“We Maintain It” Is Not a Legal Defence

One of the most common phrases heard after an incident, inspection failure, or enforcement visit is:
“But we maintain it.”

While maintenance is important, it is not a legal defence when it comes to statutory safety compliance. UK health and safety law clearly separates maintenance from statutory inspection and examination, and relying on one instead of the other regularly leads to enforcement action, invalidated insurance, and serious risk to people.

Across LOLER, PUWER, PSSR, and LEV inspections under COSHH, the law requires independent, documented assurance of safety—not just evidence that equipment is serviced.

The Difference Between Maintenance and Statutory Inspection

Maintenance is about keeping equipment running.
Statutory inspections are about proving it is safe.

Maintenance is usually carried out by:

• In-house engineers

• External service contractors

• OEM service providers

Statutory inspections, however, must be carried out by a competent and sufficiently independent person, focused solely on safety-critical defects and legal compliance.

From real inspection experience, it is common to find:

• Recently serviced equipment with serious safety defects

• LEV systems “maintained” but failing airflow performance

• Pressure systems serviced but with no valid Written Scheme of Examination

• Forklifts fully maintained but overdue LOLER examinations

In the eyes of the law, maintenance does not replace inspection.

LOLER: Maintenance Does Not Replace a Thorough Examination

Under the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER), lifting equipment must undergo a thorough examination at legally defined intervals.

Key point:
➡️ A service is not a thorough examination

Even if lifting equipment is:

• Regularly serviced

• Low usage

• OEM maintained

It must still have:

• A LOLER thorough examination

• A written report

• Immediate action taken on dangerous defects

HSE enforcement history shows that “we service it regularly” is routinely rejected as a defence when:

• Forklift examinations are overdue

• Lifting accessories lack 6-monthly reports

• Defects identified were not acted upon

PUWER: Servicing Alone Does Not Prove Equipment Is Safe

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) require work equipment to be:

• Suitable

• Safe

• Properly guarded

• Maintained

• Inspected where deterioration could cause danger

Maintenance focuses on functionality.
PUWER inspections focus on risk.

It is common during PUWER assessments to find:

• Machines serviced but unguarded

• Emergency stops present but ineffective

• Isolation points missing or inaccessible

• Operators not adequately trained

In enforcement terms, saying “it was serviced last month” does not address unsafe design, guarding, or use.

PSSR: No Written Scheme, No Defence

Under the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 (PSSR), pressure systems must have:

• A Written Scheme of Examination (WSE)

• Thorough examinations carried out to that scheme

• Immediate action on dangerous defects

Servicing a compressor or boiler without a valid WSE is a direct breach of PSSR.

In practice, one of the most common failures found is:

• “The compressor is serviced annually, but we’ve never had an examination”

From a legal and insurance perspective, that position is indefensible. Without a WSE and statutory examination, a pressure system should not be in use.

LEV Under COSHH: Cleaned and Maintained Is Not Tested

Under COSHH 2002, LEV systems must undergo a thorough examination and test at least every 14 months.

Cleaning filters, replacing fans, or duct maintenance:
➡️ does not prove the system controls exposure

An LEV system can look clean and well maintained yet:

• Fail airflow requirements

• Provide inadequate capture velocity

• No longer match the process being controlled

In enforcement cases, duty holders frequently state:

• “The LEV is maintained regularly”

The legal question is always:
➡️ Where is the 14-month test report?

Insurance, Enforcement, and the Real Risk

From an insurance and enforcement perspective:

• No statutory inspection = no independent assurance

• No independent assurance = unmanaged risk

• Unmanaged risk = enforcement action or invalidated cover

Insurers routinely require:

• LOLER reports

• PSSR examination records

• LEV test certificates

If an incident occurs and statutory inspections are missing, maintenance records will not protect you.

The Legal Reality

UK health and safety law is clear:

• Maintenance keeps equipment running

• Statutory inspections prove it is safe

• One does not replace the other

Courts, insurers, and enforcing authorities consistently reject “we maintain it” as a defence when statutory duties have not been met.

Final Thoughts

Maintenance is essential—but it is not compliance.

True compliance requires:

• The right inspection

• At the right interval

• By a competent, independent person

• With documented evidence and action taken

If your organisation relies solely on maintenance records to demonstrate safety, it is exposed to legal, financial, and operational risk.

Because when something goes wrong, “we maintain it” will not stand up—in law, in court, or with your insurer.

Book Your Thorough Examination