Asbestos disturbance during a charity refurbishment: who owns the risk?
A registered charity is refurbishing a 1970s office building to meet a funding deadline. It appoints a principal contractor, who subcontracts strip-out to a three-person firm. The pre-refurbishment asbestos survey is desk-based and excludes ceiling voids. On day four, a subcontractor's circular saw cuts into asbestos insulating board above a suspended ceiling. Dust settles on two workers and the floor. The site supervisor tells them to wash at a standpipe and 'keep it quiet' so the funder inspection is not cancelled. No decontamination unit, no respiratory protective equipment, no emergency plan. A cleaner later sweeps the dust with a brush. An anonymous complaint reaches the regulator two days later. The charity's facilities manager holds the asbestos register but has not shared it.
1. Allocate the legal duties of the charity, principal contractor, subcontractor and individual workers in this situation, and explain which failures are most serious.
Read the worked answer
Duty holders and allocation
- Charity (client): must provide all relevant information about asbestos (register, survey, location) to the principal contractor and ensure arrangements are in place; it cannot contract out its duty. The facilities manager's withholding of the register is a serious breach.
- Principal contractor: has the main duty to plan, manage and monitor the refurbishment, coordinate the subcontractor, prevent disturbance of asbestos, and stop work when unexpected material is found. It failed to verify the survey's scope or communicate the register.
- Subcontractor: must cooperate, ensure its workers are competent, stop work on suspicion of asbestos, and not conceal an exposure. Cutting into AIB without checking is a failure.
- Workers: must report hazards and use controls, but their failure to report is secondary to management failures.
Most serious failures
- Uncontrolled release of asbestos fibres and exposure of two workers and a cleaner.
- Concealment and the instruction to 'keep quiet', which breaches the duty to report and may amount to a criminal offence.
- No emergency or decontamination arrangements.
The test is not whether harm was intended but whether risks were foreseeable and controlled so far as reasonably practicable. The charity's own knowledge makes the failure more serious.
2. What immediate actions and notifications should be taken in the 24 hours after the discovery, and what evidence should be preserved?
Read the worked answer
First 24 hours
- Stop all work in the area; do not dry sweep or use a standard vacuum. Isolate the zone, lock it off and post warning signs.
- Treat the two workers and the cleaner as potentially exposed: remove contaminated clothing, shower, bag the clothing, record details and refer to occupational health. Do not let them leave in contaminated clothes.
- Arrange licensed asbestos removal and decontamination; do not allow ordinary cleaning.
- Preserve evidence: photographs, samples, the saw blade, the register, emails, site diary, CCTV and witness names. Do not 'tidy up' before sampling.
- Notify the regulator as required by asbestos regulations and inform the insurer; consider whether the incident is reportable.
- Brief the workforce and the funder honestly; cancel the inspection if needed.
- Record decisions and advice in writing, including who authorised the stop-work instruction.
3. The charity argues the funder deadline made delay impossible and that the principal contractor gave assurances. Assess the strength of that defence and how the organisation should document decisions in future.
Read the worked answer
Assessing the deadline defence A funding deadline does not make an unsafe act reasonably practicable. 'Reasonably practicable' requires weighing risk against sacrifice; the sacrifice here is delay and cost, not a measure that would make the risk trivial. The principal contractor's assurances do not discharge the charity's duty: the client must satisfy itself that the contractor is competent and has the information. Reliance on assurance without checking the survey scope is not reasonable.
Documentation for the future
- Record the information provided, the competence checks, the challenge to the survey scope and the decision log.
- Escalate any instruction to conceal a hazard to the board and, if necessary, the regulator.
- Build asbestos management into the project programme, not as a late add-on.
- Post-incident, review governance: who had authority to stop work, and whether that authority was used.