Real slip testing work, anonymised to protect client confidentiality. Each example shows the question, the measurement approach, and the outcome — demonstrating how UKAS accredited pendulum evidence is used in practice.
Client names and specific locations have been removed; all PTV results and technical details are genuine. These examples are shared to illustrate how our UKAS 7933 accredited testing is commissioned across different sectors.
Sector: Retail · Location: Major city in the North West · Commissioned by: Insurer acting for a national supermarket chain
The question. A customer slipped on the polished vinyl floor 2.4 metres inside the store entrance, sustaining a wrist fracture. The claim value was substantial. The retailer held a standard cleaning log and a generic floor specification from the 2018 refit, but no measured PTV evidence. The insurer needed to know whether the floor was inherently dangerous or whether the incident was attributable to an atypical event.
What we did. Testing to BS EN 16165 Annex C and UKSRG Issue 6 across 8 locations: the threshold mat, the transition line at 2m inside the entrance, three points across the main sales floor, and three points at different distances from the entrance after different cleaning-cycle times.
What we found. The main sales floor tested at a wet PTV in the mid-40s — comfortably above the HSE 36 threshold. But the 2-metre transition zone, where the customer fell, tested at wet PTV 21 — classified as high slip potential. The entrance matting was undersized: customers walked 2 metres with wet shoes before reaching a surface that retained its grip.
Outcome. The report identified a specific, addressable defect (matting spec) rather than a fundamental floor problem. The retailer extended the entrance matting to 4 metres and re-tested at our expense; the transition zone rose to PTV 41. The insurer settled the individual claim but used the pre-existing report format to avoid a pattern of further claims across the estate.
Sector: Leisure Centres · Location: Home Counties · Commissioned by: Leisure trust operator on behalf of a local authority client
The question. A £4.2m pool refurbishment completed the installation phase. The specification required PTV 24+ (barefoot) on the pool surround per the PWTAG operational standard. The contractor had produced a self-certification; the operator wanted independent UKAS acceptance before taking the venue live to the public.
What we did. Barefoot-protocol testing with Slider 55 (TRL) at 14 locations around the pool surround — corner points, ladder entries, the transition between surround and changing-room approach, and the spa pool steps. Contamination was potable water with a supplementary subset tested with chlorinated water to PWTAG protocol.
What we found. 12 of 14 locations achieved PTV 28 or above. Two locations — both at the foot of the ladder entries — tested at PTV 22 and PTV 23 respectively. Visual inspection showed an installation artefact: the tile cut at the ladder base had left a sealant band slightly proud of the surrounding tile, producing an atypical wear surface.
Outcome. The operator held the contractor's final retention payment pending remediation. The sealant band was ground flat, we re-tested to PTV 27 on the worst previously-failing point, and the venue opened on schedule. The case illustrates why independent acceptance testing before go-live is materially different from contractor self-certification.
Sector: Warehouses & Industrial · Location: East Midlands logistics hub · Commissioned by: HR director at a 3PL operator after a RIDDOR notification
The question. A pick-and-pack operative slipped on a yellow-painted pedestrian walkway adjacent to a loading bay, fracturing their hip. An internal investigation established the walkway had been repainted eight weeks earlier. The HR director wanted to know whether the paint system was itself a hazard or whether the slip was attributable to something else on the day.
What we did. Testing to BS EN 16165 Annex C at six locations on the painted walkway and three adjacent locations on the unpainted power-floated concrete, dry and wet. We also tested a single reference location on a different walkway in the same building painted with an alternative anti-slip-aggregate system.
What we found. The unpainted concrete tested wet PTV 38 — acceptable. The standard-painted walkway tested wet PTV 19-23 across all six locations — classified as high slip potential. The reference anti-slip-aggregate walkway tested wet PTV 46.
Outcome. The paint specification was the primary failure. The operator replaced all painted walkways across the estate with the anti-slip-aggregate system over a 4-month programme, and retained our UKAS accredited report as evidence of their response under section 2 of HSWA 1974. The individual claim settled within the insurance framework; no HSE enforcement action was taken.
Sector: Local Authority / Highways · Location: South West market town · Commissioned by: District council highways team
The question. A conservation-area pedestrianisation scheme used reconstituted-stone paviors installed in 2019. By autumn 2023, eight formal complaints had been received about slipperiness in wet weather, and two pre-action letters had been received from claimants. The highways team needed baseline PTV data both to assess the real risk and to establish their Section 58 position.
What we did. Testing to BS EN 16165 Annex C and EN 13036-4 at 22 locations across the pedestrianised zone, sampling by material-age cohort (sections installed 2019 vs sections repaired 2022) and by surface condition (cleaned recently, algae-affected, leaf-mould-affected). Testing was repeated 3 weeks apart to capture conditions on two different days.
What we found. The 2019 installations on cleaned surfaces tested wet PTV 31-36 — borderline. On algae-affected or leaf-mould-affected surfaces the same paviors tested wet PTV 17-24 — high slip potential. The 2022 repair cohort tested wet PTV 38-42 regardless of condition, indicating the older paviors had polished under footfall.
Outcome. The council implemented a seasonal cleaning programme (spring and autumn full washes) and commissioned a 3-year replacement programme for the polished sections using the newer pavior specification. Our report formed the baseline for ongoing Section 41 Highways Act maintenance documentation. The two intimated claims settled on nuisance-value terms; no further claims have been received in the 18 months since the programme started.
All four examples share a specific feature: the question wasn't "is the floor slippery?" — it was a narrower, measurable question. Is the threshold zone the issue, or the main floor? Is the paint the hazard, or is it something else on the day? Is the pavior specification the problem, or the cleaning regime? A competent UKAS accredited pendulum survey answers the narrow question with measured evidence, and that's what makes the report useful in claims, regulation and estate-management decisions.
If any of these scenarios resemble your situation — insurer-instructed post-incident work, acceptance testing before go-live, employer's liability investigation, or Section 41 highways work — we'd be happy to quote. Request a quote or call 020 8246 5562.
UKAS ISO 17025 accredited pendulum testing across the UK. Report within 5 working days.