Phoenix Journal · LEV Testing
"Competent person" is a legal standard, not a job title - and it is exactly the point an insurer, officer or incoming responsible person will test. Here is what it means for your extraction and LEV compliance.
Compliance basics
"Competent person" is one of the most used phrases in health and safety law, and one of the most misread - it is a legal standard, not a job title you can hand out.
If you run a commercial kitchen, a workshop or any site with extraction, you will meet the phrase again and again: in COSHH, in the fire safety order, in the regulation that says every employer must appoint someone to help them stay on the right side of the law. It sounds reassuringly simple. In practice, whether a person is genuinely competent is exactly the question an enforcing officer, an insurer or an incoming responsible person will test - usually at the worst possible moment. This page sets out what the law means by the term, how it applies to LEV testing and extraction compliance, and how to tell real competence from a printed certificate.
Regulation 7 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires every employer to appoint one or more competent persons to help them meet their legal duties. The law does not hand you a tidy definition with a pass mark. Instead it describes competence as a blend of qualities you have to weigh together.
The two phrases get used interchangeably, and they should not be. The responsible person is the one who carries the legal duty. Under the fire safety order that is usually the employer or whoever controls the premises, and it is a role you cannot delegate away. The competent person is someone that responsible person appoints to help them discharge that duty. You can bring in all the competent help you like, but the accountability stays with you.
This matters because the appointment does not transfer the risk - it sharpens it. If you appoint someone to test your extraction and they are not genuinely competent, you have not covered yourself; you have arguably made things worse, because you relied on a judgement that will not stand up. It is worth reading our note on who the responsible person is under fire safety law alongside this page, because the same distinction runs through both fire safety and COSHH, and kitchen extraction sits squarely across the two.
Under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, LEV systems that control exposure to hazardous substances must be thoroughly examined and tested by a competent person. For most systems the maximum interval is fourteen months, which exists so that an annual test never quietly slips beyond a year. That figure is a ceiling, not a target. HSG258 is clear that you match the interval to the risk: the contaminant involved, how hard the system works and how quickly it degrades. A busy kitchen carrying heavy grease loading, or a process throwing off a fast-fouling contaminant, may need examination far more often than fourteen months. A genuinely competent examiner will tell you that, in writing, rather than defaulting to the longest gap the law allows.
The BOHS P601 qualification is the practical benchmark most enforcing officers and insurers expect to see behind a thorough examination. It is a competence-based award, sitting at Level 4, delivered over four days with a mix of teaching, independent study and assessment, and it requires familiarity with HSG258. It is not the only route to competence, but it is the most widely recognised, and where an engineer cannot point to P601 or a clear equivalent, you are entitled to ask what their claim to competence actually rests on.
Competence also shapes what a good report contains. A thorough examination is meant to establish that the system still controls exposure to the standard it was designed for. That means measured airflow and capture data, a comparison against a commissioning benchmark or a suitable standard, a clear list of defects, and a plain statement of whether the system provides adequate control. A one-line pass with no numbers behind it is one of the fastest ways to find your paperwork challenged later.
Nobody questions a certificate on a quiet day. It gets questioned when an insurer is assessing a claim, when a new managing agent takes over a building, when an environmental health officer walks in, or when a fire investigation starts asking who signed off the extraction. At that point the question is never simply "do you have a certificate" - it is "was the person who issued it competent to do so, and does the work behind it hold up." If the answer is thin, the document is worth very little. We deal with this pattern often, and have written separately about what to do when your compliance certificate is being questioned, because the root cause is almost always a competence gap that was invisible until someone looked hard.
The same logic runs through fire safety. The fire safety order requires the responsible person to appoint competent people to help with the preventive and protective measures, and recognised practice for fire risk assessors points to a defined body of knowledge, qualifications at a comparable level and ongoing professional development. Kitchen extraction is one of the places where COSHH and fire safety meet - the same ductwork that controls airborne contaminant is also a grease-laden fire pathway - so the competence you appoint has to cover both. An engineer who understands airflow but not fire risk, or vice versa, only gives you half the assurance you need.
Getting this right is not complicated, but it does take a little rigour. Decide what the task actually requires before you appoint - a canopy and duct system in a production kitchen needs different competence from a single bench extractor. Ask for the qualification that matches the task and check it is current. Look at the reports the firm produces and judge whether they would survive scrutiny. Give whoever you appoint the access, information and time to do the work properly, because the law puts that duty on you. And keep the evidence together, so that when someone does ask, the answer is already on the shelf rather than being assembled in a hurry.
Questions
There is no single pass mark. Regulation 7 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 describes a competent person as someone with sufficient training and experience, or knowledge and other qualities, to properly assist an employer in meeting their health and safety duties. The HSE frames it as knowledge, skills and experience combined with the judgement to apply them reliably to the task in front of them.
No. The responsible person - usually the employer or whoever controls the premises - keeps the legal duty even after appointing competent help. Appointing someone sharpens your position rather than removing the risk, because you are relying on their judgement. If that person is not genuinely competent, you have not protected yourself; you have leaned on an assessment that may not stand up to scrutiny.
For thorough examination and testing of local exhaust ventilation, the widely recognised benchmark is the BOHS P601 qualification, a Level 4 award covering TExT of LEV plant and requiring familiarity with HSG258. It is not the only route to competence, but where an engineer cannot point to P601 or a clear equivalent, you are entitled to ask what their claim to competence actually rests on.
Fourteen months is the maximum interval the law allows for most systems, not a default that suits every process. HSG258 is clear that you match the interval to the risk - the contaminant involved, how hard the system works and how quickly it fouls. A busy kitchen with heavy grease loading may need examination considerably more often, and a competent examiner will say so in writing rather than defaulting to the longest permitted gap.
Phoenix Duct Clean · by the numbers
Phoenix examines and tests local exhaust ventilation to HSG258 and COSHH - measured, reported and certificated, UK-wide.