A property company has been fined after continuing to allow people to work in a building that contained asbestos.

E & J Properties Ltd was slapped with the £3,000 fine during an appearance at Douglas Courthouse on Tuesday.

Director Nigel Gill pleaded guilty, on behalf of the company, to contravening a prohibition notice between November 6 and November 20 last year. The court heard the company was carrying out construction work on a property on Chapel Lane in Baldrine when suspected asbestos was found in the roof of a garage.

Workmen alerted the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate and an inspector visited the site - a voluntary cessation of work was agreed whilst the substance was tested.

On November 6 investigations confirmed there was brown asbestos in the roof and a prohibition notice was served prohibiting anyone from entering or working in the area.

However, prosecutor Rachael Braidwood told the court that despite the notice tradesmen continued to work on the property on two occasions.

She added that both the foreman and Mr Gill later declined to attend interviews, under caution, with the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate.

E & J Properties Ltd was represented in court by advocate Peter Russell who said there had been two breaches of the prohibition order.

The first, he claimed, was instructing and allowing electricians to mark the garage ceiling for new light fittings - something he said had been done without Mr Gill’s knowledge.

The second was to allow someone into the garage to cut the holes into the ceiling for the lighting.

’Hard as it is to believe, Mr Gill does not know who drilled those six holes,’ he said.

Mr Russell told magistrates the work to convert the garage into living accommodation was a ’professionally thought out renovation’.

He added: ’I wouldn’t want your worships to think this was a bodge-it job.’

He said since the incident new procedures and policies had been put into place, adding: ’Since this incident he [Mr Gill] has undergone full asbestos training and more is planned.

’All in all he’s doing everything he can to make sure nothing like this ever happens again - it’s a one off.’

Magistrates also ordered the company to pay prosecution costs of £250.

A charge of failing to discharge duty was withdrawn.