Who Can Carry Out a LOLER Inspection?

Who can carry out a LOLER inspection? Learn what makes someone competent, whether they must be independent and why maintenance experience is not enough.

Who can carry out a LOLER inspection? A LOLER thorough examination must be completed by a competent person with the practical knowledge, theoretical knowledge and experience needed to identify defects and assess their significance. The examiner must also be sufficiently independent and impartial to make objective decisions.

The law does not prescribe one universal qualification, job title or licence that automatically makes someone competent to examine every type of lifting equipment.

Competence is equipment-specific. Someone experienced in examining passenger lifts may not be competent to examine a tower crane, pressure plant or specialist lifting attachment. Similarly, being able to service or repair equipment does not automatically establish competence to complete its statutory thorough examination.

The organisation responsible for the equipment must select an examiner whose competence, experience and independence are appropriate for the equipment being examined.

Who can carry out a LOLER inspection under UK law?

The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, known as LOLER, require thorough examinations to be carried out by a competent person.

Although “LOLER inspection” is the phrase commonly used by equipment owners and online searchers, the statutory term is “thorough examination”.

A thorough examination is more than routine inspection or servicing. It is a systematic and detailed examination of lifting equipment and its safety-critical parts, followed by a written report containing the information required by LOLER.

The Health and Safety Executive describes a competent person as someone with appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience of the equipment. This must enable the person to:

• Detect defects and weaknesses

• Recognise relevant deterioration

• Assess the significance of a defect

• Determine whether the equipment can continue to be used safely

• Decide whether testing or further investigation is required

• Specify an appropriate period for remedial action

• Produce a legally compliant report

The examiner must have genuine authority to report findings without fear or favour. Commercial pressure, operational inconvenience or a desire to avoid repair costs must not influence the safety judgement.

EIS provides independent LOLER thorough examinations across the South East and wider UK.

Is there a legally required LOLER qualification?

LOLER does not identify one named qualification that every competent person must hold.

Formal qualifications, technical training and professional memberships can provide useful evidence of knowledge, but competence cannot be judged from a certificate alone.

A competent examiner will usually develop and maintain their capability through a combination of:

• Relevant engineering knowledge

• Equipment-specific training

• Practical industry experience

• Supervised examination experience

• Technical assessment

• Continuing professional development

• Familiarity with legislation and applicable guidance

• Knowledge of relevant standards and manufacturer information

• Periodic reassessment

The appropriate evidence depends on the equipment.

A passenger lift, overhead travelling crane, vehicle lift, MEWP and excavator present different systems, deterioration mechanisms and failure risks. The examiner should understand the particular type, configuration and use of the equipment they are assessing.

A provider should be able to explain how it authorises Engineer Surveyors for different equipment disciplines. A general statement that someone is “LOLER qualified” provides limited assurance without information about their relevant experience and scope.

What does “competent person” mean under LOLER?

Competence is the ability to apply knowledge and experience correctly in real conditions.

For a thorough examination, that means more than recognising that a component looks worn. The examiner must be able to judge:

• Whether the deterioration is acceptable

• Whether it could become dangerous

• Whether immediate withdrawal from service is required

• Whether a time-limited repair is appropriate

• What further examination or testing may be needed

• How the defect affects the equipment’s continued use

This requires an understanding of the complete safety system, not just individual components.

For example, a competent examiner assessing a passenger lift may need knowledge of suspension arrangements, brakes, door locks, overspeed protection, safety gear and electrical safety circuits. An examiner assessing a crane may need different knowledge of structures, mechanisms, ropes, load indicators, controls and fatigue.

Competence must therefore be matched to:

• The equipment category

• The specific design or configuration

• The environment

• The complexity of the examination

• The consequences of failure

• Any specialist testing required

The HSE’s guidance on competent people and thorough examinations makes clear that suitable practical and theoretical knowledge and experience are all required.

Can an employee carry out a LOLER examination?

Potentially, yes.

The competent person does not always have to be employed by an external inspection company. An organisation may use one of its own employees if that person has the necessary competence, authority, independence and impartiality.

This is an important qualification. An employee should be able to report defects objectively even where their findings could:

• Stop production

• Close a passenger lift

• Delay a construction project

• Create substantial repair costs

• Expose shortcomings in maintenance

• Reflect poorly on colleagues or management

If the examiner’s position makes it difficult to reach or report an unpopular decision, the arrangement may not provide sufficient independence.

An organisation considering an in-house competent person should examine:

• Technical knowledge

• Practical examination experience

• Equipment-specific scope

• Formal assessment and authorisation

• Access to current technical information

• Continuing professional development

• Reporting authority

• Organisational independence

• Professional indemnity arrangements

• Quality assurance and technical review

• Cover during absence

• Processes for unusual or disputed findings

Using an employee is not automatically non-compliant. However, it requires more than appointing the most experienced maintenance technician and adding statutory examinations to their duties.

Can the maintenance company carry out the examination?

The organisation that maintains the equipment may also offer thorough examination services, but the competent person carrying out the examination should not be the same person who performs the routine maintenance.

The reason is straightforward: that individual would be assessing their own work.

The examination arrangement must preserve sufficient independence and impartiality. This may require:

• Different personnel

• Separate reporting lines

• Independent technical authority

• Protection from commercial influence

• Clear separation between examination and repair recommendations

• Objective defect-classification procedures

Even where these controls exist, the duty holder should understand how independence is maintained.

A maintenance company earns revenue from servicing, repairs, replacement parts and modernisation. That does not automatically make its examination invalid, but it can create commercial questions that should be considered.

Using an inspection provider that does not sell maintenance or remedial work creates a clearer separation. The examiner has no repair sale to gain from identifying a defect and no maintenance performance to defend.

Read more about why independence matters in statutory inspection.

Can the person who installed the equipment examine it?

Installation knowledge does not automatically establish independence or competence for statutory examination.

A person involved in installation may possess detailed technical knowledge, but they may also be assessing the quality of their own work. This is particularly relevant where the thorough examination is intended to confirm that installation or assembly has been completed correctly and safely.

The duty holder should consider:

• Whether the examiner participated in the installation

• Whether they are assessing their own decisions or workmanship

• Whether another competent person provides independent review

• Whether the manufacturer or installer’s documentation is complete

• Whether the examiner is authorised for the equipment type

• Whether the examination scope meets LOLER requirements

Commissioning, handover testing and conformity documentation can all be important, but they do not automatically replace a required thorough examination.

Does the examiner need to be independent?

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

This does not create an absolute legal rule that every examination must be outsourced. It does mean the examiner must be able to identify and report defects without conflicts or pressure compromising their judgement.

Independence has both technical and organisational dimensions.

Technical independence

The examiner should reach their own conclusion using appropriate evidence, rather than merely accepting:

• A maintenance contractor’s opinion

• A previous report

• A manufacturer’s assurance

• An operator’s explanation

• A client’s preferred outcome

Previous information may be useful, but it does not replace the competent person’s assessment.

Organisational independence

The examiner should have sufficient authority and separation to report findings even where they are inconvenient.

Warning signs can include:

• Pressure to avoid taking equipment out of service

• Defects being reworded to reduce their apparent seriousness

• Examination targets based mainly on speed or pass rates

• Repair sales influencing defect decisions

• Management approval being required before issuing serious findings

• The examiner being personally responsible for the maintenance under review

The examiner’s decisions should be based on safety and continued use, not the desired commercial result.

Is an insurance inspection required?

Many businesses refer to a LOLER thorough examination as an “insurance inspection”, “engineering inspection” or “statutory inspection”.

An insurance company may arrange or require an examination, but LOLER does not state that the competent person must be employed by an insurer.

The legal requirement is for a thorough examination by a competent person. The provider could be:

• An independent inspection company

• An engineering inspection organisation

• An appropriately structured maintenance organisation

• A genuinely competent and independent in-house examiner

Insurance policy conditions may impose additional requirements. These should be checked separately.

The duty holder remains responsible for ensuring that the examination arrangement satisfies LOLER. Assuming that an insurer or broker has taken care of everything can create gaps, particularly where equipment has been added, moved, modified or omitted from a schedule.

Can a general health and safety adviser do it?

Not solely because they are a health and safety adviser.

General health and safety competence is different from the specialist competence needed to examine lifting equipment.

A health and safety adviser may understand LOLER duties, help maintain an equipment register and monitor compliance dates. That does not necessarily mean they can assess:

• Rope deterioration

• Structural cracking

• Hydraulic load-holding systems

• Braking mechanisms

• Safety gear

• Load indicators

• Door interlocks

• Mechanical wear limits

• Equipment-specific failure modes

They could only act as the competent person for the thorough examination if they also possess the appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience of the particular equipment.

The same principle applies to facilities managers, site managers and workshop supervisors. Responsibility for arranging an examination does not automatically create competence to conduct it.

Can a maintenance engineer sign a LOLER certificate?

Job title alone does not decide the issue.

A maintenance engineer may have considerable technical skill, but the relevant questions are:

• Are they competent to conduct a thorough examination of that equipment?

• Have they been assessed and authorised for that work?

• Do they understand LOLER reporting requirements?

• Can they classify defects appropriately?

• Are they sufficiently independent and impartial?

• Are they examining their own maintenance work?

The HSE advises that the competent person should not be the same person who carries out routine servicing or maintenance.

A service checklist signed by a maintenance engineer is not automatically a Report of Thorough Examination. The statutory report must contain the information required by LOLER.

Does a competent person need to examine every part personally?

The competent person remains responsible for the examination and conclusions, but supporting activities may involve other people.

For example, an examination might require:

• A trained operator to move the equipment

• Maintenance personnel to provide safe access

• Specialist technicians to open or dismantle components

• A testing organisation to perform non-destructive testing

• Site personnel to supply maintenance records

• A lift engineer to operate equipment from restricted areas

The competent person must determine what evidence is needed, understand the limitations of work performed by others and remain satisfied that the examination is sufficient.

Receiving a test certificate from another party does not remove the need to interpret the result in the context of the equipment’s safety.

Where parts cannot be accessed or essential information is unavailable, the competent person should record any limitation and decide whether a valid conclusion can still be reached.

What equipment should the examiner be competent to inspect?

LOLER covers a wide range of equipment, including:

• Passenger and goods lifts

• Cranes

• Hoists

• MEWPs

• Fork-lift trucks

• Excavators used for lifting

• Vehicle lifts

• Tail lifts

• Lifting beams

• Lifting accessories

• Patient-handling equipment

• Other machinery used to lift or lower loads

Competence in one category should not be assumed to cover all others.

A provider examining multiple equipment types should allocate each item to a surveyor authorised for that discipline. This is particularly important on mixed sites containing lifts, pressure systems, mobile plant, cranes and general work equipment.

EIS’s lifting-equipment inspection service covers a range of LOLER equipment, with work allocated to Engineer Surveyors according to the relevant discipline.

What should a competent person do during the examination?

The precise scope depends on the equipment, its use and any applicable examination scheme.

A thorough examination may involve:

• Reviewing the previous examination report

• Checking identification and safe working load information

• Examining safety-critical components

• Looking for wear, damage, corrosion or deformation

• Assessing protective and load-holding systems

• Carrying out functional checks

• Taking measurements

• Reviewing maintenance and repair history

• Considering modifications or changes in use

• Specifying tests or further investigation where needed

• Assessing the significance of defects

• Setting the next examination date

• Producing the written report

Not every examination requires load testing or complete dismantling. The competent person should decide what methods are necessary based on risk, manufacturer information, relevant standards and professional judgement.

A very short visit is not automatically inadequate, just as a long visit is not automatically thorough. The duty holder should assess whether the examination scope is credible for the equipment and circumstances.

What must be included in the report?

A LOLER thorough examination must result in a written report containing the required statutory information.

This includes matters such as:

• The name and address of the employer for whom the examination was made

• Identification of the equipment

• The examination date

• The safe working load, where applicable

• The reason for the examination

• Details of any tests

• The date by which the next examination is required

• Any defect that is or could become dangerous

• The time by which a developing defect must be remedied

• Identification of the person making the report

• The examiner’s authentication

A document labelled “certificate” is not automatically compliant. Its contents matter more than its title.

Reports can be kept electronically, provided they are protected against unauthorised alteration and can be produced when required.

EIS explains the examination and reporting process in its guide, What Is a Thorough Examination Under LOLER?.

Who reports a serious defect?

The competent person has a direct reporting duty.

Where a defect presents an existing or imminent risk of serious personal injury, the competent person must notify the duty holder and send a copy of the report to the relevant enforcing authority.

The duty holder must not use the equipment until the dangerous defect has been remedied.

Where a defect could become dangerous but does not require immediate withdrawal, the report should specify a period for repair. The equipment must not continue to be used after that period if the defect remains unresolved.

The examiner’s responsibility to report does not transfer responsibility for acting on the defect. The employer, owner or organisation controlling the equipment must manage the risk and complete the required remedial action.

Who is responsible for choosing the examiner?

The organisation with duties under LOLER is responsible for ensuring that the competent person is suitable.

Engaging an external provider does not transfer this responsibility completely. The duty holder should make reasonable checks before appointing the examiner.

Useful questions include:

1. Which equipment types is the proposed surveyor authorised to examine?

2. What relevant practical experience do they have?

3. How is competence assessed and periodically reviewed?

4. How does the provider maintain technical knowledge?

5. How is independence from maintenance and repair work protected?

6. Does the provider carry appropriate insurance?

7. What quality-assurance process applies to reports?

8. How are urgent defects communicated?

9. How quickly are reports issued?

10. Can the provider explain its defect classifications clearly?

11. How are unusual findings escalated for technical review?

12. Can it support all locations and equipment types in the required programme?

Price matters, but it should not be the only selection criterion. A cheap examination that misses relevant defects, produces an incomplete report or uses an examiner outside their competence creates false assurance.

Warning signs when selecting a LOLER inspection provider

Potential warning signs include:

• Claiming that one short course qualifies someone for every lifting-equipment type

• Being unable to explain the examiner’s equipment-specific experience

• Treating servicing as equivalent to thorough examination

• Offering only a generic pass certificate

• Providing no process for reporting serious defects

• Refusing to identify examination limitations

• Selling repairs without explaining how examination independence is protected

• Producing reports that do not identify individual equipment

• Applying the same checklist to fundamentally different equipment

• Promising that all equipment will pass before it has been examined

• Being unable to explain how surveyor competence is assessed

• Focusing only on the inspection label rather than the statutory report

A professional provider should be willing to explain both its competence and its limitations.

How should a business prepare for the examiner?

The competent person will usually need suitable access, information and assistance.

Before the examination, gather:

• The equipment register

• Previous examination reports

• Maintenance and repair records

• Manufacturer information

• Details of modifications

• Records of breakdowns or incidents

• The examination scheme, where applicable

• Declarations of Conformity

• Safe working load information

• Any known defects

Ensure equipment is available, identifiable and safe to access. Where functional checks require an operator or maintenance support, arrange this in advance.

Do not conceal known defects or temporarily alter equipment to obtain a favourable report. The examination should reflect the equipment’s genuine condition and use.

The practical answer

A LOLER inspection must be carried out by a competent person with appropriate practical knowledge, theoretical knowledge and experience of the particular equipment.

There is no single job title, course or licence that automatically proves competence for every type of lifting equipment.

An in-house employee can potentially act as the competent person if they possess genuine competence, authority, independence and impartiality. An external inspection company is not mandatory in every case, but it is often the clearest way to obtain suitable specialist knowledge and organisational separation.

The person carrying out routine maintenance should not examine their own work. Whatever arrangement is chosen, the duty holder should verify equipment-specific competence, reporting capability and independence before appointment.

Excel Inspection Solutions provides independent statutory examinations through experienced Engineer Surveyors. EIS does not sell lifting-equipment maintenance, parts or remedial work, allowing examination findings to remain separate from repair sales.

To discuss LOLER thorough examinations for an individual item, site or multi-site equipment portfolio, call 01634 907073 or email enquiries@eis-uk.com.

← Back to all posts