Why Recent Asbestos Prosecutions Prove Your Asbestos Management Plan Isn’t Optional

Asbestos enforcement is very much alive, and recent prosecutions show that regulators will impose substantial fines where asbestos is poorly managed, even if no illness has yet been diagnosed. For dutyholders, the message is clear: having an asbestos management survey that is up accurate and up to date combined with an effective an  implemented asbestos management plan has been a legal necessity since May 2004 – Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 and this requirement has been included in all the subsequent amendments including the current Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

When asbestos refurbishment surveys are not aligned with the refurbishment scope

At Elstree Film Studios, maintenance staff dismantling wall panelling in July 2022, discovered suspicious insulation which was later confirmed to contain amosite, chrysotile and crocidolite.

The HSE found that neither the asbestos management survey nor the refurbishment survey properly covered the wall surfaces in studios 7, 8 and 9, so the acoustic panelling fell outside the assessment scope.​

The company was prosecuted for breaching Regulations 5, 10 and 15 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, covering pre‑work identification of asbestos, training, and emergency arrangements. The court imposed a £6,000 fine, plus £6,790 in costs and a £2,000 victim surcharge, underlining that incomplete or poorly scoped surveys can still attract enforcement

Lessons for refurbishment projects

The Elstree case confirms that a standard asbestos management survey will only identify asbestos containing materials that are reasonably accessible during normal occupation and routine maintenance.

It will not usually involve destructive opening-up, so concealed materials, such as insulation behind wall panelling, are unlikely to be identified at that stage.​

The only practical way the insulation could have been identified was through an intrusive asbestos refurbishment survey that was accurately aligned to the planned works. Where the refurbishment scope changes or additional areas are opened up, it is essential to commission further targeted refurbishment surveys before proceeding.​

Where clients and surveyors must align

In the Elstree prosecution it appears the surveyor worked to the refurbishment scope provided, and the HSE did not consider it appropriate to prosecute the surveying company.

This suggests the primary failure arose in a disconnect between the scope of planned refurbishment and the asbestos refurbishment scope. In practice, clear scoping, written instructions and change‑control for refurbishment projects are critical safeguards for both dutyholders and consultants.​

Poundland: known asbestos but no implemented asbestos management plan

In a separate case, Poundland was prosecuted by Ipswich Borough Council and fined £565,000 in September 2022 for asbestos management failures at its town‑centre store. Asbestos had already been identified when the company took over the building in 2011, but no suitable asbestos management plan was put in place to ensure the material remained in a safe condition.​

Although Poundland used asbestos consultants to monitor the building, the court found that there was no effective asbestos management plan to control risks and protect staff, contractors and the public.

The company was also ordered to pay £75,000 in costs, reflecting both the seriousness of the breach and its financial standing as a large national retailer.​

Why the fine was so high?

Several factors drove the level of fine in the Poundland case, even though the main issue was potential rather than proven harm. The asbestos risk was already documented in surveys when the building was acquired, so this was not a situation where the presence of asbestos was unknown or unexpected.​

The court treated the failure to implement and maintain an effective asbestos management plan under Regulation 4 as a central breach rather than a minor technical omission.

Sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences allow for very high penalties where there is a risk of serious harm, especially in high‑footfall retail premises with prolonged exposure potential, and where a large organisation has the means to pay.​

The danger of ignoring recommendations

An aggravating feature in the Poundland prosecution was that professional survey information and recommendations were available but not acted upon. This indicated that the problem was not lack of knowledge, but failure to follow through on clear, documented duties.​

The prolonged delay in implementing controls and the absence of meaningful, day‑to‑day management of known ACMs were treated as evidence of a long‑running breach.

Under current sentencing practice, extended periods of unmanaged risk and neglect of professional advice push cases into higher culpability and harm categories, which in turn justifies much higher fines.​

How Asbestos Compliance  can help

Asbestos Compliance provides Asbestos Management Surveys and annual reinspection programmes designed to identify ACMs that may be disturbed during normal occupation and routine maintenance.

These surveys form the foundation of a robust asbestos register and inform sensible, prioritised management actions which should be discharged through the Asbestos Management Plan. 

The HSE’s guidance and videos on managing asbestos outline the necessary steps for dutyholders. Resources like HSE Duty to Manage Asbestos in Buildings and HSE Preparing for Duty to Manage Inspection clearly explain what regulators expect in real-world situations.

For intrusive works, the Asbestos Refurbishment and Demolition Surveys service offers more comprehensive, destructive inspections targeted at the specific areas where work will take place, including concealed materials that standard management surveys will not expose.

Asbestos Compliance Reviews conducts gap-analyses to ensure that asbestos management plans, training, and emergency procedures meet regulatory standards and avoid enforcement issues.

This blog is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice; dutyholders should seek specific professional or legal guidance for particular projects or situations.​