Emergency Escape Lighting

[Redone]

Is it permissable to carry on with the old service frequency, where the occupant cannot perform the monthly tests, due to lack of test key points or competent staff?

After all it worked for a few years.

[Wiz]

I can't see the lack of test switches or competent staff as being a legally acceptable reason for not complying with recommendations!

[nearlythere]

I can't see the lack of test switches or competent staff as being a legally acceptable reason for not complying with recommendations!

You already have a test switch Wiz. It is the circuit breaker at the mains consumer unit. Not the mains switch but each lighting circuit breaker switch or switches.

You have to have a competant person. If you don't have competant staff then you should source a competant person from outside the company.
I think that there are companies around whose sole purpose is to do the user checks on systems.

[Wiz]

I can't see the lack of test switches or competent staff as being a legally acceptable reason for not complying with recommendations!

You already have a test switch Wiz. It is the circuit breaker at the mains consumer unit. Not the mains switch but each lighting circuit breaker switch or switches.

You have to have a competant person. If you don't have competant staff then you should source a competant person from outside the company.
I think that there are companies around whose sole purpose is to do the user checks on systems.

nearlythere, your'e definitely not quite there with this one!
You missed the point of my post.
Of course, there are ways of testing any emergency lighting system even without a 'test' switch being provided and it doesn't matter if you consider your staff as 'incompetent' to do a test.
However neither of these 'excuses' make it permissable, from a legal sense, to ignore the recommendations. The original post asked if these 'excuses' made it 'permissable' to ignore the current recommendations.
I thought it was pretty obvious, maybe only because I did it for 20 years, that there were third parties, who were competent to do this sort of testing. I didn't think the question was asking if these services were available - however I get your point if you are trying to advise Redone, instead of me!

[nearlythere]

I can't see the lack of test switches or competent staff as being a legally acceptable reason for not complying with recommendations!

You already have a test switch Wiz. It is the circuit breaker at the mains consumer unit. Not the mains switch but each lighting circuit breaker switch or switches.

You have to have a competant person. If you don't have competant staff then you should source a competant person from outside the company.
I think that there are companies around whose sole purpose is to do the user checks on systems.

nearlythere, your'e definitely not quite there with this one!
You missed the point of my post.
Of course, there are ways of testing any emergency lighting system even without a 'test' switch being provided and it doesn't matter if you consider your staff as 'incompetent' to do a test.
However neither of these 'excuses' make it permissable, from a legal sense, to ignore the recommendations. The original post asked if these 'excuses' made it 'permissable' to ignore the current recommendations.
I thought it was pretty obvious, maybe only because I did it for 20 years, that there were third parties, who were competent to do this sort of testing. I didn't think the question was asking if these services were available - however I get your point if you are trying to advise Redone, instead of me!

Sorry Wiz. A thousand pardons for trying to make you look stupid. Pressed the wrong button. You are absolutely correct. Forgive?

[Wiz]

You already have a test switch Wiz. It is the circuit breaker at the mains consumer unit. Not the mains switch but each lighting circuit breaker switch or switches.

You have to have a competant person. If you don't have competant staff then you should source a competant person from outside the company.
I think that there are companies around whose sole purpose is to do the user checks on systems.

nearlythere, your'e definitely not quite there with this one!
You missed the point of my post.
Of course, there are ways of testing any emergency lighting system even without a 'test' switch being provided and it doesn't matter if you consider your staff as 'incompetent' to do a test.
However neither of these 'excuses' make it permissable, from a legal sense, to ignore the recommendations. The original post asked if these 'excuses' made it 'permissable' to ignore the current recommendations.
I thought it was pretty obvious, maybe only because I did it for 20 years, that there were third parties, who were competent to do this sort of testing. I didn't think the question was asking if these services were available - however I get your point if you are trying to advise Redone, instead of me!

Sorry Wiz. A thousand pardons for trying to make you look stupid. Pressed the wrong button. You are absolutely correct. Forgive?

Nearlythere. You don't need to make me look stupid, I often do it all by myself! Nothing for me to forgive and obviously no problems

[nearlythere]

nearlythere, your'e definitely not quite there with this one!
You missed the point of my post.
Of course, there are ways of testing any emergency lighting system even without a 'test' switch being provided and it doesn't matter if you consider your staff as 'incompetent' to do a test.
However neither of these 'excuses' make it permissable, from a legal sense, to ignore the recommendations. The original post asked if these 'excuses' made it 'permissable' to ignore the current recommendations.
I thought it was pretty obvious, maybe only because I did it for 20 years, that there were third parties, who were competent to do this sort of testing. I didn't think the question was asking if these services were available - however I get your point if you are trying to advise Redone, instead of me!

Sorry Wiz. A thousand pardons for trying to make you look stupid. Pressed the wrong button. You are absolutely correct. Forgive?

Nearlythere. You don't need to make me look stupid, I often do it all by myself! Nothing for me to forgive and obviously no problems

Thanks Wiz.
Next time we meet I will lend you £3 for a pint.

[Redone]

I agree with you folks, met sparky yesterday performing tests to the old standard, he told the occupant it was ok, which prompted me to ask him and on here.

Cert left on site saying test to current std performed!!!

I bet him a fiver he was out of date, he said only do what the occupant requests.

[AnthonyB]

The old test regime was the same as the current except it had additional 6 monthly tests - monthly tests have been required for a very long time.

The only previous requirement that contained less frequent testing was fire certificates which depending on the age of the certificate or the issuing brigade could be quarterly or six monthly (some more recent ones required the full BS scheme)

[Big T]

If you are unable to carry out monthly tests surely as part of your fire risk assessment you could just increase the service frequency. Surely that would be reasonable?

[AnthonyB]

&/or put an action plan to retrofit a test switch - may not be viable to put loads around the place like on new build, but many places have put them in one per floor. The time scale would need to reflect the risk - probably wouldn't be reasonable to require 'next week'.

It would be cheaper long term than have lots of extra unnecessary service visits/duration tests by contractors