Home / LEV Testing / Guide
LEV testing - multi-site
One site is manageable. A dozen, each with its own extraction, schedules and records, is where LEV compliance quietly falls apart - unless it is coordinated. A multi-site contract is how manufacturers keep it together.
The short answer
A manufacturer with many sites faces the same LEV testing duty at each, but managed site by site it fragments - testing slips out of sync, intervals get missed, standards vary, and records scatter, so no one can see the whole compliance picture. A coordinated multi-site testing contract fixes that: consistent testing to one standard, scheduling that keeps every site on its cycle, and central records that show compliance across the estate at a glance.
Why multi-site is harder
The LEV testing duty does not change with the number of sites - each site with extraction controlling a hazard must have it tested on the COSHH cycle, maintained, and recorded. But managing that across many sites is a different problem from managing it at one. Each site has its own systems, its own intervals falling due at different times, its own local arrangements, and its own records - and holding all of that together is where the difficulty lies.
Left to each site to handle alone, LEV compliance fragments. Sites test at different times to different providers, some slip past their intervals, standards and report quality vary, and the records live in a dozen different places. For the manufacturer as a whole, there is no single view of whether the estate is compliant - just a patchwork that is impossible to see clearly and easy for gaps to hide in.
Benefit one
A coordinated contract brings consistency. Every site is tested to the same standard, by the same competent provider, with reports in the same format and to the same depth - so a system in one factory is assessed exactly as a system in another, and a report from any site means the same thing. That consistency removes the variation that site-by-site arrangements inevitably produce, where some sites get thorough tests and others superficial ones.
It also raises the floor. Under a single contract, no site is left with a poor local arrangement or an under-qualified tester, because the standard is set centrally and applied everywhere. For a manufacturer whose reputation and compliance depend on every site, not just the best-run ones, that uniform standard is worth a great deal.
Benefit two
The biggest compliance risk across many sites is intervals slipping - a site here or there quietly going past its 14 months because no one was tracking it. A coordinated contract takes on that scheduling: keeping every site's testing on its cycle, planning the visits, and prompting each before it falls due. Nothing depends on each site remembering its own dates, which is exactly where multi-site compliance usually fails.
This turns a scattered set of independent deadlines into a managed programme. Instead of hoping each site keeps itself compliant, the manufacturer has a provider actively keeping the whole estate on schedule - so a lapsed interval, the classic multi-site failure, becomes far less likely. Coordinated scheduling is much of what a contract is worth.
Benefit three
The other multi-site headache is evidence. When records live locally at each site, no one at the centre can readily answer whether the whole estate is compliant, produce the paperwork for a group-wide audit, or spot a site that has fallen behind. A coordinated contract centralises the records - one place holding the test reports, actions and status for every site, giving the manufacturer a single, current view of compliance across the estate.
That central picture is valuable well beyond convenience. It lets the manufacturer see at a glance which sites are compliant and which need attention, produce evidence for customers, insurers or regulators covering the whole group, and manage LEV as an estate-wide programme rather than a scatter of local unknowns. Visibility across all sites is something only a coordinated approach provides.
The takeaway
For a multi-site manufacturer, the case for a coordinated LEV testing contract is that it turns a fragmenting, hard-to-see obligation into a managed, visible programme. Consistent testing to one standard, scheduling that keeps every site on cycle, and central records that show the whole estate at a glance - together these address exactly the ways multi-site LEV compliance otherwise fails.
So rather than leaving each site to arrange its own testing and hoping it adds up to compliance, a manufacturer with many sites is usually better served by coordinating it - one standard, one schedule, one record. That is how the estate as a whole stays genuinely compliant and demonstrably so, instead of being a patchwork with gaps no one can see until an inspector, or an incident, finds them.
Questions
The duty is the same at each site but multiplied and scattered - each has its own systems, intervals falling due at different times, and records in different places. Managed site by site it fragments, so no one can see the whole compliance picture.
Sites test at different times to different providers, some slip past their intervals, standards and report quality vary, and records scatter. For the manufacturer, there is no single view of compliance - just a patchwork where gaps hide.
Every site is tested to the same standard by the same competent provider, with reports in the same format and depth - so a system in one factory is assessed exactly as in another, and no site is left with a poor local arrangement.
It takes on keeping every site on its cycle - planning visits and prompting each before it falls due - so nothing depends on each site remembering its own dates, which is where multi-site compliance usually fails.
They give one current view of compliance across the estate - so the manufacturer can see which sites are compliant, produce group-wide evidence for audits or regulators, and spot a site that has fallen behind.
For a multi-site manufacturer, usually yes. It turns a fragmenting, hard-to-see obligation into a managed programme - one standard, one schedule, one record - keeping the estate genuinely and demonstrably compliant.
We test LEV across your sites to one standard, keep each on its cycle, and hold central records - the whole estate at a glance.
