7 PAT Testing Record Mistakes That Could Cost You

PAT testing records are only useful if they are accurate, complete, and maintained. Too many UK businesses pay for testing but undermine the value by keeping poor records — or no records at all.

The IET Code of Practice for In-Service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment is clear: a record of the results of inspection and testing should be kept throughout the life of the equipment. But it does not prescribe exactly how, which leaves room for mistakes.

Here are seven record-keeping errors that create real problems — and how to fix each one.

1. Not Recording Appliance Locations

What goes wrong: Your register lists "Kettle — Russell Hobbs — Passed" but not where the kettle actually is. When it is time to retest, nobody knows which kettle in which kitchen on which floor this entry refers to.

The consequence: Retests get skipped because the tester cannot find the appliance. Equipment moves between rooms or buildings and loses its place in the testing cycle. During an audit or insurance claim, you cannot demonstrate that the specific appliance in question was tested.

How to fix it: Record the location for every appliance — building, floor, room number, or desk reference. Update the location whenever equipment moves. This is the single most overlooked field in PAT registers, and it is the one that makes retesting manageable.

2. Missing Unique Identification Numbers

What goes wrong: Appliances are recorded by description only. You end up with 14 entries that say "Dell Monitor" and no way to tell which is which.

The consequence: Duplicate entries creep in. Appliances get tested twice while others get missed entirely. You cannot match a test record to the physical label on the appliance. If an appliance fails, you cannot confirm which specific unit needs attention.

How to fix it: Assign a unique asset ID to every appliance and label it with that number. The label on the appliance must match the entry in your register. Sequential numbering works fine — PAT001, PAT002, and so on. The format matters less than the consistency.

For guidance on setting up a proper register structure, use the PAT register template generator.

3. Only Recording Pass Results

What goes wrong: The tester records appliances that pass but does not log failures. The register shows a clean sheet, but there is no record of what failed, when it failed, or what action was taken.

The consequence: You lose the ability to demonstrate due diligence. Under the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, employers must maintain electrical equipment to prevent danger. If a failed appliance causes an incident and your records show no history of failures being identified and addressed, that is a problem.

Fail records also reveal patterns. If a particular model or brand fails repeatedly, that information helps you make better purchasing decisions.

How to fix it: Record every test result — pass and fail. For failures, add: what failed (visual, earth continuity, insulation resistance), what action was taken (repaired, withdrawn, disposed), and the date of that action. A complete record of identified and managed faults is stronger evidence of good practice than a spotless pass record.

4. No Retest Date Field

What goes wrong: The register records the test date but not when the next test is due. Retesting relies on someone remembering to check the register, calculate intervals, and chase up testing.

The consequence: Retests get missed. By the time someone notices, appliances are months or years overdue. The gap in your testing cycle is exactly the kind of thing an insurer or HSE inspector will flag.

How to fix it: Every test entry should include a "next test due" date calculated from the test date and the assigned frequency. This is the field that turns a historical log into a management tool. Review overdue retests monthly at minimum.

5. Inconsistent Testing Frequencies

What goes wrong: Everything gets tested on the same schedule — usually annually — regardless of risk. A desktop PC that sits untouched on a desk gets the same testing frequency as a kettle used 40 times a day.

The consequence: You either over-test low-risk equipment (wasting time and money) or under-test high-risk equipment (creating genuine safety gaps). Neither approach demonstrates a risk-based system, which is what the IET Code of Practice recommends.

The IET Code of Practice is explicit that testing intervals should be based on the type of equipment, its environment, and how it is used. A blanket annual schedule ignores all three factors.

How to fix it: Classify appliances by type and environment, then assign frequencies accordingly. IT equipment in an office might be tested every 48 months. Handheld tools in a workshop might need testing every 6 months. Extension leads in public areas might be annual. Adjust based on your own failure data over time.

For more detail on appropriate frequencies, see our PAT testing frequency guide.

6. Not Keeping Records of Disposed Appliances

What goes wrong: When an appliance is thrown away or replaced, its entry gets deleted from the register. The register only shows currently active equipment.

The consequence: An audit trail gap. If someone asks about testing history for an appliance that has since been disposed of, you have no record. If there is an incident investigation relating to equipment that was in use 18 months ago and has since been replaced, you need to show it was tested during its working life.

The IET Code of Practice states that records should be kept throughout the life of the equipment. Deleting entries for disposed items shortens that record.

How to fix it: Never delete register entries. Mark disposed appliances as "withdrawn" or "disposed" with the date and reason. Archive them separately if you want a clean active register, but keep the historical data accessible.

7. Relying on a Single Person's Knowledge

What goes wrong: One person — usually the office manager or facilities lead — manages the entire PAT register in their head or in a personal spreadsheet. The system works fine until they go on holiday, change roles, or leave the company.

The consequence: When that person is unavailable, nobody knows which appliances are due for testing, where the records are stored, or what the testing schedule looks like. The handover is either chaotic or nonexistent. Months of testing can be missed during transitions.

How to fix it: Store your register in a shared, accessible location. Document the process: who tests, who records, when reviews happen, where records are kept. Make sure at least two people understand the system and can manage it independently.

For a deeper comparison of spreadsheet versus dedicated software approaches, see our article on PAT register templates versus software.

The Common Thread

Every one of these mistakes comes down to the same problem: treating PAT testing records as a box-ticking exercise rather than an active management tool.

Good records do three things. They tell you what has been tested. They tell you what needs testing next. And they give you a defensible audit trail if something goes wrong.

If your current system makes any of these seven mistakes, start by fixing the most critical gap first. For most businesses, that is adding unique IDs and locations to every entry — because without those, the rest of your data is hard to act on.

For a foundation-level overview of what PAT testing involves, see our guide to PAT testing records.

Build Records That Actually Work

PATvault is designed to prevent every one of these mistakes. Mandatory fields for asset IDs and locations. Automatic retest date calculation. Full history — including failures and disposals — that never gets deleted. And shared access so your records do not live in one person's head.

Join the PATvault waitlist to get early access when we launch.