Common PUWER Non-Compliances Found On Factory Machinery

Published by SEIS Engineering, independent competent person inspections. Reviewed May 2026.

Walk almost any production line with an inspector's eye and a pattern shows up within minutes. A fixed guard with two of its four bolts missing. An emergency stop tucked behind a stillage of finished goods. An isolator that was never the lockable kind. None of it appears in the risk assessment, because the risk assessment was written the week the machine was installed, and the line has been earning its keep ever since.

That distance between the paperwork and the shop floor is where almost every PUWER problem lives. PUWER, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, is the law that says work equipment must be suitable, safe, properly maintained and used only by trained people. We set out the full duties in our PUWER regulations guide. What follows is the narrower and more useful list: the non-compliances that actually turn up on factory machinery, in roughly the order an inspector would notice them.

What non-compliance really looks like on the floor

Guarding comes first, and not by accident. Regulation 11, dangerous parts of machinery, is the most commonly cited regulation in PUWER prosecutions, and it is almost always the first thing an inspector turns to. The reason is the harm behind it: the HSE describes how moving machinery draws people in, severs and crushes, and an unguarded or overridden guard is the usual route to an amputation.

The guard that is not really a guard

The most common finding is a guard that has quietly stopped doing its job. Bolts have gone missing so it lifts off in seconds. It has been trimmed to let a longer workpiece feed through. Or the mesh was always a touch too coarse, so a hand can reach the moving part through it. Regulation 11 does not ask whether a guard is fitted, it asks whether access to the dangerous part is actually prevented, and in a set order: fixed guards first, then interlocked guards or trip devices, then jigs, holders and push sticks, and only then information, instruction and training. A guard that has been altered, or that never matched the standard reach distances, is not the effective measure the law has in mind. The answer is rarely exotic. Refit proper fixed guarding where the part needs no routine access, close the apertures to the reach distances, and record the guarding when the machine is inspected.

The interlock everyone has learned to beat

Where a guard has to be opened often, it is usually interlocked, so the machine stops the moment it lifts. The trouble is that a slow interlock is an irritation, and irritations get solved. We find spare actuators taped to the frame, magnets left permanently in place, switches held shut with a cable tie. We also find interlocks wired so that one failure leaves the machine running happily with the guard wide open. The first defeats Regulation 11. The second fails Regulation 18, which expects a control system to stay safe when something goes wrong rather than fail dangerous. Coded or positive mode interlocks that resist a casual defeat, guard locking where the parts take a while to stop, and a functional test rather than a hopeful glance, are what turn an interlock back into a safeguard.

The emergency stop you cannot reach

An emergency stop only earns its place if an operator can hit it from where they stand. It should sit within reach of every working and feed position, latch in when struck, and force a deliberate reset before the machine will run again. On older lines it is common to find a single stop at one end of a machine several metres long, a button lost behind stock, or one that springs straight back so power can be restored without a second thought. Regulation 16 governs these. And it is worth remembering what an emergency stop is for: it is the last line of defence, never a stand-in for the guarding that should have prevented the contact in the first place.

The machine that cannot be safely switched off

Maintenance and cleaning is where most serious machinery injuries happen, because that is when guards come off and hands go in. Regulation 19 expects equipment to be isolated from its sources of energy, and Regulation 22 expects maintenance to be carried out without putting anyone at risk. In practice we find isolators that cannot be locked off, stored energy that is never released (a raised ram, a charged accumulator, a spring under tension, air still in the line), and the quiet habit of reaching into a machine that is merely stopped rather than truly isolated. Lockable isolators, a lock off and tag routine, and a written isolation method that includes bleeding off stored energy, are the difference between a safe intervention and a sudden one.

Serviced, but never actually inspected

This one hides in plain sight, because the site is clearly doing something. Maintenance under Regulation 5 and inspection under Regulation 6 are separate duties, and they are easy to run together. A factory can grease, change and service its machines on a tight schedule and still have no inspection regime at all, or one with nothing written down. Regulation 6 asks for inspection at suitable intervals, by a competent person, wherever safety depends on how the equipment was installed or on conditions that change, and it asks for the result to be recorded and kept until the next one. Changing the bearings is not the same as confirming the guarding and the safety functions still work. Run inspection as its own task, and keep the record. It is the first thing an inspector asks to see.

The bodge that became permanent

Equipment has to be suitable for the job under Regulation 4 and kept in good repair under Regulation 5, and most non-compliance here is simply time and pragmatism catching up with a machine. A cracked guard held with tape. A start button swapped for whatever was in the drawer. A machine pushed well past its rated duty because it is the only one free. A clever modification that quietly cancels the safety feature it sits beside. A repair that is not to standard is not really a repair, it is a new hazard wearing the old one's clothes. Anything unsafe comes out of use until it is put right properly, and any modification is assessed before the machine goes back to work.

Controls only the old hands understand

A new starter should be able to look at a machine and tell what each control does, and should not be able to start it by leaning on the wrong thing. Regulation 14 covers controls for starting, Regulation 17 wants them clearly identifiable and placed so they cannot be operated by accident, and Regulation 23 wants the health and safety markings to be clear. The findings are familiar: buttons labelled in marker pen or not at all, a start control sitting proud where a sleeve can catch it, and machines that lurch into motion with no warning to whoever happens to be near. Clear, durable labelling, a guarded start control, and a warning where someone could be within reach when it moves, cost very little and prevent a great deal.

Trained, but unable to prove it

Regulation 9 requires that anyone using work equipment has had adequate training, and Regulation 8 that the information and instructions are there for them. The gap is rarely that nobody was trained. It is that the training was a quick word by the machine some years ago, with nothing kept to show for it, so when an inspector asks, or when something goes wrong, there is no way to demonstrate who was competent to run it. Agency and shift cover widen that gap quickly. A short record, per person and per machine, and the manufacturer's instructions kept somewhere operators can actually reach them, is all it takes to close it.

The CE mark trap

If there is one belief worth dismantling, it is that a CE or UKCA mark settles the question. It does not. That mark is the manufacturer's claim, under the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations, that the machine was safe at the moment it was supplied. PUWER is a separate and continuing duty on you, the employer, for the machine as it is installed, used and maintained on your site. HSE guidance on buying new machinery draws exactly this line: the supplier must place safe, marked machinery on the market, and the user must then keep it safe in use under PUWER.

A CE mark tells you the machine was safe the day it left the factory. It tells you nothing about the guard that came off last spring.

The mark knows nothing about the interlock since defeated, or the modification your own team made in good faith. Machines that left their maker compliant and are no longer compliant in use are not the exception, they are routine, which is exactly why PUWER sits alongside the supply law rather than relying on it. Treat the mark as the day-one baseline, never as the finish line.

What a PUWER inspection actually gives you

A PUWER inspection is a competent person working through the machine against the regulations above, with visual checks, functional checks and, where it is warranted, testing. What you get back is a written record of inspection: each non-conformance, the action needed to close it, ordered by risk. It is not a pass or fail certificate, and it does not replace your day to day maintenance.

Where the real question is about a machine's design, or about a modification, a fuller PUWER machinery risk assessment is the better tool, because it starts from the hazards and works towards the controls. If you would like an independent competent person to do the inspecting and hand you that record, that is our PUWER inspection service. And to see what it costs to leave findings sitting open, our look at real PUWER enforcement examples follows several that ended in prosecution. If your equipment also lifts loads it may fall under LOLER as well, and we set out where the two regimes meet in PUWER vs LOLER.

PUWER non-compliance questions, answered