• Robert Spicer

Asbestos: inadequate survey: two companies fined

Inadequate asbestos survey: two companies fined

Health and Safety Executive v Vital Property Solutions Ltd and Home Inspectors Southern Ltd (2018) Dudley magistrates’ court, June 1

Statutory reference: s.3 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act 1974 (HSWA)

A property management consultancy and an asbestos surveying company have been fined for an inadequate refurbishment and demolition survey.

The facts

  • Home Inspectors Southern Ltd undertook a refurbishment and demolition survey of a major refurbishment project including partial demolition.

  • The survey failed to identify asbestos cement and asbestos insulating board (AIB) containing chrysotile and amosite asbestos.

  • The surveyor had no training in asbestos surveying or previous work experience with a suitably qualified person or accredited organisation.

  • The survey incorrectly advised that a non-licensed contractor could remove the material.

  • Vital Property Solutions Ltd did not ask Home Inspectors for information about the company’s skills, knowledge, experience and training in relation to asbestos surveying.

The decision

  • Vital Property Solutions Ltd was fined £8400 plus £929 costs for a breach of s.3 of HSWA.

  • Home Inspectors Southern Ltd was fined £4800 plus £929 costs for the same offence.

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Google data protection case

SUPREME COURT Google data protection case Case Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50 Facts The issue in the appeal was whether L could bring a claim against Google in a representative capacity. L sought

Whistleblowing: protected disclosures: new cases

WHISTLEBLOWING Case Watson v Hilary Meredith Solicitors Ltd and another UKEAT/0092/20/BA Facts W made protected disclosures to his employer about alleged financial irregularities. He gave notice of hi