Glasgow sheriff finds building owner entitled to price reduction on deficient asbestos cleaning service

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC GLA 64
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  SHeriff Andrew McIntyre

Enviraz Scotland Ltd, which provided an asbestos removal service to defender Simon Vasey, sought payment of £6,800 as the amount still payable in respect of the parties’ contract, while the defender maintained that the pursuer had not cleared the site to the agreed standard. The defender sought a price reduction in terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 of the full amount still payable, and therefore claimed no debt was owed.

The case was heard by Sheriff Andrew McIntyre at Glasgow Sheriff Court. Runciman, solicitor, appeared for the pursuer, while the defender Mr Vasey appeared as a party litigant.

Not the end result

On 22 June 2023, the parties agreed that the pursuer would remove asbestos and other debris from a former farm building in Gatehouse of Fleet owned by the defender, at a cost of £10,800. The pursuer’s employees cleared a substantial amount of debris from the site between 26 June and 6 July 2023, however when the defender inspected the site on 9 July, he found that pieces of asbestos remained within the curtilage of the building and other debris remained both within the buildings and externally. He paid the sum of £4,000 to the pursuer but retained the remaining £6,800 was he considered the work to have been incomplete.

Parole evidence was heard from the pursuer’s employees who conducted a site walkthrough on 6 July, Mr McKeeman and Mr Shannon, and from the defender. Email exchanges between the parties highlighted that a specialist H-vacuum was intended to be used to remove small pieces of interior debris, however this was not done. The site was damaged by Storm Betty in August 2023, which later made it impossible to identify what debris was left by the pursuer and what was caused by the storm.

In his pleadings, the defender averred that he was entitled to a price reduction under the CRA 2015. It was not in dispute that the contract was for a trader to supply a service, and the defender was a consumer and not a person acting in the course of a business. The pursuer’s averment that the contract was a commercial contract was based on the site consisting of former agricultural buildings.

The pursuer submitted that the focus of the requirement to exercise reasonable care and skill under section 49 of the CRA 2015 focused on the way a service was carried out, rather than the end result. The defender had no contention with the way the service was performed, and therefore could not argue the work had not been undertaken with reasonable care and skill. Any debris not shown in the pursuer’s walkthrough of the site was attributable to storm damage or new works at the site instructed by the defender rather than the inadequacy of their service.

9 days of a 12-day job

In his decision, Sheriff McIntyre began by dealing with the nature of the contract: “The submission that this was a commercial contract is based solely on the fact that the site consists of former agricultural buildings. Indeed, in evidence, Mr McKeeman accepted that he engaged with the defender as a private individual and that the contract was treated as a commercial contract solely because the building was an agricultural building. I do not accept that that is a sufficient basis on which to conclude that the parties’ transaction was a commercial one.”

Criticising the pursuer’s arguments on the reasonable care requirement, he said: “I do not agree that a complaint about the end result of a service precludes criticism of the way in which the service is performed. Indeed it might be thought that, more often than not, both will go hand in hand, and that, in many cases, a complaint about the result will necessarily imply criticism of the way in which the service was performed. In this case, the defender’s complaint is plainly with both the way in which the service was carried out and the end result.”

He added: “I am not persuaded that the more substantial pieces of debris shown in the defender’s recording appeared after the pursuer’s employees concluded their work. It is obvious that the debris within the building is restricted to very particular areas whilst the surrounding areas remain clear, apparently as a result of the pursuer’s work. If the debris had accumulated naturally, by the forces of the elements, then it might be expected that there would have been debris over the wider area, and not neatly confined to the areas in question. Furthermore, the metal sheets and discarded bucket shown in the defender’s footage are also visible in the pursuer’s walk-round recording, disclosing that those items were left at the conclusion of the works.”

Considering whether it was reasonably practicable for the remaining debris to be removed, Sheriff McIntyre said: “There is no doubt that the task was not an easy one, but that was always in the nature of the task and it is for that very reason that undertaking it with reasonable care and skill demanded a thorough and careful final inspection to identify any remaining asbestos. I am satisfied that, had a more time and care been taken, and had a thorough final inspection of the site been undertaken, it would have been seen, as the defender saw, that there remained asbestos on the site.”

He concluded: “In assessing the value of the work done by the pursuer, I acknowledge that it involved the removal of the majority of the debris and asbestos present on the site. That work took place over the nine working days between 26 June 2023 and 6 July 2023. According to my findings, when the pursuer’s employees left the site there remained 3 days of work to be done. That being so, I have concluded that the pursuer’s employees undertook 9 days of a 12-day job. Therefore, I calculate that the value of the work done was 75% of the price (75% of £10,800) which is the sum of £8,100.”

The sheriff therefore granted decree for payment in the reduced sum of £4,100, having found the defender entitled to a price reduction of 25 per cent of the total price.