The topic comes up regularly. Yes the new guide is much clearer on the need and indeed the strategy to be employed to survey in domestic premises but it does not clarify the sometimes complex issue of responsibility. When you read the ACoP L143, Regulation 4 it is worded for 'non domestic' premises. Domestic premises fall out with this Regulation but thats not to say that they don't get surveyed. I know this doesn't actually answer the question but I guess I wanted to gauge opinion on the 'domestic' premises issue relating specifically to 'responsibility'.

Gerry, I was at a seminar yesterday where Dr Martin Gibson of the HSE was speaking. He effectively wrote HSG264 and was fairly unequivocal - All domestic properties are to be surveyed where work is to be carried out.* If there is a landlord the responsibility largely rests with them, though building contractors retain responsibilities to their staff & others. In a truly private dwelling, the responsibility rests with the building contractor to ensure that asbestos is not disturbed.

*Obviously this statement is a little inclusive, but I wanted to keep my reply under 10,000 words. In short if you disturb a material in a domestic property 'during work' you had better be sure it's not asbestos......

One would like to think that you have missed the 'domestic' word out there, as I am pretty convinced myself that there is pretty much a duty to survey premises for asbestos!

However, I do wonder if we can sometimes get too hooked up on the 'survey' word.

There is a duty upon employers (and I think realistically it may even go a bit further than that) to control the risks from exposure to asbestos when working working on a premises, domestic or otherwise. I am wondering how this might be achieved in practice unless someone has done some sort of 'survey' (oops there's that word again) to establish whether or not asbestos is present.

Just my random ramblings!

Adrian - in fairness I said that there is (and I quote) "..pretty much.." a duty to survey. And looking at 'survey key points' in HSG264 which says "The survey is essential for the dutyholder to manage asbestos" I think that pretty much bears that out.

I do find this rigid, and dare I say almost patronising and santimonious approach, unlikely to be helpful to the majority.

We all know that ultimately the law is the law, but many of have found that the management of health and safety risks is about so much more than 'the law'!

I have no problem with the presumption of asbestos but a blanket presumption would not seem the most cunning or cost effective solution for all cases.

Ron,

You make an important point, what is necessary is determined by what is reasonable in the circumstances. Surveys are not essential for the duty holder to manage asbestos. Surveys are useful under some but not all circumstances.

Having carried out asbestos surveys for more than 30 years, managed surveying teams, and having trained and examined surveyors I am well aware of the benefits and limitations of asbestos surveys.

Carrying out surveys to ensure that tradesmen do not disturb asbestos is not the same as carrying out blanket surveys of housing stock. In a typical common parts of a purpose built block of flats you will vinyl floor tiles and artex on the ceiling. Why is it necessary to survey for this? Is it because it benefits the survey company to the tune of £100-£150 for information that a tradesman knows!

Furthermore, what concerns me is persons interpreting guidance as though they are prescriptive rules - they are not. For health and safety professionals to move on we must start making judgements based on evidence and not follow blindly follow rules that do not always make sense. There are 3.936 Million Dwellings in England provided by social landlords and Local Authorities (Housing Statistics 2007). Surveying all these domestic properties at £100 a survey would cost us £393,600,000 and that does not take account of common parts surveys!

Regards