I’ve developed a serious mould allergy at work

sangie595

Sarastro wrote: »

But employers are responsible for providing a safe working environment, which they are failing to do by not dealing with the problem.

Prove that medically! Not so easy. People get allergies. People might have allergies already that they don't know about until placed in the right situation. And whilst I did agree that the employer needed to deal with the issues highlighted in the post, there is nothing currently in evidence that says the environment is not safe. Unless all the other staff have also developed the same allergies? The OP asked, "who is responsible" - my answer was accurate in response to that question. There is no way that anyone is going to prove that the employer is responsible for someone getting an allergy. Yes, for dealing with the environment that might provoke it (if possible) - but not for being allergic.

theoretica

sangie595 wrote: »

Prove that medically! Not so easy. People get allergies. People might have allergies already that they don't know about until placed in the right situation. And whilst I did agree that the employer needed to deal with the issues highlighted in the post, there is nothing currently in evidence that says the environment is not safe. Unless all the other staff have also developed the same allergies? The OP asked, "who is responsible" - my answer was accurate in response to that question. There is no way that anyone is going to prove that the employer is responsible for someone getting an allergy. Yes, for dealing with the environment that might provoke it (if possible) - but not for being allergic.

The Mayo Clinic, a highly respected medical organisation, highlights living or working in a mouldy environment as a risk factor for developing mould allergy. Things do not need to be deterministic and happen to everyone for them to be a risk. Another example is epoxy - some people develop a sensitivity to it with repeated exposure, others don't. But the risk assessments i have read aim to keep the exposure low for everyone, not just accept the risk for a few unlucky people.

dickydonkin

Sarastro wrote: »

But employers are responsible for providing a safe working environment, which they are failing to do by not dealing with the problem.

There is only the OP’s assumption that the source of the illness is work related.

I don’t think anyone is disputing that there is an allergy to mould, but spores by their very nature can and do become airborne and it is not unreasonable to suggest the source could be away from the workplace.

I accept that the employer should deal with the ingress of water, but the wet area may not be the problem.

sangie595

theoretica wrote: »

The Mayo Clinic, a highly respected medical organisation, highlights living or working in a mouldy environment as a risk factor for developing mould allergy. Things do not need to be deterministic and happen to everyone for them to be a risk. Another example is epoxy - some people develop a sensitivity to it with repeated exposure, others don't. But the risk assessments i have read aim to keep the exposure low for everyone, not just accept the risk for a few unlucky people.

I think you are still missing the point. Prove it! The OP cannot say that the employer is responsible - which is a legal determination - unless they can prove that their working environment and no other factor was responsible for them developing this allergy. A "risk factor" is not proof that this working environment was responsible for the allergy. There is a huge difference between proving responsibility for an allergy having developed as a direct result of something, and a requirement - where possible - to minimise the risk of an allergic attack by dealing with the (one of many possible) triggers.

theoretica

sangie595 wrote: »

I think you are still missing the point. Prove it! The OP cannot say that the employer is responsible - which is a legal determination - unless they can prove that their working environment and no other factor was responsible for them developing this allergy. A "risk factor" is not proof that this working environment was responsible for the allergy. There is a huge difference between proving responsibility for an allergy having developed as a direct result of something, and a requirement - where possible - to minimise the risk of an allergic attack by dealing with the (one of many possible) triggers.

I agree that this can't be proven, but disagree that that is the end of the matter. A lot of things in life come down to probabilities, not certainties and it is very probable that if the work environment had not been so mouldy this would not have happened. The WHO says mould is a "threat to health". Was it a reasonable and unavoidable one to expose the OP and colleagues to? Were appropriate mitigating factors taken?
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/78636/Damp_Mould_Brochure.pdf

The OP clearly had a susceptibility to develop a mould allergy - they will have encountered mould both in work and out of work. But where did they encounter most, and by what proportion? People who were exposed to passive smoking at work were also likely to have encountered some smoke out of work, and some people might have developed the lung trouble without the smoke, yet there have been employers held responsible.

sangie595

theoretica wrote: »

I agree that this can't be proven, but disagree that that is the end of the matter. A lot of things in life come down to probabilities, not certainties and it is very probable that if the work environment had not been so mouldy this would not have happened. The WHO says mould is a "threat to health". Was it a reasonable and unavoidable one to expose the OP and colleagues to? Were appropriate mitigating factors taken?
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/78636/Damp_Mould_Brochure.pdf

The OP clearly had a susceptibility to develop a mould allergy - they will have encountered mould both in work and out of work. But where did they encounter most, and by what proportion? People who were exposed to passive smoking at work were also likely to have encountered some smoke out of work, and some people might have developed the lung trouble without the smoke, yet there have been employers held responsible.

You still aren't getting this. The OP can think what they like about the cause. So can you. It's a court of law that decide who is responsible, and that is highly unlikely to ever find on the OP's favor. If it gets to court. Probably in the next decade or so. And then they will argue for another decade about the details of the "susceptability" (your word) and whether this means he was always going to get it one day or another. Responsible in law means something quite specific, and the chances of that being proven are negligible. So you can quote all the reports that you like. I don't disagree with any of them. But they will not prove a court case that the employer was responsible for the allergy. So the OP can tilt at windmills, as you are doing, or work on getting things changed that can be changed - because the fact is that whatever caused it, there is now an allergy and that is what the employer needs to address.

theoretica

sangie595 wrote: »

there is now an allergy and that is what the employer needs to address.

There is now an allergy which the employer needs to address, certainly, but there has also been a known hazardous substance in the workplace which should have been addressed well before this. This was a demonstrable H&S failing by this employer which is now causing repercussions for the OP.

RIDDOR has this to say about what should be reported:
Biological agents
All diseases and any acute illness needing medical treatment must be reported when it is attributable to a work-related exposure to a biological agent. The term biological agent is defined in the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) and means a micro-organism, cell culture, or human endoparasite which may cause infection, allergy, toxicity or other hazard to human health.

There is the question of 'attributable'. For work related cancers which have a similar lack of certainty the guidance is:
Reports are only required when the person’s work significantly increases the risk of developing the cancer. In some cases, the medical practitioner may indicate the significance of any work-related factors when communicating their diagnosis.

sangie595

I give up. You are still still failing to see the point of evidencing something. The OP had no evidence that exposure to alleged mould in the work place has resulted in causing the allergy. And your quote just confirms what I have said anyway - it is not about "backdating" the event, but about dealing with the here and now. It is impossible to ascertain that a person has developed an allergy solely as a result of a specific incident our environment. On the other hand, it is possible to deal with the here and now of managing that environment in such a way that it does not make matters worse. There is mould everywhere. That does not mean that the mould that resulted from the flood was responsible or solely responsible for causing the allergy. Of course, if the OP can get their consultant to say that the allergy was caused by the workplace and nothing else, then that is a different matter. No? Didn't think so.

The employer must deal with the here and now, to the extent that is possible. But attributing blame to the employer (and, of course, liability) is not at all likely.

bigrednose

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

In your position - I'd be making my priority to find a new job (that won't make you ill). My other thought is to find out whether there is a time limit for you to make a claim against your employer for making you ill.

What evidence have you kept of the cause of this illness? eg photos of the cellar and the upstairs wall/records of medical work you've been doing on getting the illness diagnosed and cured, etc.

There always used to be an "accident at work" book employers needed to keep - in which employees fill in details of any injury at work. I reckon that must still be a legal requirement. You need to find that book and put an entry for this in there (and take a photocopy of it).

It's astonishing (yeh...right...:cool:) just how often employers manage to "lose" any records of anything like this. So always always keep your own records - safely at home of course.

I would think you're going to have to play this very cautiously - until you've safely got another job. So - make sure you take those photos etc without anyone knowing and make that Accident Book entry just before you leave etc.

Thank you. Some excellent advice. I don’t think anything was put in the accident book actually. I do have evidence that they were told. I didn’t know the implications. I was treated for the symptoms at that time but things continued to slowly get worse. Now having seen the specialist I know my life will have to change forever.

It might be nothing much to some people but as I’ve been researching this I am stunned by how serious a health issue this is. Thanks again.

bigrednose

Thank you all very much for your responses.

I agree that proving liability could be difficult however, according to a “no win no fee” solicitor that isn’t an issue, the employers needed to do better and they can be held to account. As well as that a colleague has also been feeling unwell since the flood.

I have contacted the HSE but they haven’t got back to me. The real issue is time. I need to move quickly because though the flood happened at a particular time I became ill maybe six to eights after that. However, my symptoms were dealt with at that time. I had no idea that as I continued to be in that environment I was becoming ill again. It wasn’t until I saw the specialist that I was diagnosed as having an allergy to mould.

I’ll keep you informed; I hope Others find this useful.
Many thanks