Home / LEV Testing / Guide
LEV testing - the records
LEV testing produces reports, and it is tempting to file them and forget them. But those records are the evidence that, if an occupational health claim ever comes years later, could decide it - so what they contain, and how long you keep them, matters as much as the testing itself.
The short answer
LEV records matter because occupational health claims can arise years or decades after the exposure, and the records are the evidence that the extraction controlling that exposure was working and maintained. Records an insurer will accept are the thorough examination and test reports - showing what was tested, the results against what the system needs, any faults and their remedy - kept for a long period given the latency of occupational disease, and forming a continuous history. Good records are detailed, complete, and retained; that is what makes them stand up.
Why the records matter so much later
The reason LEV records deserve care is the timescale of occupational health. The diseases LEV is there to prevent - the lung conditions and others caused by breathing hazardous substances - often develop slowly, appearing years or even decades after the exposure that caused them. So a claim relating to that exposure can arrive long after the fact, and when it does, the central question is whether the exposure was controlled at the time - which is precisely what the LEV records from that period would show.
That gives the records a value that is easy to underestimate when they are filed. At the time of testing, a report just confirms the LEV is working; but years later, if a claim is made, that same report becomes the evidence of whether the business was controlling exposure when it mattered. A business that can produce a continuous history of LEV testing showing the extraction was examined and performing is in a strong position; one that cannot is not. The records are, in effect, a long-term insurance in themselves - which is why they should be kept as such.
What a good report contains
A record that will stand up is a thorough one, and that starts with what the report contains. A good LEV thorough examination and test report is not just a pass-or-fail note - it records what was tested, the measurements taken and how they compared to what the system needs to achieve, the condition of the system, any faults or shortcomings found, and what should be done about them. That detail is what demonstrates the LEV was genuinely examined and performing, rather than merely ticked off.
The detail matters because a thin record proves little. A report that just says the system passed, with no measurements, no detail of what was assessed and no record of the system's condition, is weak evidence - it does not show what was actually done or how well the system was performing. A detailed report showing the measurements against the requirements, the condition, and the findings is strong evidence, because it demonstrates real, competent examination. So records an insurer will accept start with reports that contain enough to actually prove control was in place.
Faults and follow-up
Crucially, records need to show not just what the tests found but that anything they flagged was acted on. A test that identifies a fault or shortcoming - a part underperforming, a section needing attention - creates a finding, and what matters for the evidence is that the finding was addressed. A history showing faults identified and then resolved demonstrates active management of the LEV; one showing faults flagged and then ignored demonstrates the opposite, and is exactly what a claim or an inspector would seize on.
So the records should include not only the test reports but the evidence of follow-up - that identified issues were put right, and confirmed. This closes the loop: the testing found the problem, and the records show it was fixed. A flagged-but-unresolved fault sitting in the history is a weak point, because it shows the business knew of a shortcoming in the control and left it. Records an insurer will accept demonstrate a managed system - tested, with findings acted upon - not just a tested one with unaddressed problems on file.
How long to keep them
Because occupational disease can surface decades after exposure, LEV records need to be kept for a long time - far longer than routine paperwork. The value of the records is precisely at the point a claim arises, which may be many years ahead, so discarding them after a short period destroys exactly the evidence a future claim would need. Records relating to the control of exposure to health hazards should be retained for an extended period, reflecting how long the diseases they concern take to appear.
In practice that means treating LEV records as long-term documents to be kept and preserved, not routine files to be cleared out. A continuous, retained history - the reports over the years, showing the LEV consistently examined and performing, with faults addressed - is what provides the evidence if a claim comes long after. So retention is part of what makes records acceptable: it is not enough to have produced good reports if they were not kept long enough to be there when needed. Keep them for the long term, matched to the timescale of the risk they concern.
The takeaway
LEV records matter because occupational health claims can come years or decades after the exposure, and the records are the evidence that the extraction controlling it was working and maintained at the time. Records an insurer will accept are detailed thorough-examination reports - showing what was tested, the measurements against the requirements, the condition and any faults - with evidence that findings were acted on, forming a continuous history and kept for the long term the latency of disease demands.
So the value of LEV records lies in their detail, their completeness and their retention. A thin report, a gap in the history, or a flagged fault left unresolved weakens the evidence; a detailed, continuous, well-kept record of a tested and managed system is what stands up. Treat the reports not as paperwork to file and forget but as long-term evidence to be kept and preserved - because if a claim ever comes, those records are what show the exposure was controlled when it counted.
Questions
Because occupational health claims can arise years or decades after the exposure, and the records are the evidence that the extraction controlling that exposure was working and maintained at the time. When a claim comes, the records from that period are what show control was in place.
Not just a pass or fail - it should record what was tested, the measurements and how they compared to what the system needs, the condition of the system, any faults found, and what should be done about them. That detail is what demonstrates genuine, competent examination.
Because a report that just says the system passed, with no measurements or detail of what was assessed, does not show what was actually done or how well the system performed. A detailed report showing measurements against requirements and the findings is far stronger evidence of real control.
Yes. A history showing faults identified and then resolved demonstrates active management of the LEV; one showing faults flagged and ignored demonstrates the opposite, and is exactly what a claim or inspector would seize on. The records should close the loop on follow-up.
For a long time - far longer than routine paperwork - because occupational disease can surface decades after exposure, which is exactly when the records are needed. Records concerning the control of exposure to health hazards should be retained for an extended period.
Detail, completeness and retention - detailed reports showing measurements, condition and faults, evidence that findings were acted on, forming a continuous history, kept for the long term the latency of disease demands. A thin, gappy or short-kept record weakens the evidence.
We produce detailed LEV test reports - measurements, condition and faults with clear follow-up - that form the continuous, retained evidence an occupational health claim turns on.
