They should only have one licence - a 'Licence to undertake work with asbestos'. This licence does not make them competent unfortunately, the best way to check in my experience is to request and follow up references from relevant organisations. It depends on whether you're box ticking or trying to ensure their competence and I don't mean that quite as snarkily as it sounds. Is your organisation looking to employ them directly?

The company we use for removal work have a Standard or Full licence and we have checked that they hold this by accessing the HSE's database. However we have also PQQ'd them for general h & s arrangements and competency. Further, we request a copy of the ASB5 notification, job specific RA and MS that they have to submit to the HSE prior to the work starting.

I think I am going to be really blunt here- If your organisation has No person among its ranks to answer this question then it really should NOT be undertaking this task. If I were a CDMC around this job I really would be looking at your own organisation competence for this tyupe of work. The question you ask is basic and I would expect any company offering its client this sort of service should be able to answer this within its own resources. I rather think you need to check your PI insurance also to see if this work is covered. Bob

Now what was it that CDM says about the duties of the CDMC - ah yes "Advise client concerning the competency of contractors". Unless this is being done for a contractor, who should have his own system then it only leaves a small non notifiable job as the reason for the query. Of course the HSE take the ASB5 as an equivalent to an F10. If they provide an ASB5 to the OP then they already have been awarded the job so why now check competence other than to tick a box. Bob

certification and competency are two seperate issues, a company may have passed the requirements to conduct an activity but the competency to carry out the task should be checked as a due dilligance excersise to satisfy yourself as to the full competency required for the defined activity

Thank you for the link Gerry D. Very worrying. Despite my education connection I was unaware of this incident!

If Bruce you are refering to my post then I'm not sure that I did and apologies if that is how it came across. The removal company appointed the analyst which I don't think the other posts covered. We have had to learn the hard way.

As an example in support of my comments above about contractors and reputations it might help to describe a scenario which I investigated for HSE in the mid-1980s. A long-established, reputable company with CORGI registration had been contracted by a local authority to carry out safety improvements to the gas installations in the science laboratories of one of its secondary schools. As some pupils like to meddle with laboratory gas taps during science lessons, it was foreseeable that an explosive quantity of gas from any taps left even partially open could build up in a laboratory overnight or during a weekend. Therefore, a control valve was to be installed at the front of each laboratory so that gas would only be supplied to the gas taps when the valve was set in the open position. Also, at the end of each teaching day, it would be far quicker for departmental staff to visually check the position of each valve than physically check each and every gas tap. Several laboratories were on the first floor and their underfloor gas pipwork was located in the ceiling voids of the rooms below. Access to the pipework from below involved temporarily removing (non-asbestos!) ceiling panels where required while the work was carried out during a half-term holiday. Not long after the holiday a class in a room below a laboratory experienced a strong smell of gas. This resulted in an emergency call to British Gas (as it then was) which promptly sent engineers to the school. They found an open-ended pipe in the room’s ceiling void from which gas would escape whenever the supply in the laboratory above was turned on. My investigation stemmed from the fact that the unsafe gas installation had to be notified by law to HSE. In brief it was found that the contractor’s employees engaged on what ought to have been a relatively simple project hadn’t bothered much about pipe plans and certainly hadn’t bothered to carry out the requisite pressure tests of the amended installations. Such tests would have promptly revealed the existence of the open-ended pipe. The investigation findings led to a prosecution of the contract firm which, in view of the evidence, had no option but to plead guilty. The circumstances probably affected its CORGI registration and its likelihood of getting further contracts from the local authority (LA). It’s worth adding that the LA’s standard contract document included a requirement that one of its clerks of works or similar should be present to verify and record pressure testing by contractors of new or altered gas installations. However, it transpired that this didn’t happen because the clerk of works for the school project was busy elsewhere and/or didn’t usually bother with observing pressure tests. If other clerks of works employed by the LA tended not to bother about pressure tests before the circumstances at the school became known, I bet that their bosses subsequently ensured that they did so in future! Also, it was ironic that a contract intended to improve gas safety was carried out incompetently and resulted in school staff and pupils being put at risk from a gas explosion. As this thread is about asbestos I offer mild apologies for describing a gas safety scenario. Therefore, I hope others can provide asbestos scenarios to add to the one already provided about the collusion.

Graham It is not just H&S that is short cut because the mentality starts at the actual work itself. My sister in law owns a former council flat. Block was refurbished by the freeholder and she received a bill for her share of the costs. It stated that the works included new gutters, new windows and repointing among the itemised work shown on her invoice - Guess what - none of this was done on her block. It was signed off as complete though by the contractor and the HA Clerk of works!! Now what was that about bad management being an indicator of poor H&S - In this case contractor is still nationally known. Bob