LOLER and PUWER Regulations: What's the Difference and Which Applies?

Updated September 2026. Regulations last checked 4 September 2026.

Whether you search for LOLER and PUWER or PUWER and LOLER, these two sets of regulations work together to cover virtually all work equipment used in UK workplaces. The order you encounter them does not change what they require. Both came into force in 1998. Both are enforced by the HSE. Both carry the same penalties for non-compliance.

PUWER: the regulation that covers all work equipment

PUWER stands for the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. It applies to virtually all equipment used at work: power tools, vehicles, machinery, computer workstations, ladders, and lifting equipment. Your equipment must be suitable for its intended purpose, maintained in good working order, inspected where deterioration is a risk, and operated only by people who have been properly trained. Where lifting equipment is involved, LOLER adds further obligations on top of all of that.

LOLER: the regulation that applies specifically to lifting

LOLER stands for the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998. It applies specifically to equipment used for lifting or lowering loads at work. LOLER is more prescriptive than PUWER. It tells you exactly when thorough examinations must take place, what those examinations must cover, who may carry them out, and what records you must keep. It also requires safe working load markings and formal defect notification duties that PUWER alone does not impose.

If you are new to it, start with our plain English guide to what LOLER is and what equipment it covers.

Do both apply to your equipment?

LOLER and PUWER came in together in 1998 as complementary regulations. LOLER does not replace PUWER. It adds a further layer of requirements for lifting equipment specifically. If you have a forklift on site, both apply: PUWER covers general suitability and maintenance, LOLER covers thorough examination intervals and Schedule 1 records.

The LOLER PUWER regulations framework means most employers need to comply with both sets of rules simultaneously. PUWER and LOLER regulations are enforced by the HSE and carry the same penalties for non-compliance. A gap under either set of rules is still a gap, even if the other set is satisfied in full.

LOLER and PUWER requirements side by side

Two numbers worth remembering

6 and 12. The months between LOLER thorough examinations. Six for equipment that lifts people and for lifting accessories, twelve for all other lifting equipment. There is more detail in our guide to LOLER inspection frequency.

Forthwith. The deadline for telling the employer about a defect that is, or could become, a danger to people. The written Schedule 1 report follows as soon as is practicable. LOLER sets no fixed number of days for the report, despite the 28 day figure that circulates in the industry. That number comes from other regulations, not this one.

Difference Between LOLER and PUWER

The core difference between LOLER and PUWER is scope. LOLER applies specifically to lifting operations and lifting equipment. PUWER applies to all work equipment. Where equipment is used for lifting, both sets of regulations apply at the same time. LOLER does not replace PUWER. It adds further requirements on top.

The practical difference is in what each regulation requires. PUWER requires suitable equipment, proper maintenance, and trained operators. LOLER requires thorough examination at set intervals, Schedule 1 examination reports, safe working load markings, and formal defect notification. A PUWER inspection record does not satisfy LOLER. A LOLER examination report does not satisfy all PUWER duties. Both bodies of evidence must be in order.

Practical examples: which regulation applies to your equipment?

Equipment classification table

Edge cases cause more confusion than mainstream equipment. This settles the most common ones.

If something is not on this list, our guide to LOLER exemptions covers what falls outside the regulations altogether.

Forklifts, CFTS, and why one visit covers both

The forklift is where the overlap is easiest to see on a single machine.

The mast, chains, forks, carriage and tilt rams are lifting components, so they are LOLER territory, examined every 12 months. The brakes, steering, tyres, seatbelt and lights are work equipment, so they are PUWER, inspected at risk based intervals. Neither examination covers the other.

This is why Consolidated Fork Truck Services (CFTS) accreditation matters. A CFTS Thorough Examination covers both elements in one visit. A LOLER only examination leaves the braking and steering side undocumented, and the duty holder carries that gap.

When only PUWER applies and LOLER does not

Equipment used for physical work that does not involve lifting loads is subject to PUWER only. An angle grinder, a conveyor belt, a hydraulic press, a lathe: PUWER applies in full. LOLER does not, because none of them lift. The test is simple: if the equipment's primary function is to lift or lower a load, including a person, LOLER applies on top of PUWER.

The distinction matters because the competent person requirements differ, the report format differs, and examination intervals are set differently. A PUWER inspection by a maintenance engineer is not a substitute for a LOLER thorough examination by an independent competent person. Duty holders who rely on maintenance service records to satisfy LOLER are mistaken. HSE investigations find this regularly after lifting incidents.

A LOLER examination and a PUWER inspection are not the same thing

This is the most common misunderstanding in workplaces with lifting equipment. A LOLER thorough examination is carried out by an independent competent person. It produces a formal Schedule 1 report. It happens at set statutory intervals. A PUWER inspection is risk based and can be done by a competent person inside your own organisation. No Schedule 1 report is required. These are legally distinct activities with different evidence requirements.

When an independent inspection company carries out a LOLER thorough examination, they fulfil the LOLER obligation for the client. But the client's PUWER obligations continue in parallel: maintenance, suitability, operator training, and PUWER inspection where deterioration is a risk. The inspection company's job ends at the LOLER report. The maintenance contractor or internal team handles the PUWER side.

So what does a PUWER inspection record have to say?

PUWER does not prescribe a format, which is why people find it harder than LOLER rather than easier. What an HSE inspector will look for is a record that shows what was checked, when, by whom, what was found, and what was done about it. Just as importantly, they will ask you to justify the interval you chose, because Regulation 6 says intervals must be suitable and you are the one who decided what suitable means. Write the reasoning down at the point you set the interval. Reconstructing it two years later in front of an inspector is much harder.

LOLER, PUWER and Manual Handling: how the regulations overlap

The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 sit alongside both. They apply where a load is moved by human effort rather than by equipment, and their first requirement is to avoid hazardous manual handling where it is reasonably practicable to do so.

That is where the three connect. The usual way to avoid a hazardous manual handling operation is to use lifting equipment instead, and the moment you do that, LOLER and PUWER apply to the equipment you brought in. A care home that replaces a two person lift with a patient hoist has reduced its manual handling risk and acquired a 6 month thorough examination duty in the same decision. A warehouse that buys a vacuum lifter has done the same thing.

None of the three regimes lets you out of the others. Manual handling assessments deal with the task, PUWER deals with the equipment generally, and LOLER deals with the lifting.

What the HSE will check when they visit

What happens when both are missed: the Renault case

In March 2019, Renault Retail Group UK was prosecuted at Hendon Magistrates' Court over its Coulsdon and West London sites. Between October 2015 and September 2016, technicians were left working with vehicle lifts that were not maintained in safe working order.

The company was fined £200,000 with £17,217.84 in costs. The charges were brought under Regulation 5(1) of PUWER and Regulation 10(3)(a) of LOLER, in the same case.

Two things are worth taking from it. The first is that the HSE does treat these as two separate bodies of evidence and will charge under both. The second is the equipment involved: vehicle two post lifts, which sit in the classification table above at a 12 month statutory interval, and which many garages still treat as a maintenance item rather than a LOLER item. More examples are in our LOLER prosecution case studies.

Frequently asked questions