LOLER gives duty holders two routes. The time-based route uses fixed intervals in Regulation 9(3): 6 months for lifting accessories and anything that lifts people, 12 months for everything else. The risk-based route replaces those defaults with an examination scheme drawn up by a competent person, which sets intervals from how the equipment is actually used.
Most fleets should stay at fixed intervals. A scheme is worth the effort in a narrow set of cases, and it carries duties that catch people out. This guide covers both routes, what a scheme must specify, and how to decide.
What the two approaches mean
Time-based examination sets the interval by what the equipment is, not how hard it works. A chain sling examined twice a year is on the same cycle whether it lifts once a month or forty times a day. It is simple to run, simple to prove, and it is the default position in law.
Risk-based examination sets the interval by duty cycle, environment, failure history and consequence of failure. A competent person assesses the equipment and writes an examination scheme that specifies its own intervals. Those intervals can be shorter than the statutory defaults, longer, or different part by part on the same machine.
The second route is not a relaxation. It is a different way of arriving at a defensible interval, and the burden of proof sits with you.
The two routes under Regulation 9(3)
| Time-based (default intervals) | Risk-based (examination scheme) | |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | LOLER Regulation 9(3)(a)(i) and (ii) | LOLER Regulation 9(3)(a), examination scheme |
| Who sets the interval | The regulation | A competent person |
| Interval | 6 months for accessories and people-lifting equipment, 12 months for other lifting equipment | Whatever the scheme specifies |
| Can it be longer than 12 months? | No | Yes, if the assessment supports it |
| Can it differ part by part? | No | Yes |
| Effort to set up | None | Engineering assessment, documentation, review cycle |
| Effort to prove | Show in-date reports | Show in-date reports, the scheme, and the reasoning behind it |
| Best for | Most fleets, mixed equipment, small sites | Large homogeneous fleets, extreme duty, very low duty, hard-to-access equipment |
The defaults apply only in the absence of a scheme. HSE puts the choice plainly: you can arrange thorough examination at the intervals specified by LOLER, or conduct examinations in accordance with an examination scheme drawn up by a competent person. Those are the full set of LOLER examination intervals available to you.
What an examination scheme must specify
HSE sets out four things a scheme should identify and specify.
| Element | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Parts to be examined | Which components and safety critical items, named individually where they differ |
| Methods of examination and testing | Visual, functional, non-destructive testing, load testing where it applies |
| Intervals | The interval for each part or group of parts |
| Other inspection regimes | How the scheme sits alongside pre-use checks and interim inspections |
That fourth element is the one most schemes miss. A scheme is not just a list of dates. It has to show how the whole regime fits together, including the inspections required between thorough examinations under Regulation 9(3)(b).
Three things most guides get wrong
1. A scheme does not have to be a document. HSE states that examination schemes do not need to be preserved in the form of a document, provided it is possible to produce a written copy when required, and that the scheme is secured from loss or unauthorised modification. Almost every guide on this topic says a scheme must be written. It does not. In practice you will still write it down, because producing a copy on demand is the only realistic way to meet the condition, but the legal test is producibility rather than paperwork.
2. The person who writes the scheme need not be the person who examines. HSE is explicit that the competent person who draws up the scheme does not need to be the same competent person who conducts the thorough examination under it. That matters commercially. You can take a scheme from a specialist and have routine examinations carried out by your usual provider, and both can still be competent for their part of the work.
3. A scheme can lengthen intervals, not only shorten them. Most content frames schemes as a way to inspect more often. The regulation is neutral. If a documented engineering assessment supports an 18 month interval on a lightly used gantry crane in a clean indoor environment, a scheme can set that. What it cannot do is extend an interval for commercial convenience with no assessment behind it.
LOLER examination scheme vs PSSR written scheme of examination
These two get conflated constantly, including by pages that rank well. They are different instruments under different regulations.
| LOLER examination scheme | PSSR written scheme of examination | |
|---|---|---|
| Regulation | LOLER 1998, Regulation 9(3) | Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 |
| Correct term | Examination scheme | Written scheme of examination (WSE) |
| Mandatory? | No, it is an alternative to the fixed intervals | Yes, it must be in place before qualifying equipment is used |
| Must it be written? | No, but a copy must be producible | Yes, by name |
| Applies to | Lifting equipment and accessories | Pressure vessels, steam systems, air receivers |
| If you have none | The 6 and 12 month defaults apply | You cannot lawfully operate the system |
If you run both lifting and pressure equipment, the difference is operational, not academic. A missing WSE stops the pressure system. A missing LOLER scheme simply means you fall back on the statutory intervals. The wider picture of how LOLER, PUWER and PSSR divide up is worth getting straight before you commit to either.
When a risk-based scheme is worth it
| Situation | Better route | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Mixed fleet, small to mid site | Time-based | The admin of a scheme outweighs any saving |
| Large fleet of identical items, same duty | Risk-based | One assessment covers many assets |
| Severe service: foundry, offshore, marine, chemical | Risk-based | 12 months is too long, and a scheme makes the shorter interval formal |
| Very low use, clean environment | Risk-based | The only lawful way to extend beyond 12 months |
| Equipment needing shutdown or scaffold to reach | Risk-based | Aligning examination with planned shutdowns is a real saving |
| Anything that lifts people | Time-based | The 6 month interval is hard to justify extending, and the consequence of failure is severe |
| Lifting accessories in general circulation | Time-based | Slings and shackles move around, so per-item duty cycle is near impossible to evidence |
The honest summary is that most duty holders should stay on fixed intervals. A scheme pays back where the fleet is large and uniform, where access is expensive, or where the default interval is clearly wrong for the conditions.
How a risk-based interval is actually set
A competent person works through the same factors every time:
- Duty cycle. Lifts per day, load as a percentage of safe working load, and shift pattern.
- Environment. Corrosion, temperature, dust, moisture, chemical exposure, outdoor versus indoor.
- Failure history. Defects found at previous examinations, repairs, and any incident record.
- Consequence of failure. What is under the load, and whether failure is contained or catastrophic.
- Design and manufacturer guidance. Design life, rated duty group, and the manufacturer’s own stated intervals.
- Existing regimes. What pre-use checks and interim inspections already catch.
Those factors produce an interval per part, not a single number for the machine. A wire rope on a crane may be on three months while the structure is on twenty-four. That granularity is the real advantage of a scheme, and it is why a scheme on a complex machine is more useful than a scheme on a simple one.
The duties that come with going risk-based
A scheme shifts work onto you rather than removing it.
You have to keep it current. A scheme written for two shifts does not cover three. Changes in usage, environment, ownership or the equipment itself trigger a review.
You have to produce it on demand. An HSE inspector or an insurer asking why a crane is on an 18 month interval wants the scheme and the reasoning, not just the last report.
The reports still have to meet Schedule 1. A scheme changes when examinations happen, not what the report contains. Every examination still produces a report with the information Schedule 1 requires, and defects are still graded and acted on under the normal defect categories.
Record keeping gets harder, not easier. With fixed intervals, every item of one type shares a date. Under a scheme, items on the same machine can sit on different cycles, which is precisely the kind of register that breaks in a spreadsheet. The same retention periods for reports still apply, and you now have the scheme to retain alongside them.
Moving from time-based to risk-based
| Step | What it involves |
|---|---|
| 1. Scope it | Pick the asset group where the default interval is clearly wrong. Do not attempt the whole fleet at once |
| 2. Gather evidence | Duty cycle data, environment, and at least two cycles of previous examination reports |
| 3. Appoint a competent person | Confirm they are competent for that equipment type and independent of its maintenance |
| 4. Draw up the scheme | Parts, methods, intervals and how it sits with existing checks |
| 5. Transition cleanly | Run the first scheme examination on or before the existing due date. Never let an item lapse during changeover |
| 6. Set a review trigger | Annual as a minimum, plus on any change in use, environment or ownership |
Step 5 is where schemes go wrong. An item that sits uninspected while the paperwork is being sorted out is overdue, and overdue means out of service regardless of what the new scheme says.