Difference Between LOLER and PUWER

The difference between LOLER and PUWER starts with what each set of rules was written to do. PUWER — the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

Is a general regulation covering any equipment used at work, from hand tools to lifts. It needs equipment to be suitable, well maintained, and used only by trained people.

LOLER — the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 — is narrower and more specific. It applies only to lifting equipment, meaning equipment used to raise. Lower or support loads, including people.

A lift falls squarely inside LOLER's definition, so a passenger or goods lift is caught by both rules at once, not by one or the other.

Understanding the difference between LOLER and PUWER matters. Because they generate different documents, different intervals, and sometimes different competent persons. Confusing the two, or assuming compliance with one satisfies the other.

Is one of the most common gaps we see in building compliance files.

PUWER's scope is wide by design. It is the baseline regulation for work equipment safety across all industries. LOLER sits on top of it as a specialist layer for lifting operations specially.

This layered structure is why almost every lift in a UK workplace needs to satisfy both sets of duties concurrently, rather than choosing which one applies.

What it involves

In practice, PUWER duties around lifts cover things like ensuring controls cannot be operated accidentally, that door protection works correctly.

That the lift is only used by people who understand how to run it safely.

Safety and UK rules

LOLER duties focus specially on the lifting function: whether the lift is still structurally and mechanically fit to carry the loads or people it was designed for.

Our guide to PUWER inspections for lifts goes into more detail on the PUWER-specific needs. While our LOLER thorough examinations guide covers the lifting-specific side in full.

Reading both together gives the complete compliance picture for a single lift.

A key part of the difference between LOLER and PUWER is the type of check each one asks for.

PUWER's Regulation 6 needs inspection where a piece of equipment's safety depends on fitting conditions or where deterioration could create a dangerous situation.

For a lift, this is usually an inspection after fitting and periodically afterward.

Safety and UK rules

LOLER needs something more formal: a thorough examination done by a competent person. This results in a written report of thorough examination with a defined set of contents.

This is a deeper, more structured check than a general PUWER inspection. Specially aimed at verifying the lift remains safe to lift loads or people.

The two documents look different and serve different audiences.

What to check and report

A PUWER inspection record confirms the equipment is safe to use as installed; a LOLER report of thorough examination confirms the lifting function itself is sound and lists any defects, categorised by urgency.

Keeping both in the same building file, clearly labelled, avoids confusion at audit or insurance renewal time.

LOLER sets defined intervals:

• Every six months for lifting equipment used to carry people
• Every twelve months for lifting equipment used only for goods
• Unless a written scheme of examination specifies something different based on risk

PUWER does not set a fixed interval in the same way. Instead it needs inspection "at suitable intervals" judged against the equipment's actual risk of deterioration.

This in practice is usually aligned with the maintenance regime.

Safety and UK rules

Both rules rely on a "competent person" to do the check. The definition of competence is similar in both cases: appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience of the type of lifting equipment involved.

The same single or group can legitimately act as competent person under both LOLER and PUWER. They must be treated as two separate assessments with two separate outputs, not one combined tick.

Costs and timescales

Independence is a specific LOLER expectation: the person carrying out the thorough examination should be sufficiently independent of whoever maintains the lift day to day.

So that maintenance shortcomings are not simply self-certified as acceptable. PUWER does not carry quite the same independence need. This is another reason the two checks are not interchangeable.

Records under both rules should be kept for the life of the equipment, or at minimum until the next examination or inspection supersedes them, whichever is longer.

In practice, most well-run buildings keep at least three years of LOLER reports and PUWER inspection records on file.

Who to ask and what to expect

Because insurers and enforcing councils often ask to see a run of history rather than a single snapshot.

Office block with a passenger lift. The lift is used daily by staff and visitors.

Safety and UK rules

It needs a LOLER thorough examination every six months and PUWER inspections at intervals set by the maintenance regime, alongside routine servicing under the building's lift maintenance contract.

Both sets of records should sit in the same compliance file, referenced against the lift's serial number.

Costs and timescales

Warehouse with a goods-only lift. Because no people are lifted. The LOLER interval extends to twelve months. PUWER duties still apply in full.

Because the lift is still work equipment used by staff to move stock. If staff are ever authorised to ride in the goods lift, the LOLER interval drops back to six months at once.

Care home with a passenger and evacuation lift. Both lifts need six-monthly LOLER thorough examinations.

Because they carry people, plus ongoing PUWER-compliant inspection and training for staff who run the evacuation lift during an emergency. The overlap here is deliberate: LOLER protects the lifting function.

PUWER protects safe day-to-day use by staff who may not be lift specialists.

The most common misunderstanding is assuming that a valid LOLER report also satisfies PUWER, or vice versa. They are separate rules with separate purposes.

A building should be able to produce evidence for both if asked. A duty holder who can only produce one is missing half the needed paperwork.

Safety and UK rules

Another frequent error is assuming servicing visits under a maintenance contract automatically satisfy either regulation. Routine servicing keeps the lift running smoothly. It is not like a PUWER inspection or a LOLER thorough examination.

None of the three should be treated as a substitute for the other two. For more on how servicing fits alongside legal checks, see our guide comparing lift inspections, LOLER, PUWER and servicing.

Finally, some buildings assume that because their lift is modern, or was recently installed. The older rules somehow do not apply yet.

What it involves

LOLER and PUWER apply from the point equipment is put into use at work, regardless of age. A brand-new lift needs its first thorough examination within the normal interval just like an older one.

If you are unsure which duties apply to a specific lift, our guide to the wider UK lift inspection landscape is a good starting point before calling a competent person directly.

Both LOLER and PUWER are enforced in Great Britain by the Health and Safety Executive, or by local councils for certain premises, using broadly similar enforcement powers.

An inspector can issue improvement notices requiring specific action within a set timescale, or prohibition notices stopping use of equipment at once if there is a risk of serious injury.

Safety and UK rules

In practice, most enforcement activity around lifts follows an incident, a complaint, or a routine audit that uncovers missing records for either regulation.

A duty holder who can produce a complete, in-date set of LOLER thorough examination reports and PUWER inspection records is in a far stronger position than one who can only produce one or the other, or neither.

Repeated non-compliance with either regulation can, in serious cases, lead to prosecution.

However, the more common consequence for ordinary buildings is a chain of escalating notices and, eventually, a lift being taken out of service until compliance is restored.

Treating the difference between LOLER and PUWER as a paperwork nuance rather than two separate legal duties is the root cause of most of these situations.

A practical way to manage the difference between LOLER and PUWER day to day is to build a single compliance file per lift that clearly separates the two types of record rather than blending them. A simple structure works well:

• LOLER reports of thorough examination in one section
• PUWER inspection records in another
• Routine maintenance visit sheets in a third

Each section should show the last three entries at a glance, with dates and any outstanding actions highlighted. This makes it easy to answer the two questions any inspector.

Insurer or incoming managing agent will ask: is the lifting function currently checked safe under LOLER. Is the equipment currently checked safe to use under PUWER?

Review the file at least annually, ideally alongside the lift maintenance contract renewal, to confirm both safety strands are still being satisfied and that the intervals for each have not slipped.

A file that is easy to audit is also, in practice. A file that is easy to keep compliant. Because gaps become visible at once rather than months later.

When appointing or reviewing a lift company, ask them directly to explain the difference between LOLER and PUWER as it applies to your specific lift, rather than accepting a vague assurance that "all is covered".

A provider who cannot articulate the distinction clearly may be treating the two as interchangeable, which is itself a warning sign.

Ask who will do the LOLER thorough examination and whether that person is organisationally separate from the team doing routine maintenance and any PUWER-related inspection work.

Ask, too, how PUWER inspection intervals are decided for your lift. Whether that decision is documented anywhere you can see it, rather than left as an internal judgement call.

Finally, ask what happens administratively when a defect is found under either regime — who notifies the duty holder, how quickly, and in what format.

A provider with a clear, repeatable process for both LOLER and PUWER findings is easier to hold to account than one that handles each incident informally on a case-by-case basis.

One frequent mistake is treating a lift's warranty period as a reason to delay legal checks, on the assumption that a new lift cannot yet have defects worth examining.

LOLER and PUWER duties apply from the point the lift is first used at work, regardless of warranty status. Skipping the first examination or inspection is a compliance gap from day one.

Safety and UK rules

Another common error is filing LOLER and PUWER paperwork with the general building maintenance records rather than in a dedicated, easily retrievable compliance file.

When an inspector, insurer or new managing agent asks for evidence, a scattered paper trail takes far longer to assemble and can leave genuine gaps unnoticed until it is too late.

A third mistake is assuming a change of maintenance provider automatically carries over knowledge of outstanding PUWER or LOLER actions.

Any handover between providers should include an explicit list of open recommendations from both regimes, not just a general statement that the lift is "up to date", so nothing falls through the gap between contracts.

A less obvious mistake is discussing "lift compliance" as a single, generic status when reporting to a board or landlord, rather than separately confirming that both the LOLER thorough examination and the PUWER inspection regime are current.

What to check and report

A managing agent who can state both positions distinctly, with dates. Gives far more useful assurance than one who simply says the lift "passed its check" without specifying which check they mean.

It is also worth training front-of-house or facilities staff to recognise the difference between LOLER and PUWER paperwork so they do not file one under the other by mistake, or discard an older report thinking it has been superseded when it actually covers a different legal duties.

A short internal note explaining what each document is for, kept alongside the compliance file itself, avoids this confusion being repeated every time staff change.