Rank: Super forum user 
|
Steady...in my defence I have not normally been the person designated to complete RIDDOR reports and perhaps that is the case with others - but I won't forget now! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Taylor wrote:RayRapp wrote:It is a good question and has solicited a number of responses. Incidentally, no one should be criticised for giving an honest opinion, whether they are right or wrong. It is a public forum designed to promulgate a discussion - not to decide who is the smartest.
RayRapp - I fully agree - no one whould be criticised for giving an honest opinion. Much of H&S is about opinion - how to manage shades of gray and all that. Definately not about right and wrong. We are all entitled to our opinion.
However, when it comes to understanding regulations or ACOPs / guidance then a lot of that is written in specific detail. If we are going to quote what people should / should not do in follow up to something then we need to have a good understanding of the regulations - especially when we are telling them just what to do. This had happened a few times in this thread and what has been said is not in line with the regulations / guidance (i.e. not needing to report when person has not had lost time). This is simply wrong - in my opinion (see Para 58 of Riddor guidance).
As an 'industry' we have come in for quite a bit of stick recently - a lot being made of the 'competence' debate. If we are going to give advice (and Bob - my reading of what you tell the guy to do - i.e. not report it - is as clearly a piece of advice as anyone could give - in my opinion). A lot has been made of H & S professionals telling people what they need to do - based on regulation. If we are going to do that - then we need to know our stuff. Its not about being smart - its about being competent !!
You would only ever have one answer which would simply say 'what does the approved code of practice say' Just like when you phone the HSE for advice they say 'what does your risk assesment say' Come on it he gave his interpretation to the regulations and often we will make our own opinions.
Back to the question it is not a road accident as it doesn't meet the criteria and from what I am reading it is RIDDOR reportable as it doesn't state that you have to be off work for more than three days it says, 'incapacitated for work of any kind which he might reasonably be expected to do'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Farrell
Yes I believe you are correct in the fact that it is not a RTA, but I disagree that it is reportable, my reasoning on this is, it happened whilst not at work. When you stop to enter a shop, unless that shop is your intended work place you are not at work. Whilst travelling to or from your work place in a company car or not, you are not at work. So whether or not, unable to conduct their normal duties, it happened away from the work place so is not reportable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stevel wrote:Whilst travelling to or from your work place in a company car or not, you are not at work. So whether or not, unable to conduct their normal duties, it happened away from the work place so is not reportable.
Steve read the original post again. The injured person was home-based. Therefore they were not travelling to their normal place of work. They had effectively started work when leaving their base - i.e. their home. Thus while travelling to the work appointment they WERE at work. Frankly this one could be decided either way depending on whether the buying of the sandwich was something "arising out of" their normal work. Without knowing more about the IP's normal work patterns, usual provision for food and breaks and possible other requirements placed on them by their employer, it's not possible to give a definitive answer. I dare say if you asked 50 practitioners on this one you'd get a split down the middle.
To the OP - Just do what you consider to be right for your circumstances, record why you made that decision and leave it at that? I'm sure you have bigger things to worry about!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
barnaby wrote:Heather Collins wrote:
.......
What really bothers me about the answers to this question is the number of my fellow professionals who seem to think the IP has to actually have time off for an accident to be reportable under RIDDOR.....
Me too
Me three, just read this thread, Wow.
If it helps, I have a site that has a public road running through it (and a public footpath!!). Anyway, I had an employee 'Clipped' by a delivery vehicle. He was on the path, vehicle was in a rush, got to close with his wing mirror = fractured elbow. IP was not on a break (excuse the pun), he was walking between warehouses and on work time.
Road Traffic Accident or Work Related Injury and replortable???
Called HSE to report, they classed it as RTA and not reportable.
Just thought I would muddy the waters ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Heather
"parked car at side of road to get out to go to buy a sandwich"
What part of this is at work
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stevel wrote:Farrell
Yes I believe you are correct in the fact that it is not a RTA, but I disagree that it is reportable, my reasoning on this is, it happened whilst not at work. When you stop to enter a shop, unless that shop is your intended work place you are not at work. Whilst travelling to or from your work place in a company car or not, you are not at work. So whether or not, unable to conduct their normal duties, it happened away from the work place so is not reportable.
I agree he may have been on his unpaid lunch or anything, but we don't have all the facts. He may have a contract that states that he was on duty at any other time. I worked for an agency, which actually gave times when you were not being paid, i.e travelling to and from work, during lunch time all other times to be classed as working and therefore you must ensure that you follow the terms of your contract. If I am travelling to a meeting I would class myself as being in work, I use my own car but have to have bussines class insurance so I would consider that I was at work whilst driving to and from meetings otherwise at the end of each month i could end up short in my wages if I was only in work when i was in a building.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
farrell
If on the work you stop at a shop, to buy a sandwich and you are injured are you at work. Are you paid to go shopping.
While working on a contract in London on of our operatives went to buy cigs and got run over on the road, this was not reportable on two counts, 1 RTA, 2 not at work (not paid to go shopping)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stevel wrote:
Heather
"parked car at side of road to get out to go to buy a sandwich"
What part of this is at work
You've missed my point Steve. We don't know what the IP's contract said or what their normal work patterns were so we cannot say for sure whether this was "at work". "At work" does not necessarily mean "in their normal place of work".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stevel wrote:farrell
If on the work you stop at a shop, to buy a sandwich and you are injured are you at work. Are you paid to go shopping.
While working on a contract in London on of our operatives went to buy cigs and got run over on the road, this was not reportable on two counts, 1 RTA, 2 not at work (not paid to go shopping)
If I was driving for work purpose i.e. meeting etc. and I pulled over because I was tired or needed the toilet etc. I would not expect someone to tell me that I was not at work at that time. The other option would be that I continued travelling and maybe had an accident would I then be classed at work.
We could go around in circles but I think if you are attending something for work in working hours then you are or at least should be classed as at work otherwise if i travelled for 2 and half hours to a meeting and they were not classed as at work i would never work a full week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Just to throw in my tuppence worth..
Not reportable.
Stopping to buy a sandwich is no different to nipping in to the bookies or seeing your bit on the side during your unmonitored day away from home and is no way connected with a work activity unless you job is being a secret shopper for a sandwich company.
When the enforcing officer gets the details of this incident through the incident officer website he will mark it as unreportable and will not accept it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
farrell
It is not about driving for two and half hours, getting tired or using the loo, its about going shopping getting an injury and classing it as work time.
And the option of having an accident whilst driving would be RTA so not reportable any way Ha Ha
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Isn't it interesting that there appear to be so many interpretations of this scenario depending on the circumstances.
I note that on Dec 20 the following was contained in the IOSH reply to the Young Report
Quote
“IOSH wants its members to have their say in five key consultations on the review:
January – changes to how Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations operate”
Unquote
Perhaps a more defined clarification of reportable accidents would be a step forward?
My opinion in this instance, is that by reporting the accident you comply strictly with RIDDOR, however from what I have read I believe that I would record but not report as I cannot see how the employer could have taken control measures to stop the accident, unless inappropriate footwear was being worn.
I am not saying this is right I am saying this is my interpretation of the situation.
Take Care
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I still don't think we have enough details to decide one way or another.
Fletcher - the fact that the employer couldn't have done anything to stop the accident has no bearing on whether it's RIDDOR reportable or not so far as I am aware...
Just to show how it could be reportable, let's imagine (invent!) a few facts we don't currently know...
The employee was actually buying a sandwich at this shop because his employer has a contract for cheap sandwiches with them and requires him to go there for food when on this particular business trip. As he got out of his (company provided and equipped) vehicle he caught his leg on the side of the tool box that his employer has had fitted as a sepcial addition to the outside of the vehicle and wrenched his knee.
Now what do we think? ;-)
My point isn't that this is what actually happened! It's rather that an incident like this is subject to interpretation depending on the specific circumstances and I don't think anyone who has not investigated and is therefore in possession of the full facts can say for sure...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Heather
"Home-based field worker using vehicle provided by employer parked car at side of road to get out to go to buy a sandwich on the way to an appointment at a work site."
Based on these facts given, not at work so not reportable
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
But my "invented facts" fit in perfectly with this story Steve.....and I think they change the picture.
Based on the facts actually given - not enough information to say one way or the other whether this was "out of or in connection with work".
To be honest I'd probably veer towards not reportable too if pushed for an opinion. I am simply trying to prove it's not as black and white as you seem to think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Heather
So does the fact that he was parked on a channel ferry in a force 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Oh dear, those who live by the sword...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ray
I will have to watch the roll
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
SteveL wrote:Heather
So does the fact that he was parked on a channel ferry in a force 10
As Heather says, it may depend on the circumstances. In your scenario not reportable (under Riddor) by virtue of Reg 10 (RIDDOR does not apply to the death or injury of anyone employed on, or carried in, a merchant ship (unless that person is a shore-based worker involved in loading, unloading, repair work etc))!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
barnaby
does buying a sandwich count as being involved in loading, he was taking it back to the car for consumption at a later time?
Ha Ha
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.