I have been involved in an interesting scenario........

Client ( manufacturing - light industrial) was visited by a insurance risk surveyor who provided a report with a 'requirement' that the client provide health surveillance to employees in respect of exposue to noise at work.

The client is claiming that noise surveys have been done, and that the employees are not exposed to noise above the upper action levels, and therefore health surveillance is not required.

My own view is that the insurers requirement is not particularly unreasonable, as records of health surveillance would demonstrate an audit trail, and may be of use in fending off a future claim. It also appears to conform to Part 1 of Regulation 9 of the Control of Noise at work Regulations (although this refers to the findings of a risk assessment that indicates a risk to health of employees exposed to noise - the clients risk assessment may very well not make these findings of course).

I can also see the clients point of view in having to carry out health surveillance at their cost when it may not strictly be necessary the guidance to Reg 9refers to exposure above the upper action values which is the clients point.

I would be interested in your views.

Ta.

Why not ask the insurers why they require health surveillance and exactly what they mean by the term? It may not necessarily involve audiometry but merely a simple questionnaire.

If a requirement it may be useful to consider what their attitude would be for non-compliance.