LOLER Compliance: Control Lifting Risks at Site

LOLER compliance depends on planned examinations, clear records and safe daily use. Build a lifting-operation workflow that stands up to scrutiny at audit.

A lifting accessory with no current examination report is not a small paperwork gap. It can stop a job, expose people to a serious risk and leave the organisation unable to demonstrate control after an incident. LOLER compliance is therefore not a calendar exercise. It is the operating discipline behind every lift, every item of equipment and every decision to put it into service.

For facilities, safety and operations teams, the challenge is rarely a lack of intent. It is fragmented evidence. Certificates sit in inboxes, asset details live in spreadsheets, defects are reported verbally and site teams cannot always see whether an item is safe to use. A controlled workflow brings those moving parts together.

What LOLER compliance requires

The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 apply to lifting equipment used at work. Their purpose is straightforward: lifting operations must be properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out safely by competent people. Equipment must be strong and stable enough for its intended use, clearly marked where necessary, and subject to suitable examination and inspection.

This reaches beyond cranes and hoists. Depending on how they are used, relevant equipment can include passenger lifts, forklift attachments, mobile elevated work platforms, slings, chains, shackles, lifting beams, goods lifts and workplace lifting aids. The right scope depends on the equipment’s function, its operating environment and whether it is being used to lift or lower a load.

LOLER also sits alongside other duties. PUWER covers the suitability, maintenance and safe use of work equipment more broadly. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 requires employers to protect people affected by their work. A lifting asset may therefore need controls under several requirements at once. Treating each regulation as a separate filing exercise creates duplication and blind spots. Treating the asset, its risks, its checks and its evidence as one controlled record is more effective.

Thorough examination is not routine maintenance

A common failure is to treat a thorough examination certificate as proof that an asset has been maintained and remains safe in every circumstance. It is not. Thorough examination is a formal examination by a competent person at specified intervals or in accordance with a written examination scheme. Maintenance is the ongoing work required to keep equipment in safe working order. Pre-use checks are the practical checks that catch issues before a lift begins.

Learn MoreFlexible FormsHow pre-use checks are captured as structured checklists, so the evidence sits with the equipment before the lift begins.

All three matter, and they produce different evidence.

As a general rule, lifting equipment used to lift people requires thorough examination at least every six months. Lifting accessories also normally require examination at least every six months. Other lifting equipment is normally examined at least every 12 months. A written scheme of examination can set a different interval where it is appropriate to the equipment and risk profile.

These are not simply renewal dates to copy into a diary. An interval must reflect the equipment, duty cycle, environment, history of defects and manufacturer information. A chain sling used heavily in corrosive conditions needs a different level of attention from a lightly used lifting beam kept in a controlled workshop.

A competent person must carry out the thorough examination. They need the practical and technical knowledge to identify defects, assess their significance and make a sound judgement. They must also be sufficiently independent and impartial. Where the examiner identifies a defect involving an existing or imminent risk of serious personal injury, the reporting process must support immediate action. The equipment may need to be removed from service before the next job, not when an administrator eventually reads the report.

Build LOLER compliance around the asset lifecycle

Control starts with a complete, reliable asset register. Every relevant item should have a unique identity, clear location, responsible owner, equipment type, safe working load where applicable, date of last examination, due date, report and current status. For accessories, identification must be practical at the point of use, even where the item moves between vehicles, stores and sites.

The register must be usable by the people doing the work. If a supervisor finds an unlabelled sling or a forklift attachment with no visible record, they need a simple route to confirm its status or quarantine it. QR-linked asset records can make that decision faster: scan the code, view the examination record, complete a check or raise a defect against the right asset.

Learn MorePremises & Asset ManagementHow a scan on the accessory opens its examination record, so status is clear before the next lift.

From there, the workflow should connect five operational controls:

• planned examination dates and escalating reminders;
• pre-use and periodic inspection forms appropriate to the equipment;
• defect reporting, triage and repair actions;
• lifting plans, risk assessments and method statements for the operation; and
• evidence of competence, briefing and contractor control.

The value is in the connection. A defect should not remain as a note on a form while the asset still shows as available. A failed examination should change status, notify the accountable person and create a traceable corrective action. Once repaired, the record should show who authorised return to service, what evidence was reviewed and whether another examination was required.

Plan the lift, not just the equipment

A valid certificate does not make every lift safe. The operation itself must be planned. The complexity of that plan depends on the lift.

A routine, low-risk lift using familiar equipment may need a proportionate documented method, competent operators and routine checks. A complex lift near occupied areas, overhead services, public access routes or fragile surfaces may require a detailed lifting plan, defined exclusion zones, appointed roles, communications arrangements, ground-bearing checks and contingency measures.

The planned lift should answer practical questions. What is the actual load weight? Is the centre of gravity known? Is the chosen accessory suitable for the sling angle and configuration? What is the safe working load after those factors are considered? Where will people stand? What happens if the route changes, weather deteriorates or the load cannot be landed as planned?

This is where generic risk assessments fail. A document that names “lifting operations” but does not reflect the load, location, equipment and people involved will offer little protection in the field or under investigation. Site-specific controls matter, particularly where contractors are involved or work is taking place in a live building.

Learn MoreRisk Assessments & HazardsHow a lifting assessment holds the load, equipment, location and controls for that operation, not a generic template.

Make responsibility visible across sites

Multi-site teams often know their legal duties but struggle with ownership. One site assumes the central team books examinations. Central teams assume the local manager checks equipment. Contractors arrive with equipment, but no one confirms its status before use.

A clear responsibility model removes that ambiguity. The asset owner keeps information current. The site team completes local checks and isolates unsafe equipment. The competent person performs examinations. The facilities or compliance team oversees due dates, exceptions and corrective actions. Senior leaders review performance, recurring defects and overdue risks.

The system should show this without requiring a monthly evidence chase. A live dashboard can identify assets approaching their due date, overdue actions, quarantined equipment and sites with missing checks. That changes compliance management from retrospective reporting to early intervention.

Contractor controls deserve particular attention. Before a contractor brings lifting equipment onto site, establish what evidence is needed, who checks it and what happens if documentation is absent or expired. For long-term contractor activity, maintain a record of equipment, examination status, operator competence and relevant induction or permit requirements. The objective is not to duplicate every contractor record. It is to demonstrate that the organisation has applied proportionate control to work taking place on its premises.

Records should prove action, not merely existence

During an audit or investigation, the question is seldom whether a policy existed. It is whether the organisation knew what equipment it had, acted on known defects and could prove that controls were applied when work took place.

Useful LOLER evidence includes examination reports, inspection records, defect histories, maintenance actions, lifting plans, risk assessments, training records and asset status changes. It should be clear, dated, attributable and easy to retrieve. Version control matters for procedures and risk assessments; an approver should be able to see which version was in force at the time of a lift.

This is where disconnected tools create unnecessary exposure. A spreadsheet may contain the due date, a shared drive may contain the certificate and a maintenance system may hold the repair history, yet nobody has a complete view. CalmCompliance brings asset records, planned work, forms, corrective actions, documents and training evidence into one operational trail. The evidence assembles itself as the work is completed.

The practical test of control

Ask a simple question at site level: if a team member finds an accessory, can they identify it, confirm whether it is in date, see its safe working load, report a fault and prevent use if necessary? If the answer depends on ringing three people or searching several folders, the process is fragile.

Effective control makes the safe decision the easy decision. It gives frontline teams clear checks, gives managers live exceptions to act on and gives the organisation defensible proof when scrutiny arrives. That is the standard worth building towards: not compliance stored somewhere, but safe lifting work that can be seen, managed and proven every day.