Asbestos in the artex

kazd

Hi

Would have like to resurrect an old post that discussed this but it was closed.

We recently bought our house (well just over a year ago) the house has dated artex ceilings. So far we have had the ceilings scraped and plastered smooth in the bathrooms and in the kitchen we had the whole ceiling removed and new boards and skimming as we were knocking through into dining room.

Just has some more work done and we are ready to get the rest of the ceilings scraped and skimmed to have nice flat ceilings to which we want to drill into for spot lights.

Contacted a plasterer who advised that as we had artex we should get the ceiling tested first. The house was built in 2000 and we were advised it was unlikely to have asbestos as it was banned from 1999 but to be on the safe side we got it tested.

It has now come back as testing positive for Chrysotile. Just wondering if anyone knows if the builders can be held to account for this as we believe we may now have to pay for specialist removal. Surely if it was banned in 1999 then it was illegal for the builders to use it in 2000.

daveyjp

You would need to prove the artex was installed by the original builder. Can you?

Tigsteroonie

When you say the house was built in 2000, was it started (foundations) and completed within 2000? Or is there a possibility that the build commenced in 1999 (legal until the ban) and was only completed in 2000?

kazd

It was completed in 2000 and having had a couple of new builds I am confident that the final part of the build would have been in the last three months up to the completion date which was 30 June 2000. There were 11 houses built and we all have the same artex ceilings.

davidmcn

daveyjp wrote: »

You would need to prove the artex was installed by the original builder. Can you?

Even if it was, there's nothing the OP can do about it.

Slithery

kazd wrote: »

It was completed in 2000 and having had a couple of new builds I am confident that the final part of the build would have been in the last three months up to the completion date which was 30 June 2000.

I believe that the only date that counts is when construction started, the date the asbestos went in is irrelevant.

kazd

I don't understand how it can be irrelevant if the stuff was banned from 1999.

DoaM

Depends on WHEN in 1999 I guess.

Slithery

I based my claim (I did say I believe) off of other building regulations that I have more knowledge of. For example if you start an electrical installation just before the regulations change you don't have to comply with the new regs straight away, if the installation is planned and started then you are OK fitting equipment that wouldn't be allowed under the new regulations.

Likewise, if the planning was granted and they'd started the groundworks before the ban came in then they may have still been able to legally fit the asbestos even after the regulations changed?

I'm just speculating though, there are far more knowledgable people that will be all to quick to prove me wrong. Doozer, maybe?

Section106

Slithery wrote: »

Likewise, if the planning was granted and they'd started the groundworks before the ban came in then they may have still been able to legally fit the asbestos even after the regulations changed?

The Regulations came into force on 24 November 1999. Regulation 7 seems to be the relevant one.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2373/made

I'd say that Regulation 7(2) had the effect that asbestos cement and certain board-type products could no longer be used from 24 November, regardless of whether the construction of the building had already started.

Regulation 7(1) looks like the one which would deal with artex-like materials, but that has a rather ambiguous caveat of "....unless it was in use before 24th November 1999".

One interpretation of that is if the product containing chrysotile (e.g. artex) is already "in use" (i.e. has been formulated and sold previously) then it is exempt from the ban. Although other interpretations are possible.

The ban on the import of chrysotile would have had the effect that manufacturers of asbestos-containing products would run out of raw materials, and as a result the products would no longer be available in the original formulation.

So the above interpretation might make sense as it would allow suppliers to run their stocks (of lower-risk products) down, whereas higher risk products like boards were banned immediately.

I think the OP would struggle to prove the builder knowingly used asbestos containing materials unlawfully (if it was unlawful), given it happened some 19 years ago.

Slithery

Thanks for the proper information, I'd just been guesstimating