Roofing firm ‘put town at risk from asbestos’

A roofing company spread asbestos fibres around a Leicestershire town when using pressurised water washers to clean roof panels on industrial units, the HSE has said.

Hampshire-based Concept Roofing and Cladding Services Ltd was contracted to carry out repairs to a dozen industrial units in Bath Street, Market Harborough, between December 2008 and January 2009.

Leicester Magistrates’ Court heard the problem was discovered when asbestos was found outside the units by a Leicestershire County Council health and safety consultant on 22 January.

The HSE, which brought the prosecution, told Leicester Magistrates’ Court that the company used pressure washers to clean asbestos cement roofing panels, which blasted the harmful material into the environment. 

 When it became apparent what was happening, work was stopped immediately and local traders had to close for several months while a qualified asbestos removal company carried out a safe programme of removal causing major disruption in the town.

During the subsequent clean-up operation, traces of the material were found on walls, in drains and at a bus stop.

Concept Roofing and Cladding Services Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was this week fined £12,000. The company was also ordered to pay costs of £22,375.

The Leicester Mercury reports that Stephen Climie, for Concept Roofing and Cladding Services, said it was a subcontractor for Five M.

He said: "The roof was already damaged and leaked. There was contamination in units one to four where my clients did not clean the roof."

He added that vast majority of work was done using the approved method.

HSE inspector Stephen Farthing commented: “This company showed a wilful disregard for the safety of its employees and the general public.

"Concept Roofing and Cladding knew the roofing panels contained asbestos and should have known that the use of a pressure washer was entirely inappropriate.

“The actions of this company caused a great deal of worry and inconvenience for local people and business, some of whom had to leave their premises for a considerable amount of time.

“Yet the distress, inconvenience and cost of remedial action could have been easily avoided had the company taken sensible steps to ensure the right tools were used and the spread of potentially dangerous material was prevented.”