What is PUWER?

PUWER stands for the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. It is UK legislation that requires employers to ensure all work equipment is safe, suitable, and properly maintained.

• Purpose: To protect workers by setting standards for the safe use of machinery,  tools, and equipment in the workplace.
• Scope: Applies to all work equipment used by employees, including:

o Machinery (e.g., drills, presses, conveyors)

o Hand tools (powered and non‑powered)

o Lifting equipment (though LOLER also applies here)

o Mobile work equipment (forklifts, tractors, vehicles)

o Any equipment provided for use at work

Employer Duties Under PUWER

Employers must ensure that:

• Equipment is suitable for the task and environment.
• Equipment is safe to use and maintained in good condition.
• Inspections are carried out at appropriate intervals by a competent person.
• Risks are controlled through safeguards (guards, emergency stops, protective devices).
• Training and information are provided so workers know how to use equipment safely.
• Mobile equipment (like forklifts) has additional requirements such as roll‑over      protection and seat restraints.

Our geotechnical engineering services include soil and rock mechanics, slope stability analysis, and foundation design. We use the latest technology and software to ensure your project is safe, reliable, and cost-effective.

• Legal Requirement: Breach of PUWER is a criminal offence, enforceable by the HSE.
• Safety Assurance: Prevents accidents caused by unsafe or unsuitable equipment.
• Industry Impact: Applies across all sectors — manufacturing, construction,      healthcare, agriculture, offices, and more.

Example

• A factory using a metal press must ensure it has proper guarding, is regularly inspected, and operators are trained.
• A warehouse using forklifts must ensure they are maintained, fitted with safety features, and drivers are competent.

In short: PUWER ensures that any equipment used at work is safe, suitable, maintained, and used by trained staff.

 Yes, PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998) requires that work equipment is inspected at suitable intervals to ensure it is safe to use.

PUWER Inspection Requirements

• General Rule:
  • All work equipment must be maintained in a safe condition and inspected where       necessary to ensure risks are controlled.
• When Inspections Are Required:
  • After installation and before first use (to confirm correct setup and safety).
  • After assembly at a new site/location (e.g., mobile equipment moved to a       new workplace).
  • At regular intervals during use, based on risk assessment and       manufacturer’s guidance.
  • After exceptional circumstances (e.g., accidents, modifications, or damage).

· Competent Person:

· Inspections must be carried out by someone with the necessary knowledge and experience to identify defects.

· Record Keeping:

Legal Duty

· Employers must ensure equipment is:

o Suitable for the task.

o Safe to use.

o Inspected and maintained properly.

· Failure to inspect can lead to HSE enforcement, fines, or prosecution if unsafe equipment causes harm.

· A record of inspections must be kept until the next inspection, and for mobile equipment, a copy must be kept with the equipment.

Under PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998), you can inspect your own equipment — but only if you are considered a competent person for that type of equipment.

What PUWER Requires

• Inspections must be carried out by a competent person — someone with the right      knowledge, training, and experience to identify defects and judge whether      equipment is safe.
• Employers can appoint internal staff to carry out inspections, provided they are      competent and impartial.
• Records must be kept of inspections until the next one, and for mobile equipment, a copy must travel with the equipment.

Can You Inspect Your Own Equipment Summary

• ✅ Yes, if you are competent:
  • You understand the equipment’s design, operation, and risks.
  • You can spot wear, damage, or unsafe modifications.
  • You can assess whether it remains safe to use.
• ❌ No, if you lack competence:
  • If you don’t have the technical knowledge or experience, you must use an       external competent person (e.g., an inspection engineer).
• Independence matters: For high‑risk equipment, it’s often better to use external      inspectors to avoid conflicts of interest.

Example

• A forklift truck: You could carry out daily pre‑use checks (brakes, hydraulics, tyres) if trained, but the formal PUWER inspection may need a qualified engineer.
• A bench grinder: If you’re trained in safe use and inspection, you can check guards, wheels, and emergency stops yourself.

If you don’t have your PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998) equipment inspected, Lee, the consequences can be serious both legally and practically.

Legal Consequences

• Criminal Offence: PUWER requires employers to ensure equipment is safe and      inspected where necessary. Failure to do so is a breach of UK law.
• HSE Enforcement: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) can issue Improvement      Notices or Prohibition Notices, stopping the use of unsafe equipment      immediately.
• Fines & Prosecution: Courts can impose unlimited fines and even custodial      sentences if unsafe equipment causes harm.
• Insurance Issues: Insurers may refuse claims if inspection records are missing or      equipment was not maintained.

🏭 Safety Consequences

• Accidents & Injuries: Uninspected equipment may have hidden defects (e.g., worn      brakes, faulty guards, damaged electrics) leading to serious accidents.
• Fatalities: Machinery failures can cause life‑changing injuries or deaths.
• Workplace Shutdowns: Unsafe equipment can halt production or operations until      compliance is proven.

📋 Practical Impact

• Reputation Damage: Non‑compliance harms trust with employees, clients, and regulators.
• Personal Liability: Managers and directors can be held personally accountable for negligence.
• Operational Costs: Emergency repairs, fines, and compensation claims can far exceed      the cost of regular inspections.

Example

• A warehouse using forklifts without PUWER inspections risks brake or      hydraulic failure.
• If  an accident occurs, the company could face prosecution, fines, and      reputational damage.

In short: Failing to inspect PUWER equipment risks accidents, criminal prosecution, unlimited fines, insurance problems, and workplace shutdowns.

Several real-world UK case studies show the consequences of failing to inspect or maintain equipment under PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998). These incidents often involve unguarded machinery or unsafe equipment, leading to serious injuries and heavy fines.

 In October 2023, a 20‑year‑old worker at LP Ollier & Son’s potato farm in Cheshire suffered severe leg injuries after being pulled into a potato harvester while clearing a blockage. The farm was fined £20,000 after HSE found the machine’s guard gates were open and the “safe stop” procedure had not been followed 

• Date: 18 October 2023
• Location: Potato farm near Knutsford, Cheshire
• Incident: Worker assessing a blockage in a potato harvester was caught by the roller mechanism.
• Injuries: Crushing, fractures, nerve damage, and severe skin trauma to the right leg.
• Impact: The worker has been unable to return to agricultural work since the incident.

Legal Outcome:

• Farming partnership fined £20,000.
• HSE investigation revealed guard gates were open and the machine had not been isolated.
• Breach of safe working practices under PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations).

• PUWER 1998: Requires machinery to be safe, with guards in place and isolation procedures followed.
• Safe Stop Procedure: Operators must switch off power, remove keys, and isolate energy sources before clearing blockages.
• HSE Findings: Failure to enforce safe stop and guarding directly caused the accident.

 Lessons Learned 

• Never clear blockages on live machinery: Isolation and lock‑off are essential.
• Guarding must remain in place: Open or bypassed guards expose workers to entrapment hazards.
• Training & supervision: Young and inexperienced workers are especially vulnerable without clear instruction.
• Agriculture risk profile: Farming remains one of the UK’s most dangerous industries, with high rates of machinery injuries.

 Practical Takeaways for Safety Managers 

• Embed safe stop procedures into training and daily operations.
• Audit machinery to ensure guards are intact and functional.
• Maintain a PUWER compliance checklist for all agricultural equipment.
• Provide refresher training before harvest season when machinery use peaks.
• Treat near‑misses and minor entrapments as red flags for systemic failings.

 In short: This case shows how ignoring PUWER requirements and safe stop procedures can lead to devastating injuries and prosecution. For you, Lee, the key is to operationalize PUWER compliance frameworks and reinforce safe stop culture across all equipment operations. 

Bottle Filling Machine Accident (Reckitt Benckiser)

This case highlights how failures in machine safety and guarding under PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998) can lead to serious injuries and prosecution.

• Company: Reckitt Benckiser (UK manufacturer of household and healthcare products)
• Incident: A worker was injured while operating a bottle filling machine.
• Cause:
  
• Inadequate guarding on the filling machine.
• Unsafe access to moving parts during operation.
• Lack of effective risk assessment and safe system of work.
• Injuries: Worker sustained serious hand injuries when caught in the moving mechanism.

Legal Outcome:

• Reckitt Benckiser was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
• The company was fined (reported cases range from £200,000–£300,000) for breaches of PUWER and the Health and Safety at Work Act.

• PUWER 1998: Requires machinery to be safe, with effective guarding and isolation procedures.
• Risk Assessment: Employers must identify hazards from moving parts and implement controls.
• HSE Findings: The accident was preventable had proper guarding and safe systems of work been in place.

 Lessons Learned 

• Guarding is non-negotiable: All moving parts must be physically guarded to prevent entrapment.
• Safe systems of work: Operators should never access machinery while it is running.
• Training & supervision: Workers must be trained to follow lock-off/isolation procedures.
• Maintenance oversight: Safety features must be checked regularly to ensure they remain effective.

 Practical Takeaways for Safety Managers 

• Audit all machinery under PUWER for guarding, isolation, and emergency stop functions.
• Implement a machine safety checklist for daily operator use.
• Train staff in lock-off/tag-out procedures before maintenance or clearing blockages.
• Record and investigate near-misses to identify systemic failings.
• Integrate machine safety into your compliance calendar alongside LOLER, COSHH, WAHR, and PSSR.

 In short: The Reckitt Benckiser bottle filling machine accident shows how inadequate guarding and poor PUWER compliance can lead to severe injuries and heavy fines. For you, Lee, the lesson is to embed robust machine safety audits and operator training into your compliance frameworks. 

Animal Feed Manufacturer Fined £500,000

This case highlights how failures in machine safety and guarding under PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998) can lead to devastating injuries and major fines.

• Company: A UK animal feed manufacturer (Bowman Ingredients Ltd, Hertfordshire – prosecuted 2021).
• Incident: A worker’s hand was drawn into a moving conveyor belt while cleaning.
• Injuries: Severe crush injuries, permanent damage to hand and fingers.
• Cause:
  
• Conveyor lacked adequate guarding.
• No safe system of work for cleaning machinery.
• Risk assessments failed to identify entrapment hazards.

Legal Outcome:

• Company fined £500,000 plus costs.
• Prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
• Breach of PUWER and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

 Regulatory Context 

• PUWER 1998: Requires machinery to be safe, with effective guarding and isolation procedures.
• Risk Assessment: Employers must identify hazards from moving parts and implement controls.
• HSE Findings: The accident was entirely preventable had proper guarding and safe systems of work been in place.

 Lessons Learned 

• Guarding is essential: All conveyors and moving parts must be physically guarded to prevent entrapment.
• Safe systems of work: Cleaning and maintenance must only occur when machinery is isolated and locked off.
• Training & supervision: Workers must be trained to follow safe stop/lock-off procedures.
• Maintenance oversight: Safety features must be checked regularly to ensure they remain effective.

 Practical Takeaways for Safety Managers 

• Audit all machinery under PUWER for guarding, isolation, and emergency stop functions.
• Implement a machine safety checklist for daily operator use.
• Train staff in lock-off/tag-out procedures before maintenance or cleaning.
• Record and investigate near-misses to identify systemic failings.
• Integrate machine safety into your compliance calendar alongside LOLER, COSHH, WAHR, and PSSR.

In short: The £500,000 fine against the animal feed manufacturer shows how ignoring PUWER requirements and failing to guard machinery can lead to catastrophic injuries and heavy penalties. For you, Lee, the lesson is to embed robust machine safety audits and operator training into your compliance frameworks.

Would you like me to draft a PUWER compliance checklist tailored for food and feed manufacturing machinery, so you can apply these lessons directly in your audits?