LOLER vs PUWER: which examination or inspection applies?
LOLER adds lifting-specific duties to the broader PUWER framework. Lifting equipment can therefore need a LOLER thorough examination and separate or coordinated PUWER inspection, maintenance and safe-use controls.
Check my situationDo not choose one acronym and discard the other
LOLER focuses on lifting equipment, lifting operations and specified thorough examination. PUWER applies to work equipment more generally and requires suitability, maintenance and inspection where safety depends on installation or deterioration. The same asset can sit under both.
- Does the equipment raise or lower people or loads, bringing the lifting-specific regime into view?
- Which risks concern lifting components and which concern the wider machine, controls, guarding or work environment?
- Does the supplier report explicitly state which LOLER and PUWER matters were examined?
What to do next: Ask for a scope matrix showing asset categories, LOLER examination, PUWER inspection, maintenance and any excluded specialist tests. Do not accept a combined certificate unless the evidence demonstrates both required scopes.
LOLER thorough examination
The competent person systematically examines lifting equipment and safety-critical parts at statutory points and intervals, reports defects and sets the next date or follows a competent-person scheme.
The judgement is lifting-equipment specific and the report must contain the information required by the Regulations.
PUWER inspection
PUWER inspection is risk based. It is required where safety depends on installation conditions, where deterioration can cause danger and after exceptional circumstances. The content and frequency should be determined from risk and manufacturer information.
Routine operator checks and maintenance can sit alongside more formal inspections, but records should show who did what and why.
Buying a combined service
A combined visit may reduce disruption and cost, particularly for materials-handling equipment. The quotation should identify the competent people, standards, checks and report fields used for each regime rather than hiding both behind “compliance inspection”.
A clear scope lets buyers compare providers and prevents one bidder from appearing cheaper because it has omitted the broader machine inspection.