Public Liability Insurance and Pat Testing, Needed?

[Chienmortbb]

I was asked for both Public Liability insurance and PAT testing certificates for all out gear for a social club gig yesterday.  It was explained that the Club in question had just changed Insurers and it was a condition of the ne policy. Sounds a bit like changing from Fully Comp to Third Party Fire and Theft on a car to me. Is this common? Is it a new thing? Is it reasonable?

[zbd1960]

The only thing I can comment on is my experience with choirs/orchestras using school halls / civic centres and local authorities tend to insist that you carry PLI 

[Chienmortbb]

1 minute ago, zbd1960 said:

The only thing I can comment on is my experience with choirs/orchestras using school halls / civic centres and local authorities tend to insist that you carry PLI 

WE used to carry PLI but were never asked for it, aside from the aspect of protecting ourselves, it seemed an unnecessary expense. Thanks for the feedback.

[Martley]

My band have both - and perhaps get asked once or twice a year. However to my recollection nobody has actually checked when we arrive to play...

[SteveXFR]

I'm guessing it's not uncommon based on both my amps having PAT testing stickers on them when I bought them used.

[casapete]

Think I’ve said this before on a similar thread, but anyway....

 

IME hotels and council run theatres / halls are the most likely to ask for the PAT details. We keep a file of all our PAT certificates ready for inspection if needed - theatres like to see these well before the day of the gig.

My tech mate said that when asked for them, always ask to see the venue’s Electrical Safety Certificate to ensure what you’re plugging into has been tested recently. Think you’ll be surprised how few venues have these to hand. 😉

[Bassfinger]

MU membership gives personal PLI. Much safer, IMHO, avoids arguments about whether you were actually, technically, on band business at that exact moment in time with joint band insurance. MU also give 2 grand of equipment cover for free, which makes it even better value,

 

My gear is PAT tested, but we have never been asked for evidence. As above, should any venue ever ask then we will be asking them for evidence of their electrical safety testing on the premises own electrics - show you ours if you show us yours sort of thing.

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Bassfinger
Got a shock off the keyboard

[Chienmortbb]

Funnily enough I know when PAT testing first came in ,many manufacturers would void the warranty of any item PAT tested.

43 minutes ago, Bassfinger said:

MU membership gives personal PLI. Much safer, IMHO, avoids arguments about whether you were actually, technically, on band business at that exact moment in time with joint band insurance. MU also give 2 grand of equipment cover for free, which makes it even better value,

 

That is a thought although I am unlikely to earn much more than the annual fees this year.

[ambient]

You get PLI through MU membership.
 

It doesn’t cost a lot though to buy it yourself.
 

I know the one jazz band I used to play with had to get it a few years ago, it cost about £30. It’s in case someone trips over a lead, or a speaker falls over onto someone’s foot. Sadly accidents do happen.

Edited April 2, 2022 by ambient

[wateroftyne]

I've got PAT stickers on my stuff that I bought from eBay just in case, but I've never been asked.

[Chienmortbb]

This is from the Health and Safety Executive's statement on electrical safety:

 

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 require that any electrical equipment that has the potential to cause injury is maintained in a safe condition. However, the Regulations do not specify what needs to be done, by whom or how frequently (ie they don't make inspection or testing of electrical appliances a legal requirement, nor do they make it a legal requirement to undertake this annually).

[fretmeister]

I’ve got PLI with my equity membership.

 

 

[paul_c2]

16 hours ago, Chienmortbb said:

I was asked for both Public Liability insurance and PAT testing certificates for all out gear for a social club gig yesterday.  It was explained that the Club in question had just changed Insurers and it was a condition of the ne policy. Sounds a bit like changing from Fully Comp to Third Party Fire and Theft on a car to me. Is this common? Is it a new thing? Is it reasonable?

 

Its quite common nowadays. Basically what has happened is councils and other venue owners have done several rounds of cost-cutting exercise and pared down their insurance to the barest minimum, so that where a few years ago they'd have just covered mundane things like this, now they put the responsibility for holding the PLI onto each act visiting/using the facilities. Think, WI, badminton club, etc for a village hall. 

 

Regarding PAT testing, it is not a strict legal requirement but any venue can impose any (reasonable) condition or refuse hire. So if they say it needs to be PAT tested, then that's the way it is. AFAIK in the first 12 months of a new piece of electrical equipment, it is assumed to already be 'tested' - so if you have/bring new electrical gear, you don't need to go through with the actual testing.

[mike257]

On 01/04/2022 at 23:55, wateroftyne said:

I've got PAT stickers on my stuff that I bought from eBay just in case, but I've never been asked.

 

Anyone that wants to see evidence of PAT testing (or anyone with a clue, at least) doesn't want to look at stickers. They'll ask for your PAT certificate. This is less a certificate and more an inspection record on a big spreadsheet, showing the items tested, the results, and the date of testing. That's what venues are asking you to email over in advance, and if you've had your kit tested, the tester will have supplied you with this document. 

 

 

On 02/04/2022 at 09:41, paul_c2 said:

 

Its quite common nowadays. Basically what has happened is councils and other venue owners have done several rounds of cost-cutting exercise and pared down their insurance to the barest minimum, so that where a few years ago they'd have just covered mundane things like this, now they put the responsibility for holding the PLI onto each act visiting/using the facilities. Think, WI, badminton club, etc for a village hall. 

 

Their insurance will cover them if they're liable for, for example, an accident that causes someone an injury. It won't cover them if they're not liable. Your PLI is to cover your liability for something like that happening. That's not a new development because of someone cutting costs, that's just how liability insurance works and always has done.

[wateroftyne]

14 minutes ago, mike257 said:

 

Anyone that wants to see evidence of PAT testing (or anyone with a clue, at least) doesn't want to look at stickers. They'll ask for your PAT certificate. This is less a certificate and more an inspection record on a big spreadsheet, showing the items tested, the results, and the date of testing. That's what venues are asking you to email over in advance, and if you've had your kit tested, the tester will have supplied you with this document. 

 

Quite.

[lownote]

At my expense let me give you a personal example of where this sort of thing can be useful.  We did a gig recently where someone (what a Sir Richard Head III, can't imagine who) played all night using a coiled extension lead (he blames the arctic blast of the external venue addling his wits). Despite warning smells of hot insulation the band ploughed on to the end and the abused cable drum never missed a beat, even though it was so hot it was still too hot to touch half an hour later even in the subzero temperatures we had that day.  It brought home to me that if it had burst into flames and that had spread, PLI might have been quite handy.   

Edited April 4, 2022 by lownote

[grandad]

Somewhere around 1000 incidents occur in the workplace every year involving electricity resulting in shock/burns/death. 

 

Don't take unnecessary risks. Visually check your equipment every time you use it & get it PAT tested. 

[Mottlefeeder]

https://www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/information/public.htm

Indg247- Electrical safety for entertainers 

David

[simon1964]

4 hours ago, mike257 said:

 

Their insurance will cover them if they're liable for, for example, an accident that causes someone an injury. It won't cover them if they're not liable. Your PLI is to cover your liability for something like that happening. That's not a new development because of someone cutting costs, that's just how liability insurance works and always has done.

 

Exactly this. If an over enthusiastic punter trips over a badly placed monitor, breaks his leg, and can't work for months, the claim could easily run into tens of thousands. If the punter sues the venue, their insurers will simply seek to recover the cost from you if it was you / your band that caused the injury. Similarly if the band's dodgy electrical equipment causes damage (eg a fire) the venue's insurers are going to come after you for the cost.

 

There are some reasonably cheap options for PLI on the market such as MU membership. Also some of the specialist insurers will include it as an extra for instrument cover (a bit like PLI insurance as an add on to your house insurance). I get £1m cover from memory as an add on from Musicguard. Personally, in these litigious days, I wouldn't gig without PLI cover whether or not the venue asked to see it.

Edited April 4, 2022 by simon1964

[Ed_S]

I wonder how a purely decorative PAT sticker could complicate an otherwise straightforward PLI claim compared to never having had anything PAT tested at all. Insurers aren't known for paying out if they have a reason not to, so claiming to have passed a safety test that never happened seems more likely to result in problems with your claim than just asserting that you visually inspect your gear each time you set it up.

 

I was trained at work to perform safety testing and I have a testing machine which I can use for my own peace of mind, but the most I'd actually put on my stage gear is a blue 'visual inspection only' sticker.

[Jakester]

38 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

I wonder how a purely decorative PAT sticker could complicate an otherwise straightforward PLI claim compared to never having had anything PAT tested at all. Insurers aren't known for paying out if they have a reason not to, so claiming to have passed a safety test that never happened seems more likely to result in problems with your claim than just asserting that you visually inspect your gear each time you set it up.

 

I was trained at work to perform safety testing and I have a testing machine which I can use for my own peace of mind, but the most I'd actually put on my stage gear is a blue 'visual inspection only' sticker.

 

Speaking as someone who used to advise insurers on claims, if a venue required you (as the insured party) to supply evidence that equipment had been PAT tested and you bought stickers pretending they had been, and then one of your untested electrical items caught fire, I'd be looking at the least to decline your claim on the basis you failed to take reasonable steps to prevent loss or damage; or potentially on grounds of fraud or moral hazard (i.e. you procured the engagement on the basis of false representations to the venue). At best, your insurers may potentially pay the third party claim and come after you; at worst, they could look to avoid your policy and leave you to deal with the claim. 

 

Similarly, if you weren't insured and represented to the venue that your equipment had been tested when it hadn't, I would fully expect the venue's insurers to come after you to try and recoup some of the cost of any damage caused. 

 

If you had had your gear tested, and it passed, at the least you could say you acted reasonably and were not therefore negligent. Putting PAT stickers on untested equipment is the worst of both worlds - it shows you are aware of a potential need to have your equipment tested, but have deliberately chosen not to. If you haven't had it done or don't want to, don't fake it as it could make things much, much worse. 

 

And as noted above, the only legal requirement as regards PAT testing is on employers to supply equipment which is 'safe' to employees; one way of demonstrating it is safe is to have it PAT tested. If you are not an employer you have no legal obligation to have your equipment PAT tested. 

 

However, a venue may make it a requirement for access that you have your gear PAT tested.

 

It's worth noting that there's no specific qualification required to carry out PAT testing; you just need to be a 'competent person'. I'm considering going on a PAT testing course and buying a tester so I can do my own gear, but not sure whether economically that makes sense, as I have someone that does it for £40 for up to 40 items; it looks like a basic tester is around £200, plus the cost of the course. If you had more items, or perhaps ran a studio it might be more cost-effective. 

[paul_c2]

Doesn't the electrician who did the PAT (test) also record the result for his own records, just in case a multi-million pound claim should come his way where something he/she tested subsequently fails and causes an injury or fire? I would imagine for a larger claim, the insurers would delve into this - partly as a cost efficiency measure to try minimise claim payouts. Anyway, AIUI a sticker is only half the stuff you get anyway - there is also a paper certificate and electronic record of the PAT test which you retain, for just such an occurrence as above.

 

So it would be trivially easy for an insurance company to halt progress on an invalid claim like the above.

[Mottlefeeder]

1 hour ago, Jakester said:

... And as noted above, the only legal requirement as regards PAT testing is on employers to supply equipment which is 'safe' to employees; one way of demonstrating it is safe is to have it PAT tested. If you are not an employer you have no legal obligation to have your equipment PAT tested...

 

 

At the risk of being a pedant, the definition of being 'at work' was defined by court cases may years ago, and includes master-servant relationships (unless they are your servants at home), so the band leader(s) is/are effectively the employer, even if, as in my case, we are a charity, and all the band members are non-paid volunteers.

 

In general terms, the Health and Safety at Work Act requires the employer to take all reasonably practicable precautions to ensure the safety and health of their employees, AND those not in his employment. To me, that means that the band leader(s) has/have the responsibility of ensuring that each band member's gear is as safe as it can reasonably be.

 

David

[Jakester]

1 hour ago, Mottlefeeder said:

At the risk of being a pedant, the definition of being 'at work' was defined by court cases may years ago, and includes master-servant relationships (unless they are your servants at home), so the band leader(s) is/are effectively the employer, even if, as in my case, we are a charity, and all the band members are non-paid volunteers.

 

Pedantic, and your interpretation is wrong in my view. I think it would probably be fair to consider each of the members of a band either in a partnership, or if genuinely hired by a band leader they would be self-employed contractors. In such circumstances where they are supplying their own equipment the onus would not be on the 'band leader' but each respective contractor. 

 

1 hour ago, Mottlefeeder said:

To me, that means that the band leader(s) has/have the responsibility of ensuring that each band member's gear is as safe as it can reasonably be.

 

I think this takes it too far. If you consider a building site where there are many trades coming in as self-employed contractors; if you placed an onus on the main contractor to ensure safety of all of its subbies' own equipment, nothing would get done.

 

Where equipment is provided then absolutely, but if a sub-contractor is providing his own equipment then it is that subbie's responsibility. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Jakester

[simon1964]

25 minutes ago, Jakester said:

 

Pedantic, and your interpretation is wrong in my view. I think it would probably be fair to consider each of the members of a band either in a partnership, or if genuinely hired by a band leader they would be self-employed contractors. In such circumstances where they are supplying their own equipment the onus would not be on the 'band leader' but each respective contractor. 

 

 

Yes, if the band shares the fees for gigs amongst themselves they will almost certainly be a partnership in law. The sting there is that means that all band members are equally, and jointly, liable. Another good reason to have Public Liability Cover.