusive of the C&G - I referred to the type that have eight people being taught at £200 a go, one day, ten questions (you can ask for help) and discount PAT testers on the way out.

Sorry if any C&G Holders were offended, was not meant to ..

 

[RexT]

Hi Burnt Fingers,

Thank you for your comments and I am not offended by what you have said. I believe the important thing is that the person who does the testing does it correctly and ensures safety. I have taught the 2377 course at college, as well as the 2391 and the certificates that City and Guilds supply, in my opinion, are of value.
When someone has passed a course and an exam, it is only when they operate in the 'wide world' that the truth emerges. The people can be seduced by the money and pressured in to doing things that are not correct and are 'short cuts' which can result in the tested products not being tested correctly. The time versus the number of items tested is normally one pressure as well as the competition offered by those who do not test correctly and have been referred to as 'label stickers'.
My advice is not to join the label stickers club and to try to charge correctly for the work you do. I know its tough but at least you can sleep at night and hopefully the good guys will win.
Best wishes,
Rex

 

[PAT Testing]

You clearly had a bad experience with this pat tester, not all pat testing companies are the same, message from PAT Testing | PAT Testing in London | Cheap PAT Testing Prices | PAT testing Prices

 

[telectrix]

I do some PAT testing , not a lot, and try to do it right. One day I timed myself for 1 hour, proper test, fill in label, enter details on report sheet. I did 12 appliances. Based on a sensible hourly rate of £20 - £25, that equates at £2 per item approx. Anyone doing it at for 50p to 70p per item is either not doing it properly or has a very cheap lifestyle.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I agree telectrix......the above link looks very professional....but IMO it is not possible to charge 70p an appliance,do a thorough job, and earn a living.

 

[RexT]

Hi wirepuller,

You are quite right about your comment. Its right to do a thorugh job and earn a living. When it goes wrong is where people find out the fasct that has been no savings doing it 'on the cheap and missing out some bits'.
As I said I hope we keep the job right and keep the trade.
Best wishes
Rex

 

[PAT ukLtd]

I work as a mobile Dj and before looking into PAT Testing the guy I used had one of these 'Supermarket Type' guns to provide the stickers, however it only had on it the date of the test and an item id number, no initials or any other info, i'm sure this wouldn't meet the legal requirements. To his credit he did actually test each bit of my equipment,and failed a couple of extension leads and changed some fuses, but maybe it was because I was standing in the same room making him a cuppa. Anyway only probably took 90 mins for I think was £90-£95. He was telling me about a large job he had been on in Bolton for several days and I wonder out of sight if he would just label equipment without testing......what I want to know is how do these Label only cowboys get on when it comes to producing the paperwork. My test sheets all show the readings of each test result.....so do they make them up?

 

[i=p/u]

good testers are quick to record results and print at end of day , but tottaly agree they dont give too hoots just want there 70p per item,, as ur man above said £50 quid a day does them

 

[millwall ken]

Love it, you're in the wrong job mate.

 

[i=p/u]

£2 per item bendoverken

 

[millwall ken]

£2 per item bendoverken

Sorry cupcake, I'm married.

 

[Graeme Harrold]

Its another poorly written regulation within the industry. There is no need to have PAT testing done if your company policy is written to exclude it, e.g. "We replace computers every 3 years......." There is only advised guidelines and a code of conduct for everything, and the only people who impose strict testing schedules are the smart companies who do care about their employees, or insurance companies. Again there is no need for labeling, its only a way to track tested items. Ive had customers request no labeling, I just provide a department/room schedule of tested items.

I dont go below about £1.50 per item, unless there is a load of class 2 items which can be churned out quite rapidly. All items laid out, a class 1 will take just over 3 minutes, inc plug top off, check terminals and then run the rapdi test sequence on the Fluke 6500, test running, lable being written.........

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!!!

 

[Dec]

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!!!

Happy days Graeme, i think i can get bored one week a month for that..... pity there are not an abundance of caravan parks near me :-(

 

[Duntestin]

I've read this forum for some time and on reading this thread felt the need to contribute!

I've worked in testing companies in various roles from tester to manager over the past 16 years. Only three employers in this time and all of them turning over in excess of £3M per year from testing income, so I think I am safe to call them amongst the testing 'big boys'.

Overall, what I can say is that the companies I worked for did not promote the cutting of corners to achieve high test volumes nor would it be tolerated. I've always believed and worked to the ideal that every man gets paid for the work he does and each person gets the same pay for the same work - whether hourly paid or unit paid, a cheat is stealing from his colleagues and putting their jobs at risk.

Anyway, my main point I wish to make is on the root cause of the advent of cheap testing and high test volumes. Indeed there was one single event which caused PAT test quantities to more than double overnight and I lay the blame for this squarely on the IEE.

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.

So with this revelation, the need for earth test currents of 1.5 times fuse rating were not required as neither was a 5 second test duration for the test. (FYI this test criteria was based upon the spec for a BS1363 fuse, check the graphs!). Net effect was that test sequence was drastically shortened and PAT test kits no longer needed to be mains powered.

So where's the catch you wonder? Simple. Not all circuits are protected by RCD are they!
Point is, where a cheap test company submits a price, they invariably do so on basis of using a battery-powered test kit. But unless EVERY mains circuit is protected by an RCD, they are not sufficiently testing the ability of the earth conductor of an appliance to ensure it can withstand fault current to allow the plug fuse to blow. In an extreme situation, a dead short to casing could occur on an item, earth conductor burns out before fuse blows leaving appliance sat 'live' waiting for a victim!

For me, this is the PAT testing 'scam' and it undermines the whole idea of doing the job in the first place!

 

[Patman]

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.

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.

 

[Duntestin]

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.

Havent got CoP to hand, but no mention of 25A test anymore!
Not sure of edition, but has a purple/lilac cover!

 

[Adam W]

"... not less than 1.5 times the rating of the fuse up to a maximum of the order of 26A for a period of between 5s and 20s..." p73