Assessor Relies on a Colleague's Site Inspection Record
A BREEAM assessor is completing a post-construction assessment for a warehouse. A colleague carried out the site inspection three months ago and recorded observations in the online assessment tool. The colleague has since left the firm. The inspection record notes that the cycle storage was 'present and adequate' but gives no dimensions, no photographs and no count of spaces. The credit requires a specified number of cycle spaces based on building occupancy. The client has supplied a post-inspection layout drawing showing 24 spaces, and the building's occupancy is 300 staff. The assessor has not visited the site.
1. Can the assessor rely on the colleague's inspection record to award the cycle storage credit? Explain.
Read the worked answer
The record alone is not enough. It records a conclusion ('present and adequate') without the data needed to test it against the credit criteria. The credit depends on the number of spaces relative to occupancy, and the record gives neither a count nor dimensions. The assessor cannot verify the requirement from that note.
The assessor should:
- Treat the colleague's record as one piece of evidence, not a substitute for verifiable data.
- Check whether the online tool requires a specific evidence format (count, dimensions, photographs) and whether the record meets it.
- Use the client's layout drawing as supporting evidence, but confirm it reflects what was actually built rather than what was designed.
- If the drawing and the inspection note together provide a consistent, traceable picture, consider whether that is sufficient under the scheme rules; if not, arrange a further inspection or obtain a signed, dated record with the required detail.
The assessor signs the certificate and is accountable for the evidence, regardless of who collected it.
2. What are the risks of relying on a departed colleague's record, and how should the assessor manage them?
Read the worked answer
Risks include:
- Insufficient detail. The record may not contain the data needed to test the credit.
- Unverifiable conclusions. The colleague cannot be asked to clarify or confirm what they saw.
- Accountability gap. The current assessor is signing off on evidence they did not collect and cannot fully check.
- Inconsistency with as-built condition. Three months may have passed, and the site may have changed.
Management steps:
- Review the record against the credit criteria and identify exactly what is missing.
- Seek corroborating evidence - as-built drawings, photographs, delivery records, or a site visit.
- Where the gap is material, arrange a further inspection or obtain a signed declaration from someone on site with knowledge of the installation.
- Document the reasoning and any residual uncertainty.
A short site visit or a targeted request for photographs and a dimensioned layout is usually quicker than reconstructing the evidence later under challenge.
3. The client says a further site visit is unnecessary because 'the drawing proves it'. How should the assessor respond?
Read the worked answer
The assessor should explain that a drawing shows design intent, not necessarily the installed condition. The credit is about what is actually provided on site, and the drawing needs to be confirmed against the built reality. The assessor should:
- Ask for evidence that the drawing is as-built and dated after completion.
- Request photographs or a signed site record showing the installed cycle spaces and their dimensions.
- If those are not available, explain that a short inspection is the most efficient way to close the gap.
The assessor should be polite but firm: the certificate confirms the building as built, so the evidence must relate to the building as built. The client's preference to avoid a visit does not change the evidential requirement. If the client refuses and no alternative evidence is provided, the assessor should record the credit as unverified and explain the consequence.