LOLER Inspections for Property Managers & Block Management

Managing a building means managing the lift compliance — and the compliance evidence trail your insurer, the HSE, leaseholders, and (for higher-risk buildings) the Building Safety Regulator will all want to see. Lift inspection sits at the centre of that. Done well, it's a routine line in the service charge with quiet evidence behind it. Done badly, it surfaces as a Section 20 consultation challenge, a leaseholder complaint about transparency, or — in the worst cases — an HSE Improvement Notice on the public register.

We provide independent LOLER thorough examinations for property managers, managing agents, block management firms, housing associations and landlords across Kent, London, Essex, and nationwide. Reports are formatted for service charge transparency, satisfy insurer audit requirements, and — because we don't sell lift maintenance or repair contracts — carry no structural conflict with the people who service the lifts day-to-day.

For the regulatory framework on lifting equipment in managed buildings, see our property managers compliance guide. This page covers what we do when an agent or freeholder commissions the actual inspection.

Lifting equipment commonly found in managed buildings

Across a typical block management portfolio the equipment register usually includes:

• Passenger lifts — the dominant equipment type in residential and mixed-use blocks, on the 6-monthly LOLER interval
• Goods lifts and service lifts — used for deliveries, waste handling, back-of-house operations; 12-monthly LOLER interval
• Platform lifts and wheelchair access lifts — providing step-free access under Equality Act 2010 (which replaced DDA 1995). Where used by persons, 6-monthly examination applies.
• Dumbwaiters — food service lifts in mixed-use buildings with hospitality units, 12-monthly
• Firefighting and evacuation lifts — in higher-risk residential buildings under BS EN 81-72 and BS EN 81-76, with additional examination requirements beyond standard LOLER
• Dock levellers and powered loading platforms — at commercial / mixed-use buildings with goods-in facilities
• Stairlifts in commercial premises — where they serve a work function, e.g. in management offices within the building

Regulatory framework for managed-building lift compliance

Property managers sit at the intersection of several overlapping regimes. Each has its own audience and its own evidence trail.

• LOLER 1998 — the primary regulation. Regulation 9 sets the 6-monthly examination interval for equipment lifting persons, the 12-monthly interval for goods-only equipment. Regulation 10 governs defect notification (immediate HSE reporting for imminent-risk defects). Regulation 11 governs report retention — for lifting equipment, until the next report is made or two years, whichever is later.
• PUWER 1998 — applies to all work equipment in parallel. Building plant, automatic doors, and other equipment fall under PUWER alongside LOLER.
• Equality Act 2010 — replaced DDA 1995 in 2010. Reasonable adjustments and accessibility obligations apply to common parts of managed buildings; platform lifts and other accessibility equipment fall into this scope.
• Building Safety Act 2022 — for higher-risk buildings (≥18m or ≥7 storeys with ≥2 residential units), the Accountable Person and Principal Accountable Person carry duties around the building safety case. Lift safety evidence is part of that case alongside LOLER reporting.
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20 — Section 20 consultation thresholds apply to lift inspection contracts where they exceed the qualifying limits. Long-term agreements (over 12 months) trigger consultation at £100 per leaseholder per year; one-off works trigger at £250 per leaseholder.
• RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code (4th edition) — mandatory from 2026. Sets the standard for service charge transparency including compliance documentation.
• The Property Institute (TPI) — successor body to ARMA and IRPM following the 2023 merger. TPI standards inform managing agent practice.
• Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 — s.37 catches directors and senior managers personally where a corporate offence is committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect. Particularly relevant for managing agent firms.

How we work with managing agents

• Portfolio-wide scheduling. We plan examinations across the agent's full block portfolio rather than block-by-block, which lets engineer days be routed efficiently. For agents with concentrated stock in a geography (Kent, London, Essex are our densest coverage), the routing economics work particularly well.
• Service-charge-ready reports. Every report carries the information leaseholders need to understand what their service charge has paid for: equipment identified by location, date of examination, competent person details, defect categorisation, next examination date. Leaseholders requesting evidence under RICS Code disclosure can be sent the report directly.
• Section 20 contract structure. Where the LOLER inspection contract crosses the s.20 threshold, we structure the agreement to support consultation — itemised costs per block, clearly bounded contract length, transparent equipment scope. Where the contract sits below s.20 thresholds, we keep the structure simple.
• Single point of contact. One named contact at EIS for the agent, regardless of which block is being scheduled or which report is being chased.
• Fixed annual contracts for stable portfolios. Where the block portfolio and its equipment register are stable across the year, we quote a fixed annual contract value. New blocks acquired during the contract year are priced at the per-item rate already in the contract, not at a one-off rate.
• Building Safety Regulator-aligned evidence. For agents managing higher-risk buildings, our reports format the lift-safety evidence in a way that integrates into the building safety case — historical examination records, current condition statement, and defect history all in one place.

Why managing agents choose an independent inspector

The lift maintenance contractor servicing the equipment day-to-day shouldn't also be examining it under LOLER. HSE ACOP L113 sets this out: the structural conflict is too obvious to overlook. A maintenance company examining the equipment they maintain has a commercial incentive to declare it compliant.

For managing agents, that independence pays dividends in two specific scenarios. The first is the leaseholder challenge — where service charge documentation is questioned and the independence of the examination becomes part of the audit trail. The second is the HSE inspection following an incident, where the question of who signed off the equipment becomes central.

We don't sell lift maintenance, parts, or replacement equipment. We don't take commission from maintenance providers. Our only commercial output is the report — which means the examination identifies the actual defects, not the convenient ones.

Frequently asked questions

For the deeper regulatory walkthrough — duty holder splits, Section 20 detail, Building Safety Act applicability — see our LOLER for property managers guide. For the broader inspection regime see passenger and goods lifts inspections and firefighting and evacuation lift inspections.