Health and Safety Executive

3. Mr E complains that HSE failed to properly investigate his concerns about asbestos-related work at his home. In particular, he says HSE should have visited his home, independently inspected the work, and taken action against his landlord and its contractors for breaches of asbestos health and safety regulations.

4. Mr E says this has contributed to years of harassment, obstruction, threats, false accusations and cover-up, and has had a serious impact on his physical and mental health.

5. By bringing this complaint to us, Mr E wants an explanation of why private in-house repair branches are not independently inspected for building, safety and quality standards. He also wants a written apology and a financial remedy at level 5 of our severity of injustice scale.

6. Mr E has provided a significant amount of background information about concerns relating to his home, possible asbestos-containing materials, his landlord, contractors, court proceedings, and contact with other organisations. We understand these matters are important to Mr E and form part of the wider context in which he brought his complaint to us.

7. In the interests of proportionality, we have not set out that full background here. Our consideration is limited to the actions of HSE. We have therefore focused on the evidence relevant to how HSE handled the concerns Mr E raised with it.

8. Mr E’s complaint arises from asbestos-related work carried out at his home. He says asbestos-containing material was disturbed during work to install smoke alarms, and that this created a risk to him and other residents. He says his landlord, contractors and other organisations have not dealt with his concerns properly. This happened in the context of a wider housing dispute.

9. Mr E first contacted HSE in September 2023 about asbestos-related work at his home. HSE initially told him it was not the enforcing authority and signposted him to his local council. This is because the correct enforcing authority for a health and safety concern can vary depending on the type and duration of work.

10. Mr E continued to raise his concerns with HSE. On 24 November 2023, HSE accepted it was the correct regulatory enforcement body for the work Mr E had described. It apologised for the incorrect advice previously given and said further enquiries were needed to establish whether there had been any breaches of health and safety legislation.

11. HSE then made enquiries about the work carried out at Mr E’s home. On 3 April 2024, HSE wrote to Mr E and said it had concluded its investigation. It said the work appeared to have been carried out in line with HSE’s published guidance and that it did not consider there had been a material breach of health and safety legislation.

12. Mr E remained dissatisfied and complained to HSE. HSE responded at Tier 1 on 22 October 2024, Tier 2 on 27 November 2024, and Tier 3 on 19 December 2024. At each stage, HSE maintained that it had made proportionate enquiries, that there was no evidence of a material breach requiring further action, and that it would not visit Mr E’s home or take enforcement action. HSE signposted Mr E to the Ombudsman.

17. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

18. This complaint turns on Mr E’s view that HSE did not investigate his concerns properly because it did not visit his home, independently inspect the work, or take enforcement action. Mr E considers the work breached the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and says HSE should have acted on that basis.

19. HSE’s position is that it considered the information available, made enquiries with the relevant parties, reviewed the method of work described, considered the relevant guidance, and decided it would not take further action. HSE did not consider there was evidence of a material breach of asbestos regulations.

20. It is not our role to decide if the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 were breached. Our role is to consider whether HSE handled Mr E’s concerns properly and acted in line with the legislation, guidance and procedures that govern its work.

21. Mr E first contacted HSE in September 2023. HSE initially told him it was not the enforcing authority and signposted him to his local council. HSE later accepted this advice was incorrect, apologised, and confirmed it was the correct enforcing authority for the work Mr E had described. While the initial advice was wrong, HSE corrected its position which is what we would have expected. We have seen nothing to suggest the initial error affected the final outcome.

22. HSE then said it made enquiries with the contractors involved in the work to establish what work had taken place and what control measures had been used. It also considered the information Mr E provided, including his description of events and photographs.

23. HSE said it considered the information available about the work carried out at Mr E’s home, including the control measures described by the contractors. HSE considered this information alongside its published guidance, and did not identify evidence of a material breach requiring further action. On the evidence available, that was a decision HSE was entitled reach as part of its regulatory judgement.

24. HSE was created by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Act sets out general duties on duty holders. Those duties are framed around ensuring health and safety ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’. This means the Act does not prescribe one fixed way in which every risk must be managed. Duty holders must assess and manage risk, and HSE must decide what regulatory response is appropriate in the circumstances.

25. As a regulator, HSE is entitled to set priorities for how it uses its resources and how it responds to concerns raised with it. It is not for us to direct HSE’s regulatory priorities or decide what action it should take in individual cases. HSE’s Enforcement Policy Statement sets out how it makes enforcement decisions, including the principles and factors it considers when deciding whether to investigate or take enforcement action.

26. When concerns are raised with HSE, it must decide what response is appropriate in line with its regulatory role and enforcement policy. The Enforcement Policy Statement makes it clear that HSE has broad discretion about what it investigates and how, if at all.

27. Paragraph 6.6 of its Enforcement Policy Statement says, “… it is neither possible nor necessary for HSE to consider all issues of non-compliance.” Paragraph 11.1 says, “We use discretion when deciding whether to investigate incidents. It is recognised that it is neither possible nor necessary for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to investigate all issues of non-compliance with the law.”

28. It goes on to say that HSE considers factors including the scale of potential or actual harm, the seriousness of any potential breach, its enforcement priorities, the practicality of achieving results, and the wider relevance of the event.

29. The policy also makes clear that even where there is a breach (and it is not our role to determine this) enforcement does not always mean formal action. Paragraph 10.2 says enforcement may include writing to a duty holder.

30. Paragraph 10.3 says inspectors exercise discretion and professional judgement when deciding what level of enforcement action is appropriate, guided by the Enforcement Management Model.

31. Mr E disagrees with HSE’s assessment and says HSE accepted the contractors’ account at face value. Looking at the evidence, HSE considered information from Mr E and from the contractors. It was entitled to weigh the information available and decide whether it justified further regulatory action.

32. The legislation and guidance do not require HSE to test every part of the contractors’ account before reaching a decision, just as it was not required to test every part of Mr E’s account. Its role was to consider the information available to it in a proportionate way and decide what regulatory response was appropriate. As we have seen, the guidance gives it wide-ranging discretion to do this.

33. Mr E says HSE should have visited his home. HSE explained that a visit would not provide more information than it already had. The work Mr E complained about had already taken place. A later visit would not necessarily establish how the work was carried out at the time, what control measures were used, or whether a breach had occurred.

34. Even if HSE had decided asbestos regulations had not been complied with, it would not automatically follow that it had a duty to visit Mr E’s home or take enforcement action. HSE still had to decide what response was appropriate in line with its role, the evidence available, the level of risk, proportionality and its enforcement policy.

35. Mr E wanted HSE to visit his home and independently inspect the work. Neither the Act nor HSE’s Enforcement Policy Statement creates a duty for HSE to do that. HSE’s decision not to visit Mr E’s home or take enforcement action was an exercise of the regulatory discretion available to it.

36. It is not required to investigate in a particular way because Mr E requested it. Our role is not to replace HSE’s discretion with our own, but to consider whether HSE exercised that discretion properly. We have seen no indication it failed to do so.

37. From the evidence we have seen, HSE acted in line with the legislation and guidance. We understand why a person raising a concern may want HSE to carry out a full investigation or visit a particular site. HSE is entitled to decide where to focus its resources and what regulatory action, if any, is appropriate.

38. If Mr E disagrees with the discretion HSE has under the legislation and its enforcement policy, that is not something we can resolve through this complaint. Our role is to consider whether HSE acted in line with the law, policy and guidance that currently govern its work. We cannot change that framework, require HSE to operate outside it or substitute our own view for HSE’s.

39. Mr E has described HSE’s actions as a cover-up. This is a serious allegation. We are an impartial organisation and consider the evidence provided by each party equally. From the evidence we have seen, HSE considered Mr E’s concerns, made enquiries, explained its decision clearly and with reference to the guidance that governs its work, and engaged with his complaint through its complaints process.

40. The Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administration say that when taking decisions, public bodies should act reasonably and ensure the measures they take are proportionate to the objectives pursued, appropriate in the circumstances, and fair to the individuals concerned.

41. These principles also say public bodies should have regard to relevant legislation, take account of relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones, and balance the evidence appropriately. Where public bodies have statutory duties or published service standards, they should plan and prioritise their resources to meet them and spend public money with care and propriety.

42. We do not underestimate the concern that potential asbestos in a person’s home may cause. We understand why Mr E wanted reassurance and why he feels strongly that HSE should have done more.

43. The issue we are considering is whether HSE got something wrong in how it handled the concerns he raised with it. We have seen no indication it did.

44. The impact Mr E describes appears to arise mainly from the wider dispute about his home and how those matters were handled by his housing provider and others, rather than from HSE’s handling of his report. We sympathise with his position and this has undoubtedly been a protracted and stressful situation for him. Nevertheless, HSE did not create the underlying asbestos concern and it could not retrospectively change the work that had already taken place.

45. We also note Mr E says that 100 homes are affected by a similar issue. While we appreciate his concerns, we can only consider complaints brought directly to us by affected individuals.

46. We have not seen evidence that HSE failed to act in line with the rules that inform its work. For that reason, we have decided we will not take further action in this complaint.

47. We recognise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr E was hoping for when he approached us. We hope we have clearly explained the reasons for our decisions and we thank him for bringing his concerns to our attention.

1. We have carefully considered Mr E’s complaint about the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). We understand this has been a stressful and long-running matter for Mr E, and that he feels strongly HSE should have taken further action.

2. We have considered whether HSE handled Mr E’s concerns in line with the legislation, guidance and procedures that govern its work. We have not seen indications that HSE got something wrong.