Posted By Sean Fraser
Peter,

I would suggest that it is the sole responsibility of the IP's employer to report to RIDDOR. I presume you have already contacted them - what do they think? They will need to record the accident and will need to know about any witnesses to the event - names and addresses will be required. In any event, your own internal accident reporting process should record this incident and close liaison with the IP's employer would be strongly recommended to show concern on all sides.

As I always do with legislative situations such as RIDDOR, I advise that you contact the reporting line and ask what they recommend. Nothing better than getting it from the horses mouth!

Posted By fats van den raad
The fact that the driver had signed in on your visitors book is neither here nor there. The accident took place outside your area of control, and was (supposedly) not due to your act and/or omissions. Therefore the reporting responsibility is with the driver's employer. I would also not count the accident in the site stats. I would howeverin an "unofficial"capacity work very closely with the IP's employer to ensure that the accident is thouroughly investigated, keep a record of it somewhere and implement any learning from the accident. You can thus also make sure that the IP's employer actually does report the accident under RIDDOR.

Posted By peter gotch
Peter

It seems to me that there are two schools of thought on this one which are diametrically opposed, but each philosophically sound.

1. You want to know about the incidence performance associated with your projects, and may not trust your supply chain to comply with RIDDOR. Therefore Principal Contractor policy to take ownership of reporting, and to maintain global stats.

2. You put the onus squarely on the duty holder to comply with THEIR responsibilities under RIDDOR. This enables you to select policy in which you only maintain stats for your own labour. You could even avoid counting major injury accidents sustained by any self-employed operatives. Numbers look good on prequals if the client thinks that you can readily compare contractors' competence by looking at relative accident stats, frequency rates etc.

My own view is that the first position is more proactive, but some of your clients may impose commercial pressures that mean you have to go for lower stats.

Taking a slight amendment to the accident scenario you pose. Suppose accident whilst plant being moved onto low loader, involving member of the public walking along the pavement.

As Principal Contractor you might well be prosecuted for failing to make suitable arrangements for the uplifting of plant used in your operations.

On this basis I suggest that it is sensible to consider your site to extend to any area in which operations associated with your project are undertaken, in this case, including part of the road outside. Remember there may be a distinction between what falls within your site in terms of HSWA and various Regs, and what is defined as the site within the contract.

Regards, Peter

Posted By fats van den raad
I was just going to say the same thing as Peter. As PC or in my case, as client, I have the legal right to ensure that regulations such as RIDDOR etc are complied with.
I had a similar incident regarding a contractor going about his own bussiness (loading leftover bags of cement) in his own restricted access compound inside our property. When they had an accident with the FLT, I left the investigation with the contracting company, as well as any RIDDOR report, but stipulated that I get a copy of all relevant documents. I also made it clear (after finding some reluctance to RIDDOR report it) that if they didn't, I would.

Posted By Peter MacDonald
Peter

Can you clarify that a 'contractor' in the regs does not have to be a sub contractor, either domestic or nominated.

The reason I ask is that the low loader was a cross hire on behalf of the hire company to pick up their goods. In effect we have no contract with the hire compnay other than the hire agreement.

In this case we had a TTRO (TEMPORARY TRAFFIC RESTRICTION ORDER) in place and a designated area for the up lift. He was parked in the area correctly and segregation from traffic and public were in place. A piece of machinary the driver had previously picked up on another site came loose(we don't know how yet) on his trailer when he was setting out holding down straps and trapped his thumb, tearing it off.

Unfortunately, my reasons for determining if this is a site accident is commercial. If stats are used in prequals or as a stick with which to beat us then I feel duty bound to establish what the critera for recording them are.

I should have better things to do but.....

The regional manager is currently heading up the investigation for our own 'learning' and relevant information will be passed on to the site staff.

Regards

Peter