Home / LEV Testing / Guide
LEV testing - the full duty
Most employers know LEV has to be tested. Fewer realise that the test is the easy part - and that the obligations around it, the ones an inspector actually probes, are where compliance quietly falls down.
The short answer
Under COSHH, having LEV thoroughly examined and tested every 14 months is only part of the obligation. Employers routinely underestimate the rest: acting on the report and closing out defects, keeping records for at least five years, commissioning new or altered systems, maintaining the LEV between tests, and training the people who use it. An inspector who finds a valid test certificate will still ask about these.
Duty one
The most common gap is treating the test report as the finish line. It is not - it is the start of the work. A thorough examination and test frequently comes back with observations and remedial actions: a hood under-performing, a filter needing attention, a damaged section of ductwork. The COSHH duty is to act on those, not merely to hold the report.
Filing a report that lists unaddressed defects can leave you worse off than before, because you now hold documented evidence that you knew a control was not working and did nothing. Closing out the actions - and recording that you did - is what turns a test into compliance.
Duty two
COSHH requires the report of each thorough examination and test, and the record of any repairs, to be kept for at least five years. This is not box-ticking: it is the evidence trail that shows the LEV has been maintained over time rather than tested once and forgotten.
Employers underestimate this because the records live in different places - the test company has the reports, the maintenance log is somewhere else, the repair invoices somewhere else again. An inspector wants to see the whole history in one place. Keeping it together, and current, is a duty in its own right.
Duty three
A brand-new LEV system, or an existing one that has been altered - a workstation added, a hood moved, a process changed - needs its performance established before it goes into normal service. That commissioning benchmark is what every later thorough examination and test is compared against. Without it, there is no baseline to say whether the system is still performing as designed.
This is a duty that gets missed precisely because a new system feels like it must be fine. But adding a capture point to an existing system without checking can rob airflow from the others, so a change that looks like an improvement can quietly undermine control. Commissioning, and re-checking after alterations, is part of the obligation.
Duties four and five
COSHH Regulation 9 requires LEV to be maintained in efficient working order, not just examined every 14 months. That means a maintenance regime between statutory tests - checking airflow indicators, changing filters, keeping the system running as intended - so problems are caught early rather than discovered at the next examination.
There is a people duty too. Employers must provide information, instruction and training so that those using the LEV know how it should work, how to use it correctly, and what to do if it is not performing. A perfectly maintained system used with the hood in the wrong place still fails to protect anyone. Training closes that loop.
Why these get missed
There is a reason these duties are the ones that slip. The 14-month test is a visible, bookable event with a certificate at the end, so it feels like the box is ticked. The rest - acting on the report, keeping records together, commissioning changes, maintaining between tests, training users - are quieter, ongoing responsibilities with no single moment of completion, so they drift.
An inspector knows this, which is why a valid certificate rarely ends the conversation. The questions that follow - what did you do about the actions, where are the last five years of records, who is trained, was the new booth commissioned - are aimed straight at the duties that hide behind the test. Treating the test as one item on a list, rather than the list itself, is what keeps you on the right side of them.
Joining it up
The practical fix for most of these gaps is to stop treating them as separate errands. Keep the test reports, the remedial records, the maintenance log and the training records in one place, tied to each system, so the whole history is to hand rather than spread across a contractor, a maintenance folder and a pile of invoices.
Set against that record, a simple rhythm covers the rest: act on each report when it lands, re-check performance whenever the process or layout changes, keep the maintenance ticking between tests, and re-test before the interval runs out. Once that loop is running, the underestimated duties are no longer a scramble - they are just the ordinary upkeep of a system you can prove is controlling exposure.
The stakes
It is easy to read all this as paperwork, but the point of it is health. LEV exists to stop people breathing in substances that harm them - fume, dust, mist, vapour - and the duties around the test are what keep it actually doing that between the annual checks. An unactioned defect, an uncommissioned change or an untrained user is not a filing failure; it is exposure that the system was meant to prevent.
That is also why the enforcement sits where it does. The law treats these obligations seriously because the harm they guard against - occupational asthma, lung disease, long-latency illness - is serious and often irreversible. Covering the whole duty, not just the test, is the difference between a system that looks compliant and one that genuinely protects the people relying on it.
Questions
No. Testing is one duty. You must also act on the report and close out defects, keep records for at least five years, commission new or altered systems, maintain the LEV between tests, and train the people who use it.
Act on it. Reports often list remedial actions - close them out and record that you did. Filing a report with unaddressed defects can leave you worse off, because it evidences that you knew.
At least five years - the reports of each thorough examination and test and the records of any repairs. Keeping the whole history together is what an inspector wants to see.
Yes. New or altered systems need commissioning to establish a performance benchmark, which every later test is compared against. Adding a capture point can rob airflow from others, so changes need re-checking.
Yes. Regulation 9 requires it to be kept in efficient working order, which means a maintenance regime between the 14-month examinations, not just the statutory test.
Yes. Employers must give information, instruction and training so users know how the system should work, how to use it correctly, and what to do if it is not performing.
We will test your extraction and help you get the records, maintenance and re-test cycle in order so the full COSHH duty is met.
