Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hiya - is anyone out there aware of some slight changes to guidance issued by the ICC regarding reporting of non-employee accident - 'persons not at work'
Just thought I'd pass this on in case it directly affects any of you.
The Regs state that persons taken directly to hospital via ambulance, taxi or any other means is reportable - fine. The ICC are now advising that - if the IP calls off on route to get assistance and the journey is not direct its now reportable - I can see the logic in this and agree with it - this as its been used as loop-hole for years to not report incidents.
The Regs also state 'directly to hospital' obviously when the Regs were written in 95 the use of Walk in Centre's was not that wide spread, therefore RIDDOR makes no reference to them - technically attending a WIC which is not part of an hospital is not a reportable incident.
The ICC are now advising that - if the IP attends a WIC and is referred to an hospital its now reportable - fine again but I do see some difficulty in managing this - what if you 'the duty holder' is not made aware of the referral?
The guidance came in in February this year I believe - if it does affect you - for more information contact the ICC directly just to make sure you don’t fall foul.
And don’t shoot the messenger!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi DP, if the Incident Contact Centre wish to provide guidance, that’s fine.
Remember that RIDDOR is statutory legislation and not guidance (which does not have the same legal standing).
If and when a new ACoP is produced like the 1995 one following RIDDOR 1985 then that is the time to ascertain any new formal requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
DP wrote:
The Regs state that persons taken directly to hospital via ambulance, taxi or any other means is reportable
Could you please tell me in which part of the regulations you find this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Juan
Page 15 paragraphy 45
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Regulation 3, Injuries to persons not at work paragraph 45
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks Kate, just seen it! I was getting a bit confused not realising it was people non at work! thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Firstly, is this guidance legally enforceable?
Secondly, is there any chance you can post a link so we can look for ourselves?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Ken - I'd say not as I agree with freelance and its not been issued as Regulation - can't post it as I have it from ICC themselves and I have been advised by them to mail them and request it - that’s why I advised the same. You need to mail Connaught - they were clear they would assist - I have not done it yet Ken.
I popped the info on here to let folk know just in case it may affect them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Guidance is a interpretation to discharge and not legally enforceable, check case law in both Munkmans on Employers Liability; Redgraves Health & Safety and Corporate Liability (Work Related Deaths & Criminal Prosecutions), all three books of authority highlight this.
The ICC have given me lots of shall we be kind here ‘inaccurate information’ and when questioned have backtracked on every occasion! You must remember these are not experts on health and safety law, although they do have access to professionals.
If in doubt, get them to put it in writing first, which I doubt they will ever do - even when requested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.