A different business model for PAT testing?

[HandsOffEngineer]

In my opinion, by referring to it as "In-service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment" is not only a mouthful, but also unlikely to get you any work. Everyone refers to it as PAT Testing or Portable Appliance Testing, and the reality is that is what they are going to seek and ask for.

Thanks. My intention is to word it as something like "Electrical Appliance Inspection & Testing", then in the detail it would be called by its full name, ISITEE. I would also prominently include the words: commonly known as "PAT Testing".

I see it as adding a premium. I'm tailoring my communication to the more considered client who wants a reasonably thorough service.

 

[Pete999]

In my opinion, by referring to it as "In-service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment" is not only a mouthful, but also unlikely to get you any work. Everyone refers to it as PAT Testing or Portable Appliance Testing, and the reality is that is what they are going to seek and ask for.

I respect your opinion Risteard, but with a caveat, by making the name of the operation more pronounced, may make people with the responsibility for these testing procedure sit up and take more notice, you must be aware of the no need effect many people treat the PATesting, waste of time and all that, highlighting it with a new name will in my opinion highlight the need for such testing what ever it is called, duty holders on todays industry NEED to be made aware of the importance of ISITEE, far to many duty holders treat the old PAT regime with indifference by calling it what is should it may raise the importance of testing to ISITEE, in my opinion.

 

[HandsOffEngineer]

I respect your opinion Risteard, but with a caveat, by making the name of the operation more pronounced, may make people with the responsibility for these testing procedure sit up and take more notice, you must be aware of the no need effect many people treat the PATesting, waste of time and all that, highlighting it with a new name will in my opinion highlight the need for such testing what ever it is called, duty holders on todays industry NEED to be made aware of the importance of ISITEE, far to many duty holders treat the old PAT regime with indifference by calling it what is should it may raise the importance of testing to ISITEE, in my opinion.

Very well said.

 

[Pete999]

Very well said.

Some common sense shown in this reply, in my opinion.

 

[HandsOffEngineer]

FAT is part of PAT...more a subset than an element...all part of ISITEE. All I was saying is that you need to be able to do simple testing of appliances that are not actually plugged in. You don't need a course on it, you need simple equipment that costs a few pounds. The principles are the same, just a wee bit of tweaking to do the tests, and an understanding of safe isolation.
Anyway, the tests are a tiny bit, the FVI much more. Going that extra step means you have tested all you can.
If you know how to test portable appliances, then you can do the odd fixed one...or stationary one...just do them all and give the customer his paperwork.
It's all about doing the job...

I have a few questions. Forgive me if these seem naive, but I lack practical experience:

1. I assume when carrying out FAIT I am not just isolating at the FCU, even if switched? My understanding is that even if it is a BS 1363-4 compliant double-pole switched FCU, simply switching it to 'OFF' would not be a sufficiently-safe isolation for the purposes of FAIT, you have to go to the CCU/DB and isolate/lock-off the MCBO or the whole mains. Obviously if it's an unswitched FCU or there are other doubts, then the situation is more obvious.

2. If this is correct, then my next issue is that wouldn't most commercial/business premises, especially rented offices, have a shared CCU/DB under the control of the landlord? From a marketing point-of-view, it would be useless trying to sell the machine-testing side of FAIT to most commercial clients if they rent their premises. I'd have to make them aware of FAIT, carry out the FVI and make recommendations for follow-up ISITEE for fixed appliances based on the CoP, but to actually carry out the machine tests would involve approaching commercial landlords. Thus, it looks like a two-handed market and quite complicated, and this may explain why a lot of these "PAT testing" companies don't bother with FAIT.

3. Another query I have is about the method of testing. When carrying out FAIT, could point-to-point testing damage the customer's electrics, maybe by tripping the RCD? Based on what I've been reading (so far), I'm inclined to the view that the plug/adaptor method is best and point-to-point should be avoided, where possible.

4. Finally, I've been looking at some of the mains-powered testers, such as the Martindale EPAT2100. That model doesn't appear to have any sockets for point-to-point testing and there's nothing mentioned about it in the manual. Are there adaptors that can be purchased for this sort of model that will help with FAIT when wires cannot be re-terminated and point-to-point is necessary?

 

[HandsOffEngineer]

Hello,

Does anybody have a reply to my comment above, please?

I hope everybody otherwise had an enjoyable break over Xmas and the New Year.

 

[pirate]

I use a terminal block and Wagos to test fixed appliances which are wired to FCUs. Basically all you are doing is "plugging in" the cable of the heater or whatever to a 13A plug which is then plugged into your tester. Obviously, you must isolate the FCU circuit first, and then it is just as if you are plugging the appliance in as usual.
This is a fairly common one, and used widely:

Quick Test Connector Safe Block

Bench or wall mountable Supplied with 2m UK plug Insulated L, N, E clips

www.tester.co.uk

A long lead and Wagos on the end, works ok.

 

[HandsOffEngineer]

I use a terminal block and Wagos to test fixed appliances which are wired to FCUs. Basically all you are doing is "plugging in" the cable of the heater or whatever to a 13A plug which is then plugged into your tester. Obviously, you must isolate the FCU circuit first, and then it is just as if you are plugging the appliance in as usual.
This is a fairly common one, and used widely:

Quick Test Connector Safe Block

Bench or wall mountable Supplied with 2m UK plug Insulated L, N, E clips

www.tester.co.uk

A long lead and Wagos on the end, works ok.

Thanks for the information.

 

[oracle]

Is there a room in professional PAT testing for a business model other than 'per unit'?

I ask because I've been giving this some thought. I've just finished the 2377-22 course. Not with the intention of actually doing any PAT testing professionally, rather mainly for the purpose of my own 'in-house' testing for a handcraft luminaires business I intend to launch soon. Originally I was dead against the idea of offering testing to others, mainly because I think of it as rather dull and I also couldn't find any serious competition locally. You may find this counter-intuitive, but I sometimes take lack of competition to be an ominous sign for a new business idea, as to my way of thinking it may indicate a lack of demand for the product or service. If lots of people are doing the same thing, I often take that as a good sign, the only challenge being then to find a differentiator.

Anyway, I live in a tourist area and my tutor on the 2377-22 course has suggested I look into hotels, B&Bs and what not, and I've had a re-think about it. It could be done as a spin-off from my lamp business, using my machine tester, and would be a way of acquiring a bit of electrical experience on my path to (I hope) qualifying as an electrician; and, it affords me some experience of interacting with clients, maybe with a view to building up a client list of my own. Plus, you never know, I may make a bit of money out of it, if I can find a niche.

My understanding of the conventional business model for PAT testing is that you price per item tested and you have a minimum fee that you charge irrespective. Thus, typically 'Anywhereshire PAT Testers' might charge £1.50 per item tested with a minimum fee of, let's say, £50.00.

I've also noticed that one or two testing firms have a 'site fee', similar to the minimum fee, which applies at the lower end of the fee scale, and covers the provider's costs for site attendance in addition to item fees.

The per test fee tends to be scaled progressively according to number of items tested, with a 'POA' for testing over a certain limit depending on the provider's capacity - typically 'POA' might kick in at 10,000 items.

I realise that, in reality, many providers - especially the larger ones - have driven down pricing considerably, in some cases significantly below £1.00 per unit. I can only assume this is a risk sharing strategy on the part of client and provider (a sort of cost-driven Faustian bargain), in which the provider relies on value-added and spin-offs to achieve greater margins while the client is narrowly concerned with the trade-off of risk and is, in effect, paying to outsource compliance regardless of whether the provider is good, bad or indifferent. They simply don't care if the equipment is actually inspected properly or machine-tested or even looked at all.

Whatever the morals of all of this, it is commercially understandable, and the purpose of this thread is NOT to criticise it or get into a debate over the rights or wrongs of it. I merely seek to understand it because this pricing model, as I have outlined, seems to be ubiquitous to the industry. I have seen variations on the theme, but all providers seem to stick to this core model, albeit that some are more ethical than others. I have hunted high and low and cannot find anybody who departs from it - which is interesting in and of itself.

I am now going to outline a slightly different approach and invite constructive feedback:

(i). My interest would be in providing thorough, proper, ethical, competent in-service testing. I would take the emphasis off simple machine testing and instead emphasise advice/guidance about sound and pragmatic inspection and re-testing regimes for different types of devices, with the aim of both safety and long-term cost reduction.

(ii). I would charge a day rate or fixed overall job rate, rather than a per item rate. So instead of £1.00 per item or whatever, my price would be per job or visit - let's say for argument's sake, £75.00 per visit or £75.00 for the whole job.

(iii). I would visit clients with business premises over two days - the first day would be scoping, preparation and paperwork, and based on this I would provide the client with a quotation. If the quote is agreed, the second day would be the actual inspection and testing, and I would then e-mail the client the final report and invoice. For landlords, I would try to combine these steps into one single day so as to minimise disruption to tenants.

(iv). I would market my service to small, owner-managed businesses such as shops, B&Bs/guest houses, small hotels, professional firms, small officers, perhaps the smaller independent care homes, and letting agents/managing agents, HMO landlords, etc.

(v). I would set clear parameters to my service, based on my competence and capacity. I would make clear that I am not an electrician and cannot undertake general electrical work. I would seek to assist clients only with ordinary consumables that can be tested adequately using a basic device such as a Martindale HPAT600 or similar. I would not undertake Fixed Appliance Testing or testing of commercial/industrial scale equipment, especially those with switching parts. There are other exclusions, which I won't exhaust here.

(vi). I would stick to my local area - this helps me to control overheads and allows me to provide proper support to clients and makes testing/re-testing cycles more viable.

(vii). I would add value by offering free simple repairs (within clearly-defined parameters), free replacement electrical accessories such as bulbs and fuses (up to a given maximum) and discounted accessories over the maximum. I would also provide a government-licensed waste disposal service at no cost to the client in regard to items that 'Fail' and cannot be viably repaired.

Any thoughts, comments or advice? I ought to just make clear that I'm familiar with the basics of starting a business (insurance, etc.) and I've done a lot of my own research, but I have never run or offered electrical services to the public, even at a basic level such as PAT testing. It's just an idea at this stage.

I'm particularly interested in whether anybody here has tried (ii) above. If so, what was the response to that method of pricing? How was it put across to the client? If you abandoned this method, why was that?always gone

I'm also interested in knowing whether it is worthwhile joining one of the schemes for PAT testers like NAPIT?

I've always used a day rate for every day on site. Doing commercial including any machinery £300 in London area

 

[EricMark]

We would around every three months do the in service inspecting and testing of electrical equipment on our batching plant, no question it was potable it was moved as 22 articulated wagon loads, and the trailer wheels remained attached, it would take three electricians two days (the week end) to inspect and test, which included all safety switches, each gate opened to show machine stopped. We called it a service, and it did include checking the torque on some of the cables.

OK may be an extreme case, but be it a showman's ride, or batching plant we do have items which take a long time to test.

The inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment in may places I worked so split into three groups.
1) Equipment under maintenance contract things like vending machines.
2) Equipment not covered by 1) with a 13 or 16 amp plug.
3) The rest.
Not easy to inspect and test a hand drier, often it needs two people, so in the main it would be tested when doing the EICR or PIR as it was called then. And it was tested using an insulation tester, not the standard plug in PAT testing machine.

All items had to be on the equipment register, and the register would say if testing was to be done by the semi-skilled PAT testing team, this was before the Emma Shaw case, was not working there after the Emma Shaw case so not sure what happened about using semi-skilled labour after that case.

It was common to use electricians mates to do plug in testing, the Emma Shaw case was a game changer, and after that case electricians did all PAT testing, the idea of sending electricians mates on a PAT testing course went out of the window, at least where I worked.

We did start using contractors for both PIR and PAT testing, it was work which could be easy off loaded when busy, however it was short lived, due to errors found, we found for example a class I mag mount with a class II drill had been all tested as class II, and there was no earth connected to mag mount, the excuse was there was the double square showing class II but this was on the drill not the mag mount.

So in the main it returned to in house testing.

My boss said go for it, we have a remote depot go and do all PAT testing you have all day, but seen how long it takes, I was surprised, with the then top of range Robin, it did a self test every time plugged in, and it recorded it all on a floppy disc, shows how long ago, but that resulted if testing a PC I had to do whole test twice, once for lead set and once for PC, with cheaper manual testers would have just entered same results twice. So 6 hours for 40 items, had expected to do it a lot faster.

However this raised an issue, the machine took 3.4 minutes to go through the testing sequence with a class I item, so even not including time taken to get the item and plug it in, so maximum anyone can do in 8 hours is 137 so we can in an 8 hour day expect 60 to 120 items tested using the Robin tester set to times in the testing instruction book.

So as the building manager if you get 200 tests done in a day, can you accept it? Well if all class III I suppose so, and even all class II it would be possible. But unless cheating unlikely, and much of out time was taken up with questions like there was a Bosch drill here last year, where is it? Oh it was binned as burnt out, can I have copy of the disposal form please.

When one firm started doing the PAT testing they changed all the plant numbers giving new numbers to all tested with no cross reference provided, how can one maintain an equipment register when that happens.

I did get caught out with PAT testing, failed to keep workshop locked, so an item on the repair register could be taken out of the workshop, seems signs were not enough. An extension lead had been taken when we were not looking. I would have said guys fault for not following procedure and instructions but HSE did not take same view, lucky it was no me, to get fined because some one has stolen your extension lead out of your locker did not seem fair to me, but that is what happened, seems red stickers saying do not use is not enough.

 

[oracle]

We would around every three months do the in service inspecting and testing of electrical equipment on our batching plant, no question it was potable it was moved as 22 articulated wagon loads, and the trailer wheels remained attached, it would take three electricians two days (the week end) to inspect and test, which included all safety switches, each gate opened to show machine stopped. We called it a service, and it did include checking the torque on some of the cables.

OK may be an extreme case, but be it a showman's ride, or batching plant we do have items which take a long time to test.

The inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment in may places I worked so split into three groups.
1) Equipment under maintenance contract things like vending machines.
2) Equipment not covered by 1) with a 13 or 16 amp plug.
3) The rest.
Not easy to inspect and test a hand drier, often it needs two people, so in the main it would be tested when doing the EICR or PIR as it was called then. And it was tested using an insulation tester, not the standard plug in PAT testing machine.

All items had to be on the equipment register, and the register would say if testing was to be done by the semi-skilled PAT testing team, this was before the Emma Shaw case, was not working there after the Emma Shaw case so not sure what happened about using semi-skilled labour after that case.

It was common to use electricians mates to do plug in testing, the Emma Shaw case was a game changer, and after that case electricians did all PAT testing, the idea of sending electricians mates on a PAT testing course went out of the window, at least where I worked.

We did start using contractors for both PIR and PAT testing, it was work which could be easy off loaded when busy, however it was short lived, due to errors found, we found for example a class I mag mount with a class II drill had been all tested as class II, and there was no earth connected to mag mount, the excuse was there was the double square showing class II but this was on the drill not the mag mount.

So in the main it returned to in house testing.

My boss said go for it, we have a remote depot go and do all PAT testing you have all day, but seen how long it takes, I was surprised, with the then top of range Robin, it did a self test every time plugged in, and it recorded it all on a floppy disc, shows how long ago, but that resulted if testing a PC I had to do whole test twice, once for lead set and once for PC, with cheaper manual testers would have just entered same results twice. So 6 hours for 40 items, had expected to do it a lot faster.

However this raised an issue, the machine took 3.4 minutes to go through the testing sequence with a class I item, so even not including time taken to get the item and plug it in, so maximum anyone can do in 8 hours is 137 so we can in an 8 hour day expect 60 to 120 items tested using the Robin tester set to times in the testing instruction book.

So as the building manager if you get 200 tests done in a day, can you accept it? Well if all class III I suppose so, and even all class II it would be possible. But unless cheating unlikely, and much of out time was taken up with questions like there was a Bosch drill here last year, where is it? Oh it was binned as burnt out, can I have copy of the disposal form please.

When one firm started doing the PAT testing they changed all the plant numbers giving new numbers to all tested with no cross reference provided, how can one maintain an equipment register when that happens.

I did get caught out with PAT testing, failed to keep workshop locked, so an item on the repair register could be taken out of the workshop, seems signs were not enough. An extension lead had been taken when we were not looking. I would have said guys fault for not following procedure and instructions but HSE did not take same view, lucky it was no me, to get fined because some one has stolen your extension lead out of your locker did not seem fair to me, but that is what happened, seems red stickers saying do not use is not enough.

I also remember testing electrical equipment long ago, from a drill to huge plant equipment including three phase motors with a continuity / insulation tester, same principles as now, but done by responsible, qualified electricians.