The Report Is a Decision Tool: Auditing MEWP Thorough Examination Records

Filing is not the same as reviewing

On many UK sites, the MEWP thorough examination report arrives as a PDF, is checked for a date and a signature, and is then saved to a folder. That satisfies the instinct to keep records, but it does not satisfy the purpose of the examination. Under the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, a thorough examination is a structured assessment by a competent person, and the resulting report is evidence that should inform decisions about whether, where and how equipment is used.

For facilities managers in 2026, that distinction matters more than ever. Hire fleets are mixed, utilisation is high, and access equipment often moves between sites at short notice. A report that says nothing useful beyond “examined” creates a false sense of assurance. A report that is read properly can prevent an unsuitable machine being dispatched, prompt a timely replacement, and keep a planned maintenance or façade project on programme.

What the report is, and what it is not

A thorough examination report is not a pre-use check, and it is not a maintenance record. It is a formal examination of the equipment against the relevant legal requirements, typically carried out at six-monthly intervals for MEWPs used to lift persons. It should identify the equipment examined, define the scope and limitations of the examination, record findings, and state what action, if any, is required.

The report is also not a blanket warranty that the machine is suitable for every task. A MEWP may be mechanically sound and still be the wrong choice for a particular location, ground condition or operation. Facilities teams should therefore read the report alongside the access plan, the site-specific risk assessment and the equipment specification, not in isolation.

The minimum content of a credible report

A credible report should allow a person who was not present at the examination to understand what was inspected and what it means. At a minimum, it should include:

• the make, model, serial number and fleet or hire reference;
• the date of the examination and the date by which the next examination is due;
• the rated capacity and any relevant configuration details;
• the scope of the examination and any limitations;
• details of safety-related findings, not just a general statement;
• a clear risk rating or action category for each finding;
• the action required and, where relevant, a timescale;
• the identity and signature of the competent person;
• the employer or examining body responsible for the report.

For MEWPs, the substantive content should reflect the machine type. Depending on the equipment, that may include structure and welds, scissor stack or boom sections, pins and bushes, hydraulic systems, levelling, outriggers, brakes, steering, controls, interlocks, emergency lowering, guarding, anchorage points, tyres, batteries, charging arrangements and warning devices. Functional testing and measurements should be recorded where they are relevant. Photographs are not mandatory, but they are useful where a finding is difficult to describe in words.

Vague wording that should prompt a question

A report does not need to be lengthy, but it does need to be specific. The following phrases should trigger a request for clarification rather than a quiet filing decision:

• “No defects noted” without a stated scope or record of functional tests;
• “Minor wear” without identifying the component, its condition and whether it is within acceptable limits;
• “Monitor” without an interval, owner or review date;
• “Safe to use” without qualification, particularly where the examination was limited or the machine has known restrictions;
• a missing serial number, fleet number or next examination date;
• a report signed by a person whose competence is not evidenced by the examining body;
• findings that are not linked to an action, a timescale or a clear risk category.

The point is not to challenge every report for its own sake. It is to ensure that the record is fit to support a decision. If the report cannot answer the question “what does this mean for the next job?”, it is incomplete for management purposes.

Linking findings to access planning

Examination findings should feed directly into equipment availability and access planning. If a machine is subject to a restriction or requires repair, the facilities team should know before the hire desk or site team commits it to a programme. That means updating the equipment register, flagging the machine as unavailable or restricted, and confirming with the hire company or maintaining department what replacement or repair is planned.

The link to site-specific planning is equally important. A finding may not make the machine unsafe in general, but it may make it unsuitable for a particular task. For example, a restriction relating to levelling or outrigger operation may matter greatly on a sloping external slab, while a control or interlock finding may affect familiarisation and rescue arrangements. The access plan should reflect the actual machine condition, not the assumption that a valid certificate means unrestricted availability.

Where a defect is identified, the report should also inform the permit or authorisation process. The person authorising work at height should be able to see that the equipment has been examined, that any findings have been actioned, and that the machine remains suitable for the intended task. If the machine is quarantined, the plan needs a credible alternative: a replacement MEWP, a different access method, or a rescheduled activity.

A simple audit routine for facilities teams

A practical routine does not need to be complex. Keep a central register of MEWPs used across the estate or project, including hired equipment. When a thorough examination report arrives, review it against a short checklist covering identification, scope, findings, actions and next date. Record any clarification sought and the response. Track open actions to closure, and review the register monthly alongside other compliance records.

It is also worth including report review in the onboarding of hired equipment. A machine that arrives with a valid report is not automatically ready for the task; the report should be read, the machine should be checked against the access plan, and any restrictions should be communicated to the site team. That simple step turns a compliance document into a decision tool, which is precisely what a thorough examination report should be.