I would be interested to hear the views of others who may have experience of poor refurbishment/demolition surveys carried out by UKAS accredited inspection bodies.

For information, the survey in question here was carried out in part of a 1960s building in advance of ongoing refurbishment work that includes internal upgrading, along with window and external cladding replacement. Licensed asbestos removal contractors working in the building have highlighted residual material present on the majority of roof sheeting fixing bolts attached to steelwork within suspended ceiling voids, none of which was picked up in the survey. The residual material has been tested and confirmed to contain amosite fibres. Background air test results conducted since the discovery have been below acceptable limits.

The area was subject to previous clean-up works during the 1990s to remove sprayed asbestos insulation from steelwork. However, this was known to have been done to a poor standard and there was an expectation that the recent survey would identify all leftover residual materials.

Given the likely significance of additional project costs attributable to survey omissions, not to mention the potential exposure to asbestos fibres of contractors’ personnel working in areas which were supposedly clear of ACMs, what course of redress / other action is recommended?

It's all about writing specification for the contract that makes it very clear that in general caveats will not be tolerated.

If they need a tower scaffold to get up to the roofspace, so be it.

If they need a locksmith to gain access, so be it.

If they need an electrician to isolate the power so they can survey inside e.g. switch boxes, so be it.

...and, Paul, in my own personal experience for over 30 years!