§ LOLER Buyer's guide
Choosing LOLER inspection software.
Eight things worth checking before you buy, the question to ask about each, and the one behaviour that separates software that produces a report from software that produces a report the regulation accepts.
Every product in this category will generate a LOLER report. That is table stakes and tells you nothing. The differences that matter show up at the edges: what happens when a required particular is missing, whether forty accessories are as well-handled as one crane, and whether anyone can verify a certificate without calling you. This guide is those edges, with the question to ask about each.
We build one of the products in this category, so read this as an informed argument rather than a neutral survey. The criteria below are the ones we would apply if we were buying, and where our own product does something differently we say so plainly rather than pretending the comparison does not exist.
Does it produce a report that satisfies Schedule 1, and does it check?
Every vendor will tell you they generate a LOLER report. The question underneath is what happens when a required particular is missing. Schedule 1 enumerates eleven, and a report short of one does not satisfy Regulation 10 even where the examination was carried out properly. Ask whether the system will issue that report anyway. Most will. The useful behaviour is refusing, and naming exactly what is missing while the examiner is still in front of the equipment.
Ask: Show me what happens when I leave a required field blank and try to issue.
Can the report contradict itself?
A report that declares equipment safe to operate while carrying a defect recorded as a danger to persons is internally inconsistent, and it is the kind of document that unravels badly after an incident. Software that treats the safe-to-operate opinion and the defect list as unrelated fields will happily produce one.
Ask: Can I mark this asset safe to operate while a danger-to-persons defect is open against it?
Are accessories first-class assets, or an afterthought?
Most LOLER failures are not the crane. They are the forty slings, shackles, chains and eyebolts under the hook, each on a 6-month cycle, each needing its own identity and its own examination record. A system built around machines with accessories as a sub-list will lose them. Ask how an individual sling is identified, scheduled and reported on.
Ask: How does a single shackle get its own record, its own next-due date, and its own report?
Does interval handling match the regulation, including schemes?
Regulation 9 gives four routes: 6 months for equipment used to lift persons and for accessories, 12 months for other lifting equipment, examination in accordance with a written scheme drawn up by a competent person, or after exceptional circumstances. Software that only understands 6 and 12 cannot represent a fleet running on a scheme, which is common in hire and high-duty environments.
Ask: Can different assets run on different cycles, including one set by a written scheme?
What does offline actually mean here?
Basements, plant rooms and remote sites have no signal, so this matters. But offline is a spectrum. Some systems cache a form and lose the photos; some need the app opened online that morning; some queue everything locally and drain when signal returns. Ask about the whole journey rather than the word.
Ask: Cold device, no signal, three examinations with photos, then back to the office. What survives?
Can a third party verify a certificate without you?
An insurer, an HSE inspector or a client asking whether a certificate is genuine should not have to phone you. If verification depends on your office confirming it, you are the bottleneck and the PDF proves nothing on its own. A hash and a public verification URL is the standard worth holding out for.
Ask: Can someone with only the PDF confirm it matches the live record, with no login?
Whose data is it, and can you leave with it?
Asset registers and examination histories accumulate for years and outlast software decisions. Export in an open format is the difference between changing systems and starting again. Ask what comes out, in what format, and whether it includes the evidence rather than just the rows.
Ask: Export everything today. What file do I get, and are the photos and certificates in it?
What does it cost when the team grows?
Per-seat pricing is not automatically worse than a flat fee, but the two behave very differently as headcount changes, and the honest comparison depends on your shape. Count who genuinely needs to create records, then check whether the people who only view reports, scan a tag, or report a fault consume a licence. On some systems they do.
Ask: Who consumes a paid seat? Does a customer viewing their own certificate need one?
The one behaviour worth insisting on
If you take one thing from this guide, take criterion 01. A report missing a Schedule 1 particular does not satisfy Regulation 10, and it fails silently: it looks like a valid record, sits in the file, passes a spot check, and only comes apart when somebody reads it against the regulation, which is usually after an incident. Software that issues it anyway has produced a document that looks like assurance and is not. Software that refuses, and names the gap while the examiner is still at the equipment, has turned a compliance failure into a two-minute task.
Hovermarks refuses. The statutory reporting page covers exactly how, including the defect and remedy-date rules, and names the one particular the validator does not yet check.
Frequently asked questions
- What should LOLER inspection software do that a spreadsheet cannot?
- Three things a spreadsheet structurally cannot do: hold the evidence (photos, signatures) attached to the record rather than somewhere else, track a next-due date per asset across hundreds of accessories on differing cycles, and produce a report that is checked against Schedule 1 before it is issued. A spreadsheet will record whatever is typed into it, including a report missing a particular the regulation requires.
- Does LOLER software make my organisation compliant?
- No, and treat any vendor claiming otherwise with caution. Software can make the record defensible: complete against Schedule 1, attributed to the person who made it, tamper-evident, and consistent with its own findings. Whether the examination was adequate, and whether the person carrying it out was a competent person within the meaning of the regulations, stays with the examiner and the duty holder.
- What are the eleven Schedule 1 particulars?
- The employer's name and address; the address of the premises examined; particulars identifying the equipment including its date of manufacture where known; the date of the last thorough examination; the safe working load, per configuration where it varies; for first examinations, a statement that it is one and that the equipment is installed correctly and safe to operate; for periodic examinations, which of the 6-month, 12-month, scheme or exceptional-circumstances routes applies; the defect, remedy, next-examination and testing particulars in six sub-paragraphs; the name, address and qualifications of the person making the report and their employment position; the name and address of anyone signing on their behalf; and the date of the report.
- How often must lifting equipment be thoroughly examined?
- Under Regulation 9, 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 a written scheme of examination drawn up by a competent person, and in every case a thorough examination is required after exceptional circumstances liable to jeopardise safety.
- Does the software need to handle PUWER and PSSR too?
- It depends on your estate. A site with lifting equipment, work equipment and pressure systems carries three different record duties: LOLER's Schedule 1 report, PUWER Regulation 6's recorded inspection with no prescribed contents, and PSSR's report of examination against a written scheme. If one system holds all three, the asset register is shared and the scheduling is one job rather than three.
- What should I ask about offline capability specifically?
- Ask about the full journey rather than the feature: opening a cold device with no signal, completing several examinations with photographs and signatures, and returning to connectivity hours later. The answers that matter are whether the checklist loads without signal, whether photographs are held locally at full fidelity, and whether the sync can double-submit.
Try it against your own equipment
The fastest way to test criteria 01 and 02 is to tag one asset, run an examination, and leave a required field blank on purpose. Fourteen days, no card.
Related: statutory reporting guide, the eleven Schedule 1 particulars, LOLER inspection guide, lifting equipment solution.
Stop chasing paperwork.
Start proving compliance.
Tag your first asset, run your first inspection, and pull a signed evidence pack, all on your free 14-day trial. No credit card required.
Looking for textile product passports rather than asset inspections? That is a different product from a separate brand, See Filovera →