Partner with an independent inspection body to cover your clients’ statutory obligations. One point of contact across all four regimes, with verified written reports and nationwide, multi-site cover for every plant type.
Independent advice on compliance, written schemes of examination and inspection strategy, from competent engineer surveyors with no equipment to sell you.
Plain answers from independent engineer surveyors who write these reports every week.
Regulation 9 gives the pressure examination report four statutory jobs: state what was examined and its condition, specify repairs and any revised limits with dates, set the next examination date, and judge whether the Written Scheme itself is still suitable. This guide walks all four, line by line.
Allowed only by agreement and notified before the due date
Marked on it
Mobile systems carry the next exam date on the plant itself
Reading your report
Match the parts examined against the Written Scheme, silence means not examined
Treat every repair date and revised limit as binding from the day you read it
Diary the next examination date, operating past it is prohibited outright
Read the scheme suitability verdict, it is the line everyone skips
Findings and what they mean
The four statutory statements, walked in order
Regulation 9(5) is unusually plain for legislation: it lists, in four lettered clauses, exactly what the competent person's report must do. Statement one covers what was examined: which parts of the system, their condition, and the results. Read it against the Written Scheme, because a part in the scheme but absent from the report was not examined, and a part outside the scheme was never going to be.
Statement two carries the instructions: any repairs or modifications, and any changes to the established safe operating limits, needed to prevent danger or keep the protective devices effective, each with the date by which it must be done. Statement three sets the date of the next examination within the scheme's limits. Statement four is the one duty holders skip: the competent person's opinion on whether the scheme of examination itself is still suitable, with reasons if it should be modified. It is the system's own feedback loop, written into law.
Finding
Severity
What you must do
Who is told
Parts examined, condition and results
Statement a
Reconcile against the Written Scheme and query any silence
Reg 9(5)(a)
Repairs, modifications and revised limits, with dates
Statement b
Complete by the date; run only within any revised limits from day one
Reg 9(5)(b)
Date of the next examination
Statement c
Diary it; operation past it is prohibited unless lawfully postponed
Reg 9(5)(c)
Whether the scheme itself is still suitable
Statement d
Act on any recommendation to modify the scheme before the next cycle
Reg 9(5)(d)
Imminent danger findings travel separately: a Regulation 10 report is written on the spot, the system stops, and the enforcing authority receives a copy within 14 days. The Regulation 9 report described here still follows within its own window.
Getting back to work
The rules that operate after you file it
Two mechanisms in Regulation 9 keep running after the report arrives, and both catch duty holders out.
The prohibition dates
Regulation 9(6) is the enforcement teeth: the system must not be operated past the repair date unless the repairs and any limit changes are complete, and must not be operated past the next examination date unless the examination has happened. These are prohibitions, not targets, and no condition of the plant excuses them.
The one relief valve is Regulation 9(7): a single postponement of the next examination, agreed in writing with the competent person, notified in writing to the enforcing authority before the due date. One postponement per examination, arranged in advance; a postponement sought after the date has passed is simply an overdue system.
Filing that survives an inspector
File reports per system, not per year, so the thread from commissioning through every examination reads in one sitting; it is how both auditors and examiners want the history, and trending observations is impossible without it. Keep the closure evidence for every dated repair with the report it answers.
Mobile systems carry one extra duty: the next examination date must be legibly and durably marked on the plant itself, paint being sufficient. An inspector who can read the date on the vessel and match it to the report in your file has usually seen everything they need.
Part 1 of 9
Before the report exists: the Written Scheme it executes
A PSSR report cannot be read on its own, because Regulation 9 examinations only happen in accordance with the Written Scheme of Examination, and the report's first statement only makes sense against it. The scheme, required by Regulation 8, is the document that names which parts of the system are examined, by what methods, how often, and any special preparation such as cooling, venting or internal access. The duty to have a suitable scheme sits with the user of an installed system or the owner of a mobile one, even though a competent person draws it up or certifies it as suitable.
Every examination entry executes a line of the Written Scheme, so reconciling report against scheme is the first read, not an optional one.
Practically, that means the first read of any examination report is a reconciliation: lay the report beside the scheme and confirm every scheme item appears. Protective devices deserve particular attention, because safety valves and pressure limiting devices are the components whose silent omission does the most quiet damage. A relief valve inside the scheme but absent from the report was not examined, and no amount of clean findings elsewhere compensates for an unproven safety valve.
The 250 bar litre threshold and steam at any pressure decide whether a system needs a scheme at all, and hydraulic oils are excluded as a relevant fluid, so a report claiming PSSR coverage of a purely hydraulic circuit is itself a competence question. If you are unsure what your scheme should contain, our PSSR regulations guide covers relevant fluids and scheme contents in full.
Key pointA PSSR report only means something against its Written Scheme; read them together or you are reading half a document.
Worked example
Worked example: an air receiver report, read against its scheme
A compressed air installation with a 500 litre receiver at 10 bar sits comfortably over the threshold, so it runs on a scheme, typically benchmarked around the SAFed guidance interval of roughly 26 months for air receivers against roughly 14 months for steam boilers. The report arrives and you read it in this order.
A wall thickness reading of 5.9 mm against a 6.0 mm nominal: serviceable today, and exactly the kind of figure to trend year on year.
Statement a: parts examined and condition. The scheme lists the receiver shell internally and externally, the safety valve, the pressure gauge and the drain arrangement. The report records external examination clean, internal examination showing light general corrosion with wall thickness readings at four positions, minimum 5.9 mm against an original nominal 6.0 mm, safety valve stripped, cleaned and reset, gauge reading verified. Every scheme item is present, so statement a reconciles.
Statement b: repairs, modifications and revised limits, with dates. The report requires the automatic drain to be repaired within 60 days because standing condensate is driving the corrosion found in statement a. That instruction binds from the day you read it. Had the thickness readings been worse, this is where a revised maximum working pressure would appear, and running at the old pressure past the stated date would breach Regulation 9(6) outright.
Statement c: the next examination date, which goes in the planner before the report goes in the file. Statement d: the suitability of the scheme itself. Here the competent person notes the corrosion trend and recommends the internal examination interval be shortened at the next scheme review. That sentence is the system feeding back on itself, and it should reach whoever owns the scheme, not just the folder.
Key pointScheme first, thickness figure second, next due date third: the report is a data point on a curve, not a pass certificate.
Part 3 of 9
The imminent danger route: Regulation 10, and how it differs
Most findings travel in the Regulation 9 report within its 28 day window. Imminent danger does not wait. Where the competent person is of the opinion that the system or part of it will give rise to imminent danger unless repairs, modifications or changes to operating conditions are made, a separate written report is made immediately, and the system must not be operated until the matters are rectified. The competent person also sends a written report to the enforcing authority within 14 days.
Two consequences follow for how you read paperwork. First, if you ever receive a Regulation 10 report, the stop is legal and immediate, and restarting without the specified work is an offence, whatever production pressure exists that week. Second, the ordinary Regulation 9 report that follows will document the same findings, so your file should hold both documents cross referenced, with the closure evidence for the rectification attached to the pair. An inspector reading a Regulation 10 event wants to see exactly three things: the stop, the fix, and the competent person's confirmation before restart.
Key pointA Regulation 10 report stops the system now and reaches the enforcing authority within 14 days; it is the one report you never negotiate with.
Part 4 of 9
Postponement, done lawfully and done badly
Regulation 9(7) allows exactly one lawful way to move a next examination date. The user or owner and the competent person agree in writing, before the due date, that the postponement will not give rise to danger, a new date is set, and the enforcing authority is notified in writing before the original date passes. One postponement per examination, arranged through the front door.
Regulation 9(7) allows one postponement, agreed by the competent person and notified before the due date; a second slide is not lawful.
Everything else you will hear on sites is folklore. There is no grace period. A postponement cannot be agreed retrospectively. Production pressure, a delayed shutdown window and a late parts delivery are all real problems and none of them is a legal basis for running past the date. Operating a system beyond its next examination date without a lawful postponement is a straightforward breach of Regulation 9(6), and it is one of the easiest breaches for an inspector to prove because your own report states the date.
The practical discipline is to treat the due date as a shutdown constraint from the day the report arrives: book the examination window early, order long lead parts against the known scope, and if a clash is emerging, start the postponement conversation with your competent person months out, not days.
Key pointOne postponement, agreed by the competent person and notified in writing before the due date; anything else is an overdue examination, not a postponed one.
Part 5 of 9
Reading reports as a series: what trending catches
A single PSSR report is a snapshot. The file per system is the film, and the expensive findings are almost always visible in the film before they arrive in a snapshot. Wall thickness readings drifting down a fraction per cycle put a date on when the vessel reaches its minimum allowable thickness. A safety valve that needed resetting two examinations running is telling you something about the system's pressure control. Corrosion found at the same drain point twice is a maintenance regime failing in slow motion, and statement b instructions that repeat are the clearest audit finding there is.
File reports per system from commissioning onward, never per year, so the thread reads in one sitting
Keep the closure evidence for every statement b instruction stapled to the report that issued it
Put thickness readings and valve results into a simple trend sheet per vessel; three data points are enough to see a slope
Read statement d across the series: repeated scheme suitability comments that nobody actions are how schemes rot
On mobile systems, photograph the marked date on the plant at each examination so the file proves the Regulation 9(9) marking duty too
Key pointOne report tells you the condition today; the series tells you the date the system stops being economic, which is the more valuable number.
Part 6 of 9
What the report means for insurers, and what it does not
Pressure plant is where statutory examination and engineering insurance are most tightly wound together, because many competent persons in the UK market are the engineering arms of insurers, and many policies are priced on the examination regime existing. The report is the document both worlds read: to the regulator it evidences Regulation 9 compliance, to the underwriter it evidences that the insured risk is being independently examined.
What the report is not is a warranty. The competent person certifies what was examined, by the scheme's methods, on the day. It does not promise the vessel cannot fail, and it does not transfer your duties anywhere. If you switch between an insurer linked competent person and an independent one, the scheme and the reports are yours and travel with you, and the incoming competent person will want the full series precisely because the trend is where the engineering judgement lives. Our guide on switching inspection providers covers that handover in detail.
Key pointInsurers rely on the report but the statutory duty stays with the user or owner, so an insurer arranged examination does not transfer your compliance.
Part 7 of 9
The 28 day clock, and what to do with a late report
The written report of an ordinary examination must reach the user of an installed system, or the owner of a mobile one, within 28 days of the examination, and sooner if the next examination is due sooner. Anything the competent person found that needs acting on before then travels faster than the paperwork: dated repairs and revised limits bind from notification, and imminent danger findings arrive in writing on the day under Regulation 10.
Treat the window as part of the service you are buying. A provider who routinely lands reports in week six is not late on an admin nicety, they are compressing the time you have to plan repairs before the dates in statement b start expiring, and they are breaching the regulation doing it. The practical regime is simple: log the examination date on the day, diary day 28, and chase in writing the moment it passes. If a due date in the eventual report has already been eaten by the delay, that goes back to the provider in writing too, because the delay was theirs and the record should say so.
Key pointThe report must reach you within 28 days of the examination; chase a late one in writing, because the duty to have it is yours.
Part 8 of 9
Mobile systems and hired plant: whose duty is which
PSSR splits its duties between the user of an installed system and the owner of a mobile one, and hired compressed air plant is where the split earns its keep. On a hired mobile compressor or transportable receiver, the owner, normally the hire company, carries the Written Scheme and examination duties, which is why the report goes to them and why Regulation 9(9) requires the date of the next examination to be legibly and durably marked on the system itself, paint being expressly sufficient. The mark is how a site that holds no paperwork can still see the plant is in date.
The user still owns the operating duties: running within the safe operating limits, the maintenance regime, and not operating plant past a marked date. So the site discipline for hired pressure plant is a gate check: read the marked date on arrival, photograph it, and refuse anything unmarked or out of date, exactly as you would a hired crane without its report. For your own mobile fleet the marking duty is yours, and re marking after every examination belongs on the examination day checklist, because a repainted vessel with no date is a finding waiting for an inspector.
Key pointFor hired plant the owner usually holds the examination duty and the user holds the operating duties, but the split must be agreed in writing, not assumed.
Part 9 of 9
Matching the competent person to the system
PSSR asks for a competent person without listing qualifications, and industry guidance fills the gap by scaling competence to the system. The established practice, reflected in SAFed and professional body guidance, is that minor systems such as small air receivers need a competent individual with the right knowledge and experience; intermediate systems, most industrial steam and larger air installations, expect the backing of a body with specialist pressure expertise and proper support; and major systems, power and process plant running at severe conditions, demand a substantial engineering organisation behind the individual.
Read your own reports against that scale. The signatory on an air receiver report reasonably differs from the team behind a steam boiler examination, and a provider comfortable at one scale is not automatically competent at the next. The questions that sort it are the same ones the scheme invites: who drew up or certified the Written Scheme, what specialist support stands behind the individual examiner, and can they show experience on your class of plant. A duty holder who has matched the competent person to the system has answered in advance the first question any incident investigation asks.
Key pointMinor, intermediate and major systems each need a competent person of matching depth; a signature beyond their category is a defect in the report itself.
Who writes the PSSR examination report and when should it arrive?
The competent person who carried out the examination under your Written Scheme, and it should reach the user of an installed system or the owner of a mobile one within 28 days. Imminent danger findings do not wait for it: those are reported in writing on the spot under Regulation 10.
What does it mean if a component I expected is not mentioned in the report?
That it was not examined, almost always because it sits outside the Written Scheme. The report only covers the parts the scheme names, so silence is a scheme question rather than a clean bill of health. Reconcile report against scheme after every examination, and raise gaps with the competent person.
Are revised safe operating limits in the report legally binding?
Yes, from the moment the report specifies them. Running outside a revised limit is operating a system a competent person has said is unsafe at the old settings, and Regulation 9(6) prohibits operation past the specified date unless the changes are made. Update your operating documents and alarms the same day.
Can the next examination date be moved if it clashes with production?
Once, and only by the front door: Regulation 9(7) allows a single postponement per examination where the competent person agrees in writing that safety is not compromised, and the enforcing authority is notified in writing before the original date. Anything else is an overdue examination, whatever the operational reason. See HSE's PSSR guidance.
What is the scheme suitability statement at the end of the report?
Regulation 9(5)(d): the competent person must say whether the Written Scheme itself remains suitable to prevent danger, and give reasons if it should change. It is the mechanism that keeps schemes honest as plant ages or duties change, and a recommendation there should reach whoever owns the scheme, not just the file.
Why do mobile systems have the date painted on them?
Regulation 9(9) requires the next examination date to be legibly and durably marked on a mobile system, and paint is expressly sufficient. Hired compressors and transportable receivers move between sites, so the date travels on the plant where any user can read it, rather than in a file the site may not hold.
How long should we keep PSSR examination reports?
Keep the current report and its predecessors for as long as they tell the system's story: examiners trend wall thickness, valve performance and corrosion against previous results, and a system file that reads from commissioning to today is worth real money at examination time. Never discard a report just because a newer one exists. Our PSSR regulations guide covers records and duties in full.
Does the report certify the system the way a LOLER report certifies lifting equipment?
Near enough in effect: it is the statutory evidence that the examination happened and what the competent person concluded. The difference is structural, because everything in PSSR hangs off the Written Scheme, so the report is only as meaningful as the scheme it executes, which is why statement d exists.
Talk it through with an independent engineer surveyor today
Partner with an independent inspection body to cover your clients’ statutory obligations. One point of contact across all four regimes, with verified written reports and nationwide, multi-site cover for every plant type.
Independent advice on compliance, written schemes of examination and inspection strategy, from competent engineer surveyors with no equipment to sell you.
