Posted By Michael Daly
I carry out asbestos surveys for a variety of organisations including some housing associations. There is little consistency from one association to another. Some associations take the view that they are in the business of providing housing for which they charge a commercial rent - therefore, although to the tenant the property is domestic, to the association the properties are commercial. I have also carried out a number of Type 3 surveys prior to demolition even for associations who consider they have responsibility only for the common areas.
Your other point about responsibility for maintenance workers is also valid. The association does owe these people a duty of care, I don't think you will receive much sympathy if a case was ever brought to court if you tried to limit your responsibility to only common areas.
Two other points worth considering:-
1. If asbestos containing materials are discovered in the common areas there is a probability that they will also exist elsewhere. Would you still be comfortable about inspecting only the common areas?
2. Does a housing association owe a duty of care to the tenants? If a tenant makes an asbestos related claim against an association will responsibility for only common areas be a sufficient defence?

Posted By Nigel Hammond
I'm glad you raised this one. I work for an organisation that runs care homes for people with learning disabilities. These are not like mini hospitals. Most are like normal houses in a typical resistential street with 3 to 4 clients.

To our staff they are a workplace but to our clients they are non-domestic premises. Most are owned by housing associations - so we are writing to them to ask them to compile asbestos registers but I'm not sure how much we can push this.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Nigel
Interesting one this - but taking up the fact that CAW 2002 applies to non-domestic premises, or the non -domestic part(s), then the answer will lie in whether there is any form of tenancy agreement with the house occupants. If there is then it becomes in my view a domestic premise and is exempt. Without a formal tenancy the regs have to be applied.

Bob

Posted By David .J. Minnery
Thank you to everyone who responded, it would appear that several different interpretations could apply in this case.

I am aware that the regulation refers to non-domestic premises, but the fact remains that domestic premises are quite often a place of work for employees and contractors carrying out repairs and improvements. If someone at IOSH technical information would like to enter into the debate and give their understanding/interpretation of this thread.
Houses are domestic premises to tenants but a place of work to Housing Association employees and contractors where do we draw the line? I know what I would do, how about you?

Posted By Ken Taylor
The point is, David, that whether or not premises become places of work from time to time, while they are domestic the Regulation 4 management of asbestos duty under CAW Regs does not apply - but much of the other legislation for health and safety at work does - including the need to protect employees and others from asbestos risks arising from the work activity. Despite this, many of us go further in this respect but cannot practicably survey all our domestic premises to the extent of CAW standards. Perhaps landlords, etc will be required to do this in the future but it would be a difficult and daunting task.

Posted By Stuart Nagle
Some thoughts on the issue:

1) As asbestos will, if present be encountered in maintenance works to rented properties, there is risk of exposure to both employees and tenants.

It would make sound sense therefore to be aware of the likely types and locations of asbestos containing materials to assits in

a) preventing exposure
b) taking preventive risk measures for cetain types of work

2) As many rented properties are ex Local Authority stock, built as the same time and to same specifications (i.e. housing estates) the need to survey could be limited to a few differing types of housing stock to provide a good overall picture, thus reducing costs

3) although there is an 'exemption for domestic properties per se, with the exclusion of 'common parts' (ie. stair wells in flats etc), works to all parts of properties, if rented, would I suggest fall within the undertaking of the housing company (see Regina - V - Associated Octel), thus there may well be a legal duty to survey prior to any works commencing to ensure SFARP that persons are not exposed to risks from ACM's

4) other threads currently running also look at the type of survey to undertake, beit type 1 or 2. Type 1 (presumtive) may well be a false economy when works will progress at some time, whereas type 2 would provide a good indication of what was present and where.

5) the issue of insurance also raises it's head here in respect of the potential to expose not only employees and contractors to risk, but also tenants. The need to assauge insurance companies and reduce costs may have to be considered, as would the likely costs resulting from exposure to ACM's (even if unknown to be present) as a result of surveys not being undertaken to ascertain risk!!

Posted By Ken Taylor
Domestic - unless they have a separate room or rooms used solely as a workplace (and, presumably, claimed as such for tax purposes).