LOLER 1998 (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations) Explained

Lifting operations go wrong rarely, but when they do the consequences are usually severe. A dropped load is one of the few categories of workplace incident that can kill multiple people in a single event. The regulations are written accordingly — LOLER imposes specific, prescriptive duties on planning, examination and competence that go beyond the general framework of PUWER. The two regulations work together; LOLER doesn’t replace PUWER for lifting equipment, it adds to it.

This guide explains what LOLER requires, what counts as lifting equipment, how the thorough-examination regime works in practice, the competent person duty that catches more dutyholders than any other LOLER regulation, and how LOLER sits alongside PUWER and HSWA 1974.

What is LOLER 1998?

LOLER stands for the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998. The regulations are made under section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and came into force on the same day as PUWER 1998 — 5 December 1998. They are supported by the Approved Code of Practice and Guidance L113 (Safe use of lifting equipment) published by HSE.

LOLER applies to all lifting equipment used at work in Great Britain, regardless of sector or industry. The regulations apply to employers, the self-employed, and anyone who has control of lifting equipment to any extent. The duties on equipment users sit alongside the duties on those who own, maintain, hire out, or supervise the use of lifting equipment.

What counts as lifting equipment?

“Lifting equipment” is defined in Regulation 2 as work equipment for lifting or lowering loads, including its attachments used for anchoring, fixing or supporting it. The HSE guidance lists examples:

• Cranes — mobile, tower, overhead, jib
• Hoists — passenger, goods, vehicle
• Fork-lift trucks (when used for lifting; some uses fall outside LOLER)
• Mobile elevating work platforms (MEWPs)
• Vehicle tail-lifts
• Lifting slings, chains, hooks, eyebolts, shackles, spreader beams
• Patient hoists (in healthcare and care settings)
• Vehicle lifts (in workshops)
• Goods lifts and passenger lifts

The definition extends to “loads” — including people in the case of passenger lifts, MEWPs and patient hoists. LOLER’s people-lifting duties are stricter than its load-lifting duties.

The main duties under LOLER

Regulation 4 — Strength and stability

Lifting equipment must be of adequate strength and stability for each load — taking into account the worst-case weight, the moment of the load (where in space it sits relative to the equipment), and any dynamic loads from movement or wind. The duty applies to the equipment, the structure to which it’s attached, and the ground or supporting structure beneath it.

This is the duty that catches mobile crane operators on soft ground, MEWPs on uneven surfaces, and lifting accessories on overloaded eyebolts. Strength and stability are not properties of the equipment alone — they’re properties of the equipment in its actual operating environment.

Regulation 5 — Lifting equipment for lifting persons

Where lifting equipment is used to lift people, additional duties apply: the equipment must minimise the risk of the carrier moving accidentally, the risk of the user falling from the carrier, and the risk of the user being crushed, trapped, struck or falling from the equipment. The carrier must have devices to prevent the risk of falling.

This is the regulation that drives the 6-monthly thorough-examination requirement for people-lifting equipment under Regulation 9.

Regulation 6 — Positioning and installation

Lifting equipment must be positioned or installed in such a way as to reduce, so far as is reasonably practicable, the risk of the equipment or load striking a person or drifting, falling, or being released unintentionally. This duty applies particularly to overhead cranes, where the operator’s view of the load and the area below it can be partial or obstructed.

Regulation 7 — Marking of lifting equipment

Lifting equipment used to lift loads must be marked with its safe working load (SWL). Where the SWL depends on the configuration (jib length, outrigger position, slew angle), the equipment must carry information allowing the SWL for the configuration to be determined. Lifting accessories must be marked with their working load limit (WLL).

Lifting equipment for people must be marked clearly to indicate it is for people. Equipment not designed for people must be marked clearly to indicate it must not be used for people. The “must not be used for lifting people” mark on a fork-lift’s load forks is an obvious case — fork-lifts can be used for lifting people only when fitted with an approved working platform meeting LOLER Regulation 5.

Regulation 8 — Organisation of lifting operations

Every lifting operation involving lifting equipment must be properly planned by a competent person, appropriately supervised, and carried out in a safe manner. “Planning” depends on the operation — a routine factory-floor lift on an overhead crane that’s been done thousands of times needs less specific planning than a one-off mobile-crane lift over a public highway, but the duty applies in both cases.

Plans must address the risks identified in the risk assessment under MHSWR Regulation 3, the equipment selected, the lift method, the supervision arrangements, and the contingency for foreseeable failures. For complex or non-routine lifts, written lift plans are normal practice; for routine lifts, generic lift plans plus dynamic risk assessment at the lift point are typically sufficient. For a refresher on the underlying assessment framework, see our 5 Steps to Risk Assessment guide.

Regulation 9 — Thorough examination and inspection

This is the regulation that catches more dutyholders than any other in LOLER. Lifting equipment must be subject to a “thorough examination” by a competent person at prescribed intervals. The intervals depend on the equipment:

“Thorough examination” is a specific term. It’s a systematic and detailed examination of the equipment by a competent person, looking at every part that could fail and lead to injury. It’s different from routine maintenance, daily pre-use checks, and weekly user inspections. The competent person carrying it out must be sufficiently independent and impartial to give an objective opinion — typically meaning they cannot be the person who normally maintains or operates the equipment.

The output is a Report of Thorough Examination, prepared in writing and signed by the competent person. The report must record any defects identified, whether the equipment can continue in use, what work is needed, and by when. Reports must be retained — for two years for accessories, until the next examination for other equipment, with a longer retention period for the original installation report.

Regulation 10 — Reports and defects

Where the competent person identifies a defect that involves an existing or imminent risk of serious personal injury, they must notify the dutyholder immediately and notify the relevant enforcing authority (HSE or local authority) by sending a copy of the report. The equipment must not be used until the defect is rectified.

The competent person duty under LOLER

The competent person carrying out thorough examination is the single point of failure most often cited in LOLER prosecutions. The duty has four parts:

• Competence. Sufficient knowledge of the equipment and the failure modes to identify defects that could lead to a dangerous situation. Typically demonstrated through formal qualifications (LEEA TEAM card, third-party engineering qualifications) plus experience on the specific equipment type.
• Independence. Sufficiently independent of the operation of the equipment to give an objective opinion. The driver who operates a crane daily generally cannot also be the competent person examining it; the in-house engineer who maintains it generally cannot also examine it.
• Authority. Authority within the contractual relationship to give a frank opinion without commercial pressure to pass equipment that should fail.
• Resources. Time and equipment to carry out the examination properly, including non-destructive testing where the examination scheme requires it.

For most UK organisations, the competent person under Regulation 9 is provided by an external lifting-equipment inspection company under an annual contract. The dutyholder retains responsibility for verifying the competence of whoever they engage — a Report of Thorough Examination signed by an unqualified inspector doesn’t satisfy LOLER, regardless of what’s written on it.

LOLER and PUWER — how they work together

PUWER applies to all work equipment. LOLER applies to lifting equipment specifically. Where equipment is also lifting equipment, both regulations apply. The relationship runs as follows:

The practical consequence is that lifting equipment requires two separate inspection regimes: a PUWER inspection regime under Regulation 6 (typically annual, looking at general fitness for use), and a LOLER thorough-examination regime under Regulation 9 (6 or 12 months depending on equipment type, looking specifically at lifting integrity). The two are different, and have to be evidenced separately.

For more on PUWER specifically, see our PUWER 1998 guide.

Common failures in LOLER compliance

Five recurring issues from work with UK organisations:

1. Confusion between thorough examination and maintenance

A workshop with a maintenance log showing weekly servicing and a sign saying “next service due 15 June” is not LOLER-compliant just because the equipment is well looked after. Maintenance and thorough examination are different duties. The fix is a separate Report of Thorough Examination, signed by the competent person, retained on file alongside but distinct from the maintenance record.

2. The competent person who isn’t competent enough

A site engineer who knows the crane inside-out but lacks the formal qualification and the independence test isn’t a competent person under Regulation 9. The fix is engaging an external inspection company under contract, with verification of their competence (LEEA TEAM card, ISO 17020 accreditation for inspection bodies).

3. Hire equipment with stale paperwork

A mobile crane hired in for a one-week job arrives with a Report of Thorough Examination dated 10 months ago. The hirer assumes the report is current; the user assumes the hirer is responsible. The duty sits with whoever uses or controls the equipment — meaning the user has to verify the report is current and the equipment hasn’t deteriorated since. The fix is a goods-in check on hire equipment, with a refusal to put it into use if the paperwork is out of date.

4. Lift planning that exists on paper but not at the lift point

A lift plan written by the office and filed in the project documentation, but not communicated to the lift supervisor or the slinger at the point of work. The plan exists; it’s not being applied. The fix is a documented pre-lift briefing — toolbox-talk style — that confirms the plan, identifies the supervisor, and addresses the specific conditions on the day. For a refresher on the toolbox-talk approach, see our Toolbox Talks guide.

5. Lifting accessories without per-item identification

A bin of slings and shackles, none individually identified, all out of sight of any examination record. The competent person can examine them; nobody can match the report back to the specific items. The fix is unique IDs on each accessory, cross-referenced to the examination report, with a defined process for retiring items at end of life.

LOLER and the wider H&S framework