Portable Appliance Testing Requirements: What UK Law Actually Requires

The phrase "PAT testing requirements" appears in a lot of compliance literature, usually without much precision about which regulations actually create those requirements and what they specifically demand. This post covers the actual legal framework in detail.

The short version: the law requires you to keep electrical equipment safe, but it does not require you to use PAT testing as the method. Understanding this distinction is essential for building a proportionate compliance approach.

The two regulations that matter

UK employers drawing up an electrical safety programme need to work from two pieces of legislation.

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (EAWR) sets the foundational duty. Regulation 4 states that all electrical systems "shall at all times be of such construction as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger." Systems must also be maintained to prevent danger "so far as is reasonably practicable." The regulation covers all electrical equipment, including portable appliances.

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) adds a specific maintenance obligation for work equipment. Regulation 5(1) states: "Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair." Regulation 5(2) adds that where a machine has a maintenance log, that log must be kept up to date.

Portable appliances used by employees — kettles, laptops, power tools, extension leads — are work equipment under PUWER. Both regulations apply to them.

What neither regulation actually requires

Neither EAWR nor PUWER specifies that portable appliances must be PAT tested. The HSE is explicit on this point. Its published guidance states: the regulations "don't make inspection or testing of electrical appliances a legal requirement, nor do they make it a legal requirement to undertake this annually."

What the law requires is the outcome: equipment that is safe. How you achieve that outcome is a matter for the employer's risk assessment.

For most employers in typical office environments, PAT testing is one of several ways to demonstrate compliance. For others — particularly those with heavy-use portable equipment in demanding environments — it is the most defensible method. But the method is not itself mandated.

Who bears the duty

Under EAWR 1989, the duty falls on both employers and employees who have control over or use electrical equipment. An employer who provides electrical equipment and allows it to be used at work bears the primary obligation.

Under PUWER 1998, the duty falls on the employer who provides work equipment. There are some limited exceptions for self-employed workers, but the core obligation is on the employer.

This means:

An employer who buys a kettle for the office kitchen is responsible for ensuring it remains safe

A landlord who provides electrical appliances in a rental property is responsible under separate tenancy legislation (discussed in the PAT testing in rented properties guide)
A contractor who brings their own tools to a site may bear their own duty alongside any duties imposed by the site operator

What "maintaining" equipment means in practice

The regulations use the word "maintain" without prescribing a specific method. In practice, UK enforcement bodies and the courts have treated this as requiring a systematic approach proportionate to risk.

The HSE's guidance describes three types of inspection and testing that together constitute a maintenance system:

User checks — the equipment user examines the appliance before use, looking for visible damage to the cable, plug, casing, or connector
Formal visual inspection — a more systematic check by a competent person, without using test equipment
Combined inspection and testing — formal visual inspection plus electrical testing with specialist equipment (this is "PAT testing" in the strict sense)

Not every appliance needs all three. A desk lamp used in a dry, low-risk office environment may need only user checks and occasional visual inspection. A floor-standing drill used outdoors on construction sites may need regular formal inspection and frequent testing.

The key document that most UK compliance programmes refer to for guidance on appropriate intervals is the IET Code of Practice for In-Service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment (5th edition). It is not a legal requirement, but it is the sector benchmark that enforcement bodies expect employers to know.

Why record-keeping matters

The legal duty is to maintain safe equipment. Records are how you demonstrate that you have done so.

Under PUWER 1998 Regulation 5(2), if a machine has a maintenance log, that log must be kept up to date. More broadly, HSE guidance makes clear that keeping records — however you test — is what allows you to show a risk-based programme exists.

Practically, this matters in two situations:

HSE inspection: An inspector who finds electrical equipment with no maintenance history has no way to confirm compliance. A credible programme with records is the difference between a caution and an enforcement notice.
Insurance claims: Employer liability insurers routinely ask for evidence of inspection and testing when electrical faults cause injury or property damage. No records means the claim is harder to defend.

For guidance on what to record and how to structure a log, see the PAT testing log book guide.

The proportionality principle

Both EAWR and PUWER apply a "so far as is reasonably practicable" standard. This is not the same as "do whatever you can afford." It means the burden of the precaution must be proportionate to the risk.

A reasonable approach for a small office with ten laptops and a few kitchen appliances looks very different from a facilities management programme covering 500 pieces of equipment across a hospital. Both need a programme, but the appropriate intensity differs.

The most common mistake is treating the IET Code of Practice's suggested frequency tables as legal minimums when they are actually sector benchmarks. The legal minimum is a programme appropriate to your risk — which may be more or less rigorous than the IET's typical guidance suggests.

Using the compliance checker

If you are building a compliance programme and want to work out what level of inspection and testing is appropriate for your equipment, the PAT compliance checker takes you through the relevant risk factors: equipment type, environment, frequency of use, and who uses it.

The output is a recommended approach, not a legal determination — that remains a judgment call for you and any professional adviser — but it provides a structured starting point consistent with HSE guidance and IET recommendations.

For small businesses reviewing this for the first time, the PAT testing for small businesses guide covers proportionate compliance specifically for low-risk environments.

For businesses with more complex programmes, the PAT testing procedure guide covers how to set up a systematic approach.

The information in this post reflects UK law as of the date last reviewed. Regulations change. Check legislation.gov.uk for current statutory text and HSE.gov.uk for current guidance before making compliance decisions.