Property
owners
should
be
aware
that
the
cost
of
ignoring
the
raft
of
new
legislation
that
has
headed
their
way
over
recent
years
could
far
outweigh
the
cost
of
compliance.
Recent
legislation
includes
the
Control
of
Asbestos
at
Work
Regulations,
the
Disability
Discrimination
Act,
various
Health
and
Safety
regulations,
and
the
Fire
Safety
(Scotland)
Regulations
2006.
While
all
this
legislation
requires
property
managers
to
advise
clients
about
the
implications,
this
advice
is
usually
provided
at
no
extra
cost
although
there
will,
invariably,
be a
cost
implication
for
property
owners
to
make
their
properties
comply
fully
with
the
requirements
of
the
new
legislation.
And
comply
they
must
if
they
are
to
avoid
running
the
risk
of
incurring
unnecessary
expense
- or
even
a
fine.
Even
now,
some
two
years
after
its
introduction,
there
remains
an
alarming
number
of
duty
holders
who
have
yet
to
comply
with
the
Control
of
Asbestos
at
Work
Regulations.
Apart
from
running
the
risk
of a
fine,
there
are
various
practical
consequences.
For
example,
any
sale
of
the
property
could
be
delayed
while
an
asbestos
survey
is
undertaken
to
meet
the
requirements
of
what
has
become
a
fairly
standard
condition
in
an
offer.
Alternatively,
were
there
to
be a
fire
then
reinstatement
could
be
delayed
until
an
asbestos
survey
was
undertaken.
Property
managers
can
assist
duty
holders
in
this
regard
by
arranging
for
asbestos
surveys
to
be
undertaken
on
their
behalf
and,
if
any
asbestos
is
found
to
be
present,
implementing
the
recommendations
from
the
asbestos
surveyor.
Meanwhile,
many
service
providers
and
employers
remain
either
unaware
of
their
requirements
under
the
terms
of
the
Disability
Discrimination
Act
or
are
labouring
under
the
misconception
that
it
relates
specifically
to
the
building
and
will
require
expensive
modifications
to
be
made
to
the
building’s
infrastructure
–
typically
the
introduction
of a
ramp
to
enable
wheelchair
access
– in
order
to
achieve
compliance.
In
fact,
the
DDA
is
about
people,
not
property,
and
its
definition
of
what
constitutes
a
disability
is
far
broader
than
someone
confined
to a
wheelchair.
And
rather
than
requiring
significant
expenditure
in
order
to
comply
with
the
DDA,
sometimes
relatively
simple
and
straightforward
alterations
to
operational
procedures
might
well
be
all
that
it
is
required.
If
it
is
not
possible
at
reasonable
cost
to
make
disabled
access
available
to a
building,
a
service
provider
could
offer
a
home
visit
to a
disabled
client
and
this
might
be
all
that
is
required.
That’s
because
rather
than
compelling
all
organisations
to
take
all
steps
required
to
deliver
unlimited
access
to
all
disabled
people,
all
of
the
time,
the
DDA
requires
service
providers
and
employers
only
to
undertake
reasonable
steps
in
all
the
circumstances.
What
will
be
regarded
as
reasonable
for
a
small
business
is
unlikely
to
be
as
onerous
as
what
will
be
regarded
as
reasonable
for
a
large
business.
Motorising
access
doors
at
the
entrance
to a
building
might
well
assist
wheelchair
access,
but
it
could
easily
cost
in
excess
of
£3,000.
However,
a
bell
and
sign
to
call
for
assistance
could,
in
some
circumstances,
be a
viable
alternative,
at a
cost
of
little
in
excess
of
£100.
So,
before
service
providers
and
employers
rush
out
to
call
in
the
shopfitters,
it
is
worth
taking
the
time
to
speak
to
the
property
manager
to
determine
whether
there
might
be a
more
reasonable,
practicable
and
cost-effective
means
of
complying
with
the
DDA.
DDA,
Health
and
Safety,
and
Fire
Safety
audits,
all
require
to
be
undertaken
by
specialist
companies,
and
often
their
various
recommendations
interact.
For
example,
the
Fire
Safety
(Scotland)
Regulations
2006
are
set
to
replace
the
requirement
for
Fire
Certificates
with
a
fire
risk
assessment
model.
Some
buildings
will
require
emergency
lighting,
but
when
this
fire
safety
work
is
being
undertaken,
the
fire
alarm
sounders
can
be
replaced
to
provide
an
additional,
flashing
warning
and
thus
meet
the
requirements
of
the
DDA.
Not
only
can
property
managers
assist
their
clients
by
advising
them
of
their
obligations
in
relation
to
all
these
new
regulations,
but
they
can
also
advise
on
how
to
minimise
both
the
cost
of
compliance
and
the
disruption
to
occupiers.
Compliance
might
be
onerous,
but
failure
to
comply
could
be
an
expensive
false
economy.
Graham
Ross
is a
Consultant
at
Ross
+
Liddell,
Property
Management
ENDS
696
words |
