FAQs

General purpose wire rope, with one of those purposes being that it is intended for lifting, is within the scope of national and international supply legislation.

Therefore, the bulk supply or reel should be issued with the appropriate documentation, marking, a manufacturer’s certificate and/or relevant declarations where required, as defined in the relevant standards.

‘Instructions for Use’ are also required and will simply contain information as to the intended use, the limits of use and instructions for handling, cutting, storing, assembly, use and maintenance.

The distributor or user does not become a manufacturer in the sense of the supply legislation by cutting individual lengths for incorporation into lifting machinery or lifting accessories. Therefore, the obligations set out above do not apply again to lengths of wire rope cut from products which are already placed on the market by the wire rope manufacturer.

Such lengths are to be considered as components of the lifting machinery or the lifting accessories into which they are incorporated.

However, distributors of wire ropes must ensure that the relevant documentation and certificate references that set out the characteristics of the wire rope, along with the manufacturer’s instructions, are supplied with the cut length of wire rope to the manufacturers of lifting machinery or lifting accessories or to users.

Based on standards and legislation, LEEA requires the competent person to be sufficiently independent and impartial to allow objective decisions to be made. With this in mind the question becomes, ‘can you check your own work?’

LEEA’s view is that the answer to this question would depend on the complexity of the thorough examination. For example the thorough examination of a mechanically assembled chain sling following a minor repair is not a complicated task for a competent person to ascertain whether or not it has been assembled correctly. Whereas a thorough examination of a hoist following an overhaul of the lifting and braking mechanism is.

The following are examples of cases where the maintenance activity is so minor and low-risk that it can reasonably be carried out as part of the thorough examination itself, without compromising impartiality:

• Cleaning light surface corrosion or debris from a shackle or eyebolt thread using a wire brush
• Applying grease or lubricant to a wire rope or moving part
• Refitting or replacing a split pin on a safety shackle or similar simple retention device
• Replacing a safety catch on a chain sling hook

Therefore the duty holder or the employer of person doing the thorough examination should assess the risks in terms of complexity of the maintenance and subsequent thorough examination. The risk assessment should consider whether or not the examiner could be considered as being impartial recognising that the examiner may subconsciously assume their own maintenance work was satisfactory, and as a result perhaps not be as thorough as required. In many cases, a second pair of eyes is better placed to act impartially and see defects associated with the maintenance.

Note, human error is the root cause of a significant proportion of incidents.

It is also important to note that BS 7121-2-7, states: “it is essential that the person that does the thorough examination is not the same person that did the maintenance”.

Therefore, with cranes in the UK it would be advisable to follow the guidance given in the standard. LEEA considers this approach to represent global best practice.

Click here to download FAQ.

The answer to this is that they are all correct and the choice of which to use is really dependent on the use of the equipment, as explained in the following sections in LEEA’s Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Lifting Equipment (COPSULE):

1.2.13 Rated Capacity

This is the maximum gross load that a lifting appliance can lift for its specific configuration. It is generally used for lifting appliances in the same way as Working Load Limit is generally used for lifting accessories. It is not to be confused with Safe (Specific application) Working Load, see 1.2.17 and the notes thereto.

1.2.20 Working Load Limit (WLL)

The working load limit is the maximum load (mass) that an item of lifting equipment is designed to raise, lower or suspend. In some standards and documents WLL is referred to as ‘maximum SWL.’ This term is more generally used for lifting accessories, but lifting appliances are now commonly marked with a rated capacity, see 1.2.14.

1.2.16 Safe (Specific application) Working Load (SWL)

The safe working load or specific application load (SWL) is the maximum load (mass) as assessed by a Competent Person which an item of lifting equipment may raise, lower or suspend under the particular service conditions. The SWL is marked on the equipment and appears in statutory records.

Click here to download FAQ.

The term ‘lifting equipment’ is defined by Use Legislation to describe work equipment for lifting or lowering loads. This also includes any attachments used for anchoring, fixing or supporting it.
There are different definitions in supply and use legislation. This also applies to lifting accessories that have slightly different definitions as well.
To this end the specific documentation would depend on the type of lifting equipment being supplied.
The LEEA 059 (1-6) Guidance to Documentation and Marking - series specifies the specific documentation required for each type.
These guidance documents can be downloaded by members for free from the LEEA Library - LEEA Library | Documents

Click here to download FAQ.

LEEA has many members with a wide range of products and services on offer. You can search our members by location here – Find a Member
Here is how to proceed:

1. Visit the LEEA website - Go directly to the official member search page at leeaint.com/find-a- member-near-me.
2. Enter your location - Use the search tool to input your city, town, or postal code.
3. Browse the results - The search will return a list of LEEA members in your area, along with their contact information.
4. Contact the members directly - Since the LEEA website does not specify the exact services for
   each company, you will need to call or email the members on the list to find out if they can perform the specific task you require.
5. No contact details on website – will need to go to company website to obtain contact details.

Click here to download FAQ.

Supply legislation does not require a manufacturer of lifting equipment to give it a unique identification. It simply requires them to mark one on the product if they have specified one.

Use legislation on the other hand requires the duty holder to have lifting equipment Inspected and/or thoroughly examined and issued with a report inpsection or thorough examination. This report must identify the equipment without ambiguity so that defects can be remedied efficiently.

In the case where a duty holder has many items of a similar generic form of lifting equipment it is considered best practice to give each piece its own unique identification number, which is then recorded on each thorough examination report, thus ensuring the report is traceable to the equipment without ambiguity.

However, it is important to note that there are other methods of ensuring that the equipment on a report can be identified correctly, such as location for single items, or colour coding for multiple items grouped in a specific area.

Click here to download FAQ.

In general, there are two types of master links/master assemblies on the European market

1. Master links/Master assemblies placed on the market for use as a component of a sling assembly. These may or may not be conformity marked, but they should be compliant with EN1677-4 or other relevant standards.
2. Master links/Master assemblies placed on the market for USE as an individual lifting accessory. These are to be conformity marked. They should be marked with the requirements of the legislation and will show the WLL, grade of material and traceable serial number. A Declaration of Conformity and Instructions for use must also be supplied. These instructions would not necessarily prohibit the use of these master links as components of a sling assembly, but it is the responsibility of the Distributor/Assembler to give the correct information with the completed product to ensure that is not overloaded.

Understanding the supply chain is critical as the roles and responsibilities of each participant change:

• The Manufacturer is the company making and supplying the components or accessory to the market for the first time. They take the responsibility of ensuring that the products are fit for purpose and comply with the standards and legislation and issue the appropriate certification.
• The Assembler of a completed lifting accessory (machine) takes on the responsibility of a manufacturer and is responsible for placing the completed product on to the market for the first time, and as such, by ensuring that the equipment is compliant with current legislation. They are also to issue the correct documentation and safe use instructions with the product.
• A Distributor may also be an importer of accessories/components to an assembler of slings. They may place complete assemblies or components to the market. In the case of supplying individual master links to a customer, where possible, the distributer should enquire how the link is to be used to assess what is required for marking and user instructions and documentation.

Note: The Assembler may also be a Distributer and vice versa.

• The Duty holder/End User has the responsibility of fully assessing and using the item according to the to the manufacturer’s instruction for use.

LEEA’s advice on master links is:

• Manufacturers of master links can choose to conformity mark the links, or not, dependent on the intended use. In either case the instructions are to be clear as to their specific use i.e. as a complete lifting accessory, as a component, or both, as certification and marking is different in each case.
• Master links should be marked with a traceability code as per EN 1677-1 or other relevant standard.
• If assembling a sling, the assembler can use master links that are either conformity marked or not. The assembler of the sling should affix a metal tag to the master link/assembly, which must, as a minimum show the conformity mark, the individual serial number of the assembly and the WLL of assembly at 0° degrees, or in the case of a multi leg sling, at 0-45° and 45° to 60° degrees. In the case of chain slings, the diameter of the chain being used should also be shown.
• The Duty holder/End User must have a fully documented risk assessment and lifting plan. They also have the responsibility of ensuring not only that the equipment is well maintained, inspected before use and complies with current legislation, but also that the person(s) using the equipment are suitably trained to do so.
• If using master links in their own right as a completed lifting accessory, the user should select master links that have been conformity marked as the foreseeable risks associated with the expected use have been addressed by the manufacturer. The limitations of use would be specified in the instructions for use which should be followed by the user.
• If using CE marked master links that have a WLL marked on them, the WLL of the assembly must be made clear by affixing a metal tag or other approved marking method as per the applicable standard for the type of sling (Chain, SWR, Textile). The WLL marked on the master link must never be less than the WLL of the final assembly and this information must be supported in the instructions for Use.
• If using non- CE marked master links as a lifting accessory, the duty holder/user is to be aware that they would take on the responsibility and risk of the manufacturer for use in this manner.
• Equipment should be examined for each lift according to the lift plan.
• Master links in storage are treated as components
• As with all lifting equipment, master links that are conformity marked and/or used as an accessory should be subject to a thorough examination at least 6/12monthly depending on location. If in any doubt it is advisable to contact a competent person for advice and clarification.

Click here to download FAQ.

It is the WLL of the product that matters, the sling assembler does not need to worry about the working coefficients providing that they select the correct component to the correct standard and that the WLL’s of all items in the sling are the same or greater than the intended sling WLL.

Click here to download FAQ.

Simple pallet trucks that only raise the forks less than 300mm from the ground and with forks that are supported at the ends does not fall within the scope of LOLER.

The reason being is that the primary function by way of a low lift height is simply there to reduce friction between the pallet and the ground and failure at this height does not present a serious risk to those using the equipment.

However, the HSAWA & PUWER risk assessment should consider all factors associated with the conditions of use and ensure suitable measures are in place to mitigate them.

High lift pallet trucks that lift the load higher in order to transport the load from one level to another are within the scope of LOLER as the risks of the load falling are higher than with the above.

Please refer to LOLER 1998 Reg 2 Guidance 28(c)

For general use applications(maintenance and interim inspections) PUWER 1998 will apply to both types.

Click here to download FAQ.

Yes, manufacturers of new items of lifting equipment that are to be placed on the European Economic Area (EEA) or UK markets, or for putting into service, must design, construct, and supply safe products that comply with the:
Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC (MD) & Its Guidance or Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 (SOM(S)R - respectively.

All lifting equipment, machine and accessories, fall under the scope of the above legislation and can be found under MD Article 2(a) & (d)

SOM(S)R PART 2 Application - 4. Products to which Regulations apply; definition of “machinery”

Powered machines
(i) an assembly, fitted with or intended to be fitted with a drive system other than directly applied human or animal effort, consisting of linked parts or components, at least one of which moves, and which are joined together for a specific application;

Manual machines
v) an assembly of linked parts or components, at least one of which moves and which are joined together, intended for lifting loads and whose only power source is directly applied human effort

Lifting Accessories
(d)components or equipment (including slings and their components) which—
(i)are not attached to lifting machinery;
(ii)allow a load to be held;
(iii)are placed between the machinery and the load or on the load itself, or are intended to constitute an integral part of the load; and
(iv)are independently placed on the market

In particular, they must be designed and built to meet the relevant essential health and safety requirements listed in Annex 1 of the Directive / Schedule 2 of the Regulation.

This requirement applies to the manufacturers of machinery, even where it is for their own use.

For reference - MD– Article 2 (i) ‘manufacturer)
For reference - SOM(S)R Part 1 (2) Interpretation 2. Manufacturer a) ii.

It also applies to those who modify existing machinery to such an extent it must be considered a new machine, and for those who bring existing non-Conformity marked machinery onto the EEA market, or into service, for the first time.

Click here to download FAQ.

No, not without the permission of the OEM.

Grinding and welding can cause stress raisers. OEM's may permit grinding out minor surface defects outside of their control. If so, they should provide guidelines in their user instructions, but they will not permit welding or any other modification, without their knowledge and written consent.

Use of these methods may be classed as inducing stress raisers which can be detrimental to the integrity of the equipment. Stress raisers can be areas where fatigue cracking can initiate, dependent on the magnitude of the stress and location of the stress raiser.

This means that any such additions or changes to a product once placed on the market or in service, will need to be investigated and approved by the OEM and verified by a competent person following the work carried out and before use.

Effectively, this is the modification of lifting equipment after manufacture and once placed on the market or in service.

Grinding

Grinding of forged or cast steel accessories and components, such as shackles for example, is not recommended due to the potential to weaken the material and introduce stress risers.

While grinding can remove surface imperfections, excessive grinding can disrupt the grain flow and introduce stress concentrations, which can lead to premature failure.

If grind marks are found, they should be treated as defects affecting the safety of the equipment and it is the Competent Person’s decision as to whether they are severe enough to fail the equipment.

Examples of where grinding is seen, is in ad hoc sling assemblies of various accessories where numerous WLLs may be present. This is usually carried out to reduce the risk of misidentification of the sling assembly’s WLL which should be identified by a sling tag.

This may also occur on a runway which may have been fitted with a hoist of higher WLL than that marked on the beam itself.

Welding

Welding is also not recommended on components or accessories, as it can significantly alter the material properties of the metal being worked. It can potentially lead to reduced strength and increased risk of failure, especially in critical applications such as lifting operations.

Common examples of this in accessories, is seen where a shackle pin is welded to the body to create a permanent fitting. Where this has been carried out, LEEA would assume that a risk assessment identified that there was a risk of the pin unscrewing, hence the weld.

It should be noted that this may not reduce the risk sufficiently and the company in question carrying this out would be held accountable for not selecting equipment fit for the application. It is highly likely that the reasoning behind this may very well breach legislation due to demonstratable incompetence and poor selection of equipment.

A nut and cotter type pin or other type of mechanical securing component would be the appropriate choice. Therefore, should the weld result in failure and injury, the enforcing authorities may take a very dim view of this although it is a common practice.

For those looking to market a product with this, proof load testing alone is inadequate as it cannot identify fatigue cracking or the potential for fatigue cracking when put into service.
Fatigue cracking is caused by stress cycles and is a variable based on geometry (stress raisers) and the number and magnitude of stress cycles. These defects can only be identified through visual and NDT techniques.

If components or accessories are welded after leaving the OEM, then the owner of the equipment will need to accept full responsibility and will also need to hold comprehensive documented evidence - including, but not limited to OEM's permission in writing, risk assessment, welder qualifications, welding specifications and procedures, test records and full traceability. Manufacturers doing this will need to be able to meet the supply legislation requirement for new products and be able to provide the evidence that the complete product is safe to use.

Therefore, grinding or welding carried out after initial manufacture is not recommended for the above reasons and because of their training, competent persons would normally quarantine or condemn components that have been modified. They would need to see evidence in writing to pass them.

Click here to download FAQ.

There is no statutory requirement within legislation, or applicable standards mandating the use of colour-coded tags for lifting equipment. Duty holders may adopt any system of indication—such as tagging, labelling, or digital tracking—provided it is unambiguous, clearly understood by relevant personnel, and supports compliance with the prescribed inspection and thorough examination intervals. The chosen method should ensure that equipment status is readily identifiable and that all inspections are conducted and documented under regulatory requirements.

Unlike painted markings, tagging systems offer a non-invasive method of status indication that can be easily removed and reapplied without compromising the integrity of the lifting equipment. Tags can be detached to allow full access for inspection and subsequently reattached to indicate compliance, thereby supporting both safety and efficiency without causing damage to the equipment.

Note: The use of tagging or other inspection indicators does not negate the requirement to perform routine pre-use, weekly or interim inspections.

Click here to download FAQ.

As legislation is risk based and goal setting, in that it states what you must do but does not offer the specific means of how you achieve it, then before undertaking any work at height, a thorough risk assessment must be conducted. Based on the findings, a safe system of work should be developed, which must also include appropriate rescue plans. All risk assessments should be formally documented and reviewed at regular intervals or whenever significant changes occur.

The risk assessment should detail the justification for the selection of equipment. Priority should be given to equipment specifically designed for the task. However, in some cases this may not be possible, perhaps due to risks imposed by the specific conditions of use. In which case other equipment can be used, such as a crane hook, provided it is thoroughly assessed and found to be fit for purpose.

For example, does the crane hook meet the requirements of a fall arrest anchor point in accordance with (for example), EN 795 or equivalent PPE standards? Does the crane have free fall capability lock out? Can prevention of crane functions that would affect the safety of use as fall arrest be achieved, etc.?

If the answer is yes, evidence of this should be included in the Risk Assessment/Method Statement.

If the answer is no, then a suitable alternative method should be sought and used.

If the crane OEM’s instructions for use allow the crane to be used as a fall arrest anchor then you should also consider the following:

• Any work at height, whether or not it is a mobile crane or any other crane structure, should be planned to either eliminate the need for work at height or, where this is not possible, to reduce the risk to persons to as low as is possible.
• Planning for work at height must include provisions for emergency response and rescue. Priority should be given to collective fall protection measures—such as scaffolding or powered access equipment like MEWPs—before considering personal fall protection systems. Therefore we would recommend that you review your existing risk assessment(s) to ensure that all possible eventualities have been considered.

Click here to download FAQ.

For many years the issue of information written on textile slings with marker pens, (both flat woven webbing and roundslings made of man-made fibers), has been debated. The reason is that due to the unknown chemical composition of the ink used there is an unknown element of risk requiring further investigation. Marker pen used as part of the manufacturing process are considered as acceptable and not detriment to safety as they are the responsibility of the manufacturer. However, marks added by others need to be evaluated and if found in service they need to be assessed by a competent person. In general LEEA advises users not to add additional marking to their slings without consultation with their supplier.

The use of marker pens on slings is a contentious issue due to the unknown composition of the ink, which may contain a variety of chemicals. These chemicals can interact with sling materials in unpredictable ways. For instance, while polyester is generally resistant to most mineral acids, it can be vulnerable to damage from alkaline substances. This variability in chemical resistance highlights the importance of understanding both the ink composition and the sling material before use.

Where possible, it is advisable to consult the sling manufacturer or supplier for guidance on marking practices.

While the presence of markings on a sling does not automatically render it unsafe, it does require careful assessment by a competent person during inspection. The examiner must be able to rule out any signs of chemical damage, which could result from the ink used. Typical indicators of such damage include brittleness in the sling fibers. Therefore, any markings should prompt closer scrutiny to ensure the integrity of the equipment is not compromised.

With regards to roundslings made of man-made fibers, they would also need to ensure that the pen has not penetrated the sleeve as you can afford a small amount of surface damage to the sleeve, but not the core. Unfortunately, a problem you should consider with round slings is that the sleeve can move around the core, which means that any damage to the core may not be in the location of the sleeve marker pen.

If the examiner is comfortable that no damage has occurred, then they may pass the sling as safe to use, provided there is no other type of damage evident. They should however bear in mind that damage can be time based and that chemicals can become more concentrated as they dry out, so regular user checks and interim inspections should also take this issue into account.

Click here to download FAQ.

Yes, one-trip textile slings are legal to use, provided they are used with considerable care and in strict adherence with the manufacturer’s Instructions for use. They should not be used for general purpose slinging and are for specific loads only.

It is important to note that the slings are not manufactured to any international or harmonized standard. Instead, they are to be made in line with the requirements of:

ISO 12100 - Safety of machinery- General principles for design- Risk assessment and risk reduction

For further guidance, LEEA and ICHCA have developed the following documents:

• LEEA 078-1 - Guidance for users of one-trip slings (General Use)
• LEEA 086 – Guidance for Manufacturers of one-trip slings

Click here to download FAQ.

The simple answer is yes, but LEEA advises that you begin preparing to implement the new standard that will
replace it, as explained below.

Under CEN (European Committee for Standardization) rules when an EN standard is published, all conflicting
national standards must be withdrawn.

However, many new CEN standards are issued in multiple parts, and this withdrawal rule only applies once all
parts have been published.

In some cases, a national standard may remain “current/superseded” because not all parts of the EN seriesare complete, even though the existing EN parts already contain sufficient technical information to replace
the national version.

Therefore full withdrawal cannot take place until all parts are published, hence the status
“current/superseded”. Since it is inevitable the EN standard will eventually be completed, LEEA recommends
planning a transition to the new standard as early as possible to minimise the impact on your organisation.

Example:

BS EN ISO 10855, covering offshore containers and associated lifting sets, was published in three parts:

1. Part 1 – Containers: design, manufacture, testing and marking
2. Part 2 – Lifting sets: design and manufacture
3. Part 3 – Periodic inspection and testing

When first introduced, EN 12079 (the previous standard) remained listed as current/superseded because not allISO 10855 parts were yet available. Full withdrawal only occurred once all three parts were published, at whichpoint BS EN ISO 10855 became the definitive reference.

For further information on designing or manufacturing to a withdrawn standard, refer to FAQ M71. The standard for my product has been withdrawn and there is no current standard covering it? This FAQ is
available as a free download for LEEA members.

Click here to download FAQ.

The simple answer is no.

When a sling originally rated for goods lifting is used for personnel lifting, it must be derated by 50 % to
achieve the required 10:1 (SWR) or 8:1 (Chain) Factor of Safety (FOS). This increased safety factor
applies to the sling’s minimum breaking load (MBL), not the SWL. The adjusted safe working load (SWL)is simply half of its original rating.

This is a very common misinterpretation of the standard, EN 14502-1: Cranes-Equipment for the lifting ofpersons – Part 1: Suspended baskets.

Clauses 5.3.1 (a) and (b) refer to an enhanced FOS or Coefficient of Utilisation (COU), in terms of the
MBL of the sling. (For the sake of this FAQ, FOS will be used).

The MBL for goods lifting slings is:

• Chain : FOS = 4:1 (4 x SWL)
• Steel wire rope (SWR): FOS = 5:1 (5 x SWL)

When equipment is used for lifting personnel, the FOS is doubled to provide the increased level of safetyrequired. Therefore, the FOS to be applied to the MBL is now:

• Chain: FOS = 8:1
• SWR: FOS = 10:1

We can see this using the equation found in EN 14502-1: Clause 5.3.1:

(10 × SWR) or (8 x Chain) x (weight of basket + rated capacity)

This worked example is for a SWR sling.

Weight of basket = 250 kg
Rated capacity (person + tools) = 125 kg
Required MBL of SWR = 10 × (250kg + 125kg) = 3,750 kg

Therefore, for personnel lifting we require a SWR sling with a MBL of 3,750kg, applying a FOS of
10:1 gives a SWL of 375 kg.

(If the same sling were used for goods lifting, the SWL would be 750 kg@FOS 5 : 1.)

In Summary:

When selecting a wire rope or chain sling for personnel lifting in accordance with EN 14502-1, first
identify the safe working load (SWL) required for the lift. Then select a sling with at least double that
SWL, ensuring it achieves the enhanced factor of safety required for personnel use (10:1 for wire rope or8:1 for chain).

Click here to download FAQ.

Employers must ensure that any lifting equipment they intend to purchase is:

1. Suitable for its intended purpose and for the conditions in which it will be used
2. Fully compliant with the relevant national supply legislation. (within the UK, the Supply of Machinery Regulations 2008)
3. Supplied with complete and valid supply documentation in accordance with the applicable national standards and legislation. This includes:
   • Manufacturer’s Certificate or Statement of Conformity
   • Instructions for use (covering safe use, inspection and maintenance)
   • Other conformity declarations as required by national legislation (within the UK, a Declaration of Conformity)
4. Verify the equipment is appropriately marked in accordance with the applicable national standards and legislation. As a minimum, this should include:
   • A unique means of identification traceable to the associated documentation.
   • The working load limit (WLL) or safe working load (SWL).
   • Any additional markings required by the relevant standard or legislation (within the UK, UKCA or CE mark).

If the relevant documentation is not provided at the time of purchase, the employer will need to request this from their regional distributor or the original equipment manufacturer (OEM).

For more detailed guidance on supply documentation, marking, and the development of instructions for use in accordance with UK and EU supply legislation, refer to:

• LEEA 59 Series (1-6) Guidance to documentation and marking – Available for Members
• LEEA-062 Guidance to the Manufacturer of Lifting Equipment for the Development of Instructions for Use – Available for Members

Additionally, for further UK specific advice, refer to:

• HSE INDG271 – Buying New Machinery: A short guide to the law and your responsibilities when buying new machinery for use at work

Click here to download FAQ.

There is no fixed slope angle at which a pulling operation becomes a lifting operation under UK law. The determining factor is whether the load remains supported by the ground or becomes suspended.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advises that a risk assessment should be carried out to help the employer decide whether the activity is classed as pulling or lifting, before determining whether LOLER applies.

If the vehicle being recovered stays in contact with the ground, even on a steep slope, and the winch is used only to pull, the activity is considered a pulling operation and falls under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER).

However, if any part of the load is lifted clear of the ground and suspended, even partially, the activity becomes a lifting operation under the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER). For example - a vehicle towed using a spectacle frame.

The HSE have produced some guidance on this matter. The following extract is from HSE SIM 03/2004/61 – Roadside Recovery and Repair (RRR). It was internal inspector guidance explaining how LOLER and PUWER apply to recovery operations. It is now archived with no legal status but remains a useful reference for interpreting borderline cases involving both pulling and lifting.

“15. 'Lifting equipment' used during RRR activities will have to comply with the requirements of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER). Some lifting equipment associated with recovery vehicles is very obviously subject to LOLER. However, LOLER will not normally apply to –

1. moveable beds and ramps.
2. winches whose main purpose is dragging the casualty vehicle along the ground.
3. towing dollies where the weight is supported on a small pair of wheels.

Spectacle frames used for lifting vehicles and supporting them whilst towing, are considered to be subject to LOLER.”

Further guidance on how LOLER and PUWER apply to recovery vehicles and associated equipment can be found in:

1. HSE Guidance - Roadside repair and recovery
2. HSG 261 - Health and safety in motor vehicle repair and associated industries
3. PAS 43:2018 - Safe working of vehicle breakdown, recovery and removal operations
4. BS 7121-12:1999 – Safe Use of Cranes – Part 12: Recovery Vehicles and Equipment
5. BS 7901:2002 – Specification for Recovery Vehicles and Vehicle Recovery Equipment

To assist with related risk assessments, LEEA recommends referring to FAQ M93. Is this lifting or work equipment and how should I report the results?, available as a free download to members.

Click here to download FAQ.

Personnel lifting with equipment not specifically designed for this purpose should only occur in exceptional circumstances, where safer alternatives are not practicable. When using any existing crane for personnel lifting, the following requirements must be met:

1. The crane must be adequate and suitable for the specific lifting task.
2. It should be equipped with the following safety and control devices:
   • Free-fall capability lock-out
   • Hoisting limiter
   • Lowering limiter
   • Rated capacity indicator
   • Rated capacity limiter
   • Where wire ropes are used for hoisting and lowering a carrier, they should have a minimum diameter of 8 mm.
3. The carrier must be securely attached to the crane using appropriate methods, such as a shackle or a hook with a latch.
4. Daily inspections of the crane and associated equipment must be carried out by a competent person (e.g., a trained operator or the person in charge of the lift).
   • If the crane is not used regularly, it must be inspected before its first use and each day it is in service.
5. The crane and its equipment should be derated, typically by 50%, to ensure safe operation during lifting.

Click here to download FAQ.

This is the term given to the unauthorized process of copying the original manufacturer’s documentation and replacing their details with your own as a means of hiding the source of the product from the end user.

For example:
Issuing a Declaration of Conformity using your company’s details for a product manufactured or supplied
by another company, without their authorization.

Note:
Under UK and European supply legislation, only the product manufacturer, distributor/ importer, or authorized representative may issue a Declaration of Conformity.

Click here to download FAQ.

Drones or cameras can be used for low level, basic visual inspections of lifting equipment where direct access is difficult or poses a safety risk to personnel.

Typically, this restricts drone inspection to basic pre-use checks for obvious signs of damage or corrosion to the equipment. They may also be used in support of interim inspections and the monitoring of known defects (dependent on the defect and the component being checked).

LEEA do not currently recommend the use of drones in support of thorough examinations/periodic inspections.

Click here to download FAQ.