Yes. However, Regulation 17 of CDM states "reasonable steps" and I guess that never has been, and is probably unlikely ever to be, tested. It would certainly be reasonable to pursue the PC via contract terms, and that could ultimately end up in a civil court. In other respects it could be reasonable (the safety-critical aspect of the missing information dictating what constitutes "reasonable") to commission or recommission designers, contractors or other specialists to provide the missing information. The worst-case outcome would be an accident arising directly as a result of that missing information. The material breach due to the occupying employer is then likely to be linked to some more immediately relevant legislation and it seems unlikely that a potentially long-standing failure to comply with CDM Reg17 would be pursued. The potential for injury, loss, civil and criminal proceedings would ultimately determine the effort to be applied in recovering what should be considered "preventative" information?

I agree with bob but it is a thankless task chasing up the info for the File. CDM-C has to do it however.

Ron I am withyou here. Good CDMCs will be chasing up the information throughout the job not at the end. If you have not got the steel frame info. for instance at the time of PR Com. then you will never get it. A client liability does exist to keep the file maintained until the next round of notifiable work occurs. Hard to think of one that does this even half well. Bob