How I Use the Lifting Equipment Template with Customers in Pilla
Lifting equipment is one of those areas where the gap between "we have a maintenance contract" and "we're actually compliant" catches people out. I've walked into sites where the lift gets serviced every quarter, the maintenance engineer signs off on it, and the manager assumes that's the job done. It's not. Routine maintenance and a thorough examination under LOLER are two different things, and confusing them is one of the most common findings I see.
The consequences are real. A passenger lift carries people. If it fails, you're not dealing with a broken piece of kit. You're dealing with serious injury or worse. This article covers what LOLER actually requires, how thorough examinations differ from servicing, and how to set up a lifting equipment policy in Pilla that reflects what's happening on your site, not just what's written in a folder somewhere.
Key Takeaways
- What is lifting equipment in health and safety? Lifting equipment covers any equipment used for lifting or lowering loads, including passenger lifts. Under the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER), all lifting equipment must be thoroughly examined by a competent person at defined intervals to confirm it remains safe
- Why do you need a lifting equipment policy? LOLER 1998 requires thorough examinations separate from routine maintenance, and Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act extends your duty of care to non-employees who use your lifts. An HSE inspector will ask to see your examination records and competent person arrangements
- How do you set it up in Pilla? Use the knowledge hub template below, edit it to match your operation, and share it with your team through the app so everyone has access and you can track who's read it
- How do you automate the follow-up? Set up Poppi to chase staff who haven't acknowledged the policy and flag when it's due for review
Article Content
Understanding What's Required of You
The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) apply to all lifting equipment, but the one I deal with most often in practice is passenger lifts. Most businesses I work with have at least one. The bit that trips people up is this: even if the lift isn't used for work purposes, even if it's only there for visitors and members of the public, you still have duties under health and safety law.
Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 makes you responsible, so far as reasonably practicable, for the health and safety of people you don't employ. That includes anyone who steps into a passenger lift on your premises. And because the risks are the same whether the lift is being used for work or not, the HSE expects the same regime of maintenance, inspection, and examination that LOLER and PUWER require.
The specific requirement that catches most businesses out is the thorough examination. Current legislation requires a competent person to carry out regular thorough examinations and tests to confirm the lift remains capable of lifting and supporting its safe working load. For passenger lifts, that's every six months. This is a statutory examination, not a service visit. Routine maintenance alone will not meet the legal requirement, and I've seen too many businesses assume their quarterly service contract covers it. It doesn't.
Many employers use an engineer surveyor employed by an insurance company for thorough examinations. That's a good approach. The examiner is independent, their competence is assured, and there's a clear paper trail. Whatever arrangement you use, the competent person needs the right knowledge, skills, and experience to identify defects and weaknesses. This isn't work you hand to whoever is available.
An HSE inspector will ask two things about your lifting equipment: can you show me the examination reports, and can you show me who is responsible for making sure examinations happen on time? If you can't answer both clearly, you've got a problem. I've sat in meetings where enforcement notices were issued not because the lift was unsafe, but because the examination had lapsed by three weeks and nobody noticed.
Setting It Up as a Knowledge Hub Entry
I've built a lifting equipment template in Pilla covering LOLER requirements, the difference between maintenance and thorough examination, competent person arrangements, examination frequency, responsibility assignments, and what to do when defects are found. It gives you a structured starting point, but you need to edit it to reflect your actual site.
In the knowledge hub, create a new entry and tag it with "Health and Safety System". Use the same tag across all of your health and safety policies so they are grouped together and Poppi can track them as a set. Assign the entry to all teams so that everyone in the business can access it.
The template is designed to be edited, not just filed. Read through every section. Where it says "Company Name", replace it with your business name. If you don't have passenger lifts, adjust the scope to cover whatever lifting equipment you do have. If your competent person is an in-house engineer rather than an insurance company surveyor, say so. An HSE inspector wants to see that your policy reflects your operation, not that you've downloaded a generic document and stuck it in a folder.
6. Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment – Passenger Lifts
The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER)
Passenger Lifts
The passenger lifts installed on site are not used for work purposes, however the LOLER regulations still apply in Company Name. Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act imposes responsibilities, so far as reasonably practicable, on an employer in connection with their business, they still have some responsibility for the health and safety of people they don't employ. This includes members of the public who use the passenger lift on site and those people who may work on or inspect the lift.
As the risks may be the same as when using lifts in connection with work, a similar regime of maintenance, inspection and examination to that required under LOLER and PUWER will be entirely 'reasonably practicable' in managing the risks.
Current legislation requires a competent person (many employers choose to use an engineer surveyor employed by an insurance company) to carry out regular thorough examinations and tests of the passenger lifts to ensure that they remain capable of lifting and supporting their safe working load. This is a specific test and examination for statutory purposes, will be required every 6 months as the Passenger lifts in Company Name are used to lift people. Routine maintenance alone will not meet this legal requirement.
We have a duty to ensure that others who might be affected by the operation of passenger lifts, in our premises are not exposed to risk from lifting operations and lifting equipment.
Responsible persons identified in the House Responsibility Chart will be responsible for addressing these safety arrangements for the management of passenger lifts on our premise.
This is a preview of the template. In Pilla, you can edit this to match your business.
What I'd want to see when reviewing this:
The section on thorough examination frequency is the most important part. I'd want to see that you've specified six-monthly examinations for any lifting equipment used to lift people, and that you've named the competent person or examination company responsible for carrying them out. Vague references to "a competent person will carry out examinations" aren't enough. Name the company. Name the contact. Make it specific.
The distinction between routine maintenance and thorough examination needs to be crystal clear. These are two separate things with two separate purposes. Maintenance keeps the lift running day to day. Thorough examination is a statutory test that checks whether the lift remains capable of supporting its safe working load. Both are required. One does not replace the other.
Common mistakes I see:
The responsibility section is often left generic. It says "responsible persons identified in the responsibility chart" but doesn't name anyone specific. I've reviewed policies where three different managers each assumed one of the other two was handling the examination schedule. Nobody was. The examination lapsed, and it only came to light when the insurance company chased for the report.
The section on acting on examination findings is usually the weakest part. The template covers it, but businesses often treat examination reports as paperwork to file rather than actions to complete. If the examiner identifies a defect and recommends work, that's not a suggestion. Serious defects can mean taking the lift out of service until repairs are done. I've seen sites where the same defect appeared in three consecutive examination reports because nobody actioned it after the first one.
Automate the Follow-Up with Poppi
Writing the policy is one thing. Making sure your team has actually read it is another. Poppi can handle the chasing so you don't have to.
If you mark the knowledge hub entry as mandatory, Poppi will track who's read it and who hasn't. You can set up automations to chase staff who are behind, notify managers when someone completes the policy, and get a regular report showing where the gaps are.
Here are three automations I'd set up for any knowledge hub policy:
Tom, you have 2 overdue policies to read and acknowledge
Overdue training reminders
Automatically chase team members who have mandatory policies they haven't read yet. Poppi sends the reminder so you don't have to.
Tom, you have 2 overdue policies to read and acknowledge
Emma has completed a mandatory policy
Video completion alerts
Get notified when a team member finishes reading or watching a policy, so you can track progress without chasing.
Emma has completed a mandatory policy
Training Report: 87% team completion. Tom and Sarah behind on 2 mandatory policies, due 3 days ago.
Training gap analysis
Get a regular AI report showing which team members are behind on mandatory policies and where the gaps are across your team.
Training Report: 87% team completion. Tom and Sarah behind on 2 mandatory policies, due 3 days ago.