What must a LOLER report contain? The eleven Schedule 1 particulars
Schedule 1 of LOLER 1998 enumerates eleven particulars a report of thorough examination must contain. Each one in statutory order, what it means in practice, how it goes missing, and why a report short of one does not satisfy Regulation 10 even when the examination was done correctly.
By Hovermarks team
Quick answer. Schedule 1 to the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 lists eleven particulars that a report of thorough examination must contain. Ten are unconditional. One element, the date of manufacture inside particular 3, is qualified in the statute as "where known". A report that omits a required particular does not satisfy Regulation 10 even where the examination itself was carried out properly by a competent person, because the regulation requires the report, not merely the examination.
Duty holders tend to treat the report as paperwork that follows the real work. The regulation does not see it that way. Regulation 10 requires the competent person to make a report containing the Schedule 1 information, and a document short of one of those particulars is not that report. The examination can have been faultless and the position is the same.
This is the full list, in the order Schedule 1 gives it, with what each one means on a real record and the way it most often goes missing. Everything below is taken from the statute itself.
The eleven particulars
1. The name and address of the employer for whom the thorough examination was made
Whose equipment, in law. Goes missing when a report is written against a site name or a trading name rather than the employer as a legal entity. On multi-tenanted sites and hired plant this is the particular most often recorded loosely.
2. The address of the premises at which the thorough examination was made
Where the examination happened, which for mobile equipment is not the same as where the equipment lives. Goes missing when a template carries the examining company's own address by default.
3. Particulars sufficient to identify the lifting equipment including where known its date of manufacture
Enough to identify this machine or accessory and no other: typically make, model and serial number. Note the statutory qualification: date of manufacture is required where known. It is the one particular that can legitimately be absent, and a report is not defective for omitting it on a sling of unknown vintage. Everything else in the identification must be sufficient on its own.
4. The date of the last thorough examination
The previous examination, which anchors the interval. Goes missing on first examinations under a new duty holder, where the history sits with the previous owner or the previous contractor and nobody chased it.
5. The safe working load of the lifting equipment or (where its safe working load depends on the configuration of the lifting equipment) its safe working load for the last configuration in which it was thoroughly examined
One SWL for simple equipment. For configurable equipment, the SWL for the configuration actually examined, which is why a crane report that states a single figure for a machine with a fly jib is incomplete rather than merely brief.
6. In relation to the first thorough examination of lifting equipment after installation or after assembly at a new site or in a new location, that it is such thorough examination and (if such be the case) that it has been installed correctly and would be safe to operate
The first-examination statement. Two things at once: that this is a first examination of that kind, and the installation opinion. Applies every time a tower crane is erected or equipment is assembled somewhere new, not only when it is new.
7. In relation to a thorough examination of lifting equipment other than a thorough examination to which paragraph 6 above relates, whether it is a thorough examination within an interval of 6 months or 12 months, in accordance with an examination scheme, or after the occurrence of exceptional circumstances
Which kind of periodic examination this was. The four routes are the statutory ones: the 6-month interval, the 12-month interval, an examination scheme, or exceptional circumstances. A report that does not say which route it sits on leaves the reader unable to judge whether the equipment is in date.
8. The defect, remedy, next-examination and testing particulars, in six sub-paragraphs
Particular 8 is where most incomplete reports fail, because it is not one requirement but six, lettered (a) to (f) in the Schedule:
- (a) identification of any part found to have a defect which is or could become a danger to persons, and a description of the defect
- (b) particulars of any repair, renewal or alteration required to remedy a defect found to be a danger to persons
- (c) in the case of a defect which is not yet but could become a danger to persons: (i) the time by which it could become such a danger, and (ii) particulars of any repair, renewal or alteration required to remedy it
- (d) the latest date by which the next thorough examination must be carried out
- (e) where the thorough examination included testing, particulars of any test
- (f) the date of the thorough examination
Sub-paragraph (c) is the one most often missed, and it asks for two things about a defect that is not dangerous yet: the time by which it could become a danger, and what would remedy it. A note reading "monitor wear at next visit" satisfies neither. Note also that (f), the date of the examination, is a different particular from 11, the date of the report. They are often the same day, and the Schedule still asks for both.
9. The name, address and qualifications of the person making the report; that he is self-employed or, if employed, the name and address of his employer
Who examined the equipment, their qualifications, and their employment position. This is attribution the regulation asks for by name, and a report signed only with a company name does not carry it.
10. The name and address of a person signing or authenticating the report on behalf of its author
Who signed it, where that differs from who made it. Common in inspection companies where a surveyor examines and an authorised signatory issues.
11. The date of the report
When the report was made, which is distinct from the date of examination.
The safe-to-operate opinion itself is carried by particular 6 for first examinations after installation or assembly. On a periodic examination, what particular 8 records under (a) and (b) is the equivalent statement, and it is the one the rest of the document cannot contradict: a report identifying a defect that is a danger to persons cannot also declare the equipment safe to operate.
The intervals, since particular 7 depends on them
Regulation 9 sets the periodic intervals for equipment not under an examination scheme: at least every 6 months for lifting equipment used to lift persons and for lifting accessories, and at least every 12 months for other lifting equipment. Equipment can instead be examined in accordance with an examination scheme drawn up by a competent person, and in every case a thorough examination is required after exceptional circumstances liable to jeopardise safety. Those are the four routes particular 7 asks you to identify.
Why an incomplete report is worse than a late one
A late examination is a known gap. Everyone can see it, and it can be closed. An incomplete report is a document that looks like compliance and is not: it sits in the file, satisfies a spot check, and fails at the moment someone reads it properly, which is usually after an incident. The duty holder believed they held a valid report the entire time.
That is why the report is worth validating at the point of issue rather than at the point of audit. If a particular is missing, the useful moment to say so is while the examiner is still in front of the equipment.
What a system can and cannot guarantee
Software can guarantee that a report is complete: that every particular Schedule 1 enumerates is present, that a stated safe-to-operate opinion does not sit alongside a defect recorded as a danger to persons, and that the document reflects what is on the record rather than what someone remembered to attach.
Software cannot guarantee that the examination was competent. Whether the right things were examined, whether a defect was correctly judged, and whether the person carrying it out had the knowledge and independence the role requires, remain the competent person's professional responsibility and the duty holder's legal one. Nothing in a validator changes that, and a vendor who implies otherwise is selling reassurance rather than a tool.
Where Hovermarks fits
Hovermarks generates the LOLER Report of Thorough Examination and checks the Schedule 1 particulars it holds, refusing to issue a report where one of them is missing. Where something is missing the examiner gets a list naming each gap, the Schedule item it comes from, and where in the record to set it. On defects specifically: every defect must carry a classification, and a report will not issue where a defect that is or could become a danger to persons has no remedial action or completion date recorded against it.
One gap worth naming rather than glossing. Particular 4, the date of the last thorough examination, has no field today, so it is not among the particulars the validator checks. An examiner recording that date does so outside the structured record. It is on the list to close, and in the meantime a page that claims a clean sweep of all eleven would be claiming more than the product does.
Statutory reporting is on every paid plan. The statutory reporting page covers how the validator behaves, and the statutory reporting guide sets LOLER alongside PUWER and PSSR.