PATesting

PATesting Compliance When we took over on the first of October, we had so much to do that we initially never considered whether the portable appliance testing (PAT) had been conducted? and; was it up to date? was this part of the council's leaving strategy. The council granted us a license to operate under what they referred to as FR Insurance. We pay this insurance to continue our operations with full risk coverage the council dealt with their insurance company, we dealt with ours But pay for both thess insurance`s, As a small group of busy unpaid volunteers, we found ourselves overwhelmed with tasks and compliance requirements during that time. We deserve a big PAT (pun intended) on the back for getting through the first six months, which seemed to the groups that use the hub like a seamless transition from council to community management. We couldn’t anticipate every detail during the takeover period, especially since we received no instructions from the former management team regarding operational staff competency, training routines, or duties. Each day brought new challenges, and new questions arose all the time—like when the PATesting was last conducted. Although we couldn't remember the exact question or who asked it, we knew we needed to find the answers and figure out how to pay for the testing? or if indeed it was truly required? This process was complex, with some claiming that the PAT procedure was not a legal requirement. We were uncertain if it was mandated by our insurance or governmental regulations. If it was a requirement, then the council should have ensured it was completed before their departure. There are various regulations regarding health and safety risk management assessments: some are legally mandated, some are guidelines, and others are simply recommended best practices.

We discovered that some routines and equipment were outdated and unnecessary. Initially, we had no clear understanding of where portable appliance testing compliance stood within governmental guidelines or mandatory laws for licensed public operations. We quickly realized we were not alone in our lack of knowledge; some inherited items were already out of date, meaning we may have signed an insurance policy that was potentially void from the start. Among our countless tasks, we prioritized obtaining compliance information and securing quotes for someone to conduct the PATesting. This was not an easy task, as we found it challenging to locate individuals willing to perform the service for payment. We had assumed that this would be something we needed to establish as a routine, but we didn’t realize how quickly it would become necessary. a volunteer had sourced one quote for testing, but we had limited funds then and our robust purchasing policy meant we would have had to check if it was an expense, A- we either did not have to waste money on? or B -Was it something we could do ourselves? Fortunately, our fund raising team included the purchase of a PAT testing machine as part of the capital equipment grant funding provided by the District Council. We secured the machine, but initially had no volunteers to operate it. The ones who did volunteer—the sustainability manager and the bookings coordinator—were already overwhelmed with their own responsibilities and did not want to pay even more money out their pockets towards certification costs. However, the sustainability manager, had signed the hub up with Circular Economy Scotland, which granted funds to pay for two people to complete online certifications for volunteers. Initially, we had two volunteers willing to take this on, but it eventually came down to one from Polmont Community Council. He stepped up, completed the training, and tested all our devices, ensuring we were fully compliant with PAT requirements, regardless of whether they are just guidelines. Or best practice, from industry knowledge the head of our HSE department knows that cost is something you can take into consideration in a risk assesment Now, our hub is all PATesting up to date, and as a bonus, this task was all done at zero financial cost to our charity, and we have an additional tool in our growing tool library The testing machine is now part of our sharing library, but we are unsure if we should allow our technician, who wishes to share this skill and equipment to other community assets. Our small group of volunteers is extremely grateful for the time he dedicates to us, but sharing his skills with other centers would detract from the valuable work he already does in this community, always without recognition. He deserves much more acknowledgment for his contributions, but he never asks for it. Perhaps if we share him and our device with another center, they could reciprocate by providing someone with a different set of skills we could utilize. Like someone to help us in our garden or help organise our events

Insurance companies are well-versed in risk management and hazard perception, which is fundamental to their business model. Essentially, they are engaged in a global game of balancing risks against hazards, effectively gambling on human life. To proceed with any task or operation, a thorough risk assessment must be conducted to lower risks to what is known as "as low as reasonably practicable." Once hazards are identified and assessed using a hierarchy of controls, measures should be taken to eliminate or manage these hazards to safeguard human life. Insurance companies allow for risks to be controlled to a level that is deemed financially viable. If removing a hazard is too expensive, companies may continue to operate under the condition that they can prove it is not financially feasible to do so. Morally, this creates a system where waste and environmental harm are considered cost-effective. This mindset must change. We need to reassess our approach to waste and environmental damage, aiming to make it less expensive to prevent waste. Currently, the financial system incentivizes waste creation and environmental vandalism, driven by insurance companies and government policies that prioritize corporate financial stability over sustainability. Our charity's compliance with PAT testing has significantly reduced our electrical fire hazard to ASARP (As Safe As Reasonably Practicable). This level of safeguarding goes well beyond what is typically required in every home in the UK, all of which are also insurable. Insurance companies and governmental bodies insist that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) like ours bear the financial and time-consuming burden of compliance. However, this is not required for private homes. This discrepancy indicates a level of bureaucracy that fails to consider the struggles of small organizations that cannot afford professional help. These SMEs are being pushed into impractical systems that should only be regarded as best practice, rather than mandatory. While we are now fully compliant, it's important to note that there are over 5 million SMEs in the UK facing similar challenges. If all these businesses are required to purchase their own equipment and train their stretched staff or volunteers, there is a real concern about how many of them will manage to remain operational during this transition toward net zero. Additionally, unhelpful legislation threatens to financially strain these businesses, resulting in communities losing valuable assets due to expensive, wasteful,impractical or unmanageable requirements.