Happy Friday everyone!! Would like some opinions on this please on a very grey area. An Estate Agent showing a customer (potential buyer) around a vendor's house. The customer slips and and injures themselves. Assuming the injuries fall within the criteria, is this RIDDOR by the Estate Agent? Thanks if anyone can help.

The IP is not at work The IP was not injured in connection with any work So it is nothing to do with the HASAWA or RIDDOR Steve

thanks for the responses so far. The last post sums up my concern. The estste agent has invited IP to visit the address. Another scenario could be that the estate agent was not present and the IP was being shown around by the vendor. Would this make any difference?

The house is neither in the ownership or under the control of the Estate Agent - it's a domestic premise!!

My second ARGGHHHH of teh day :) and it's stress down friday! - I again 100% agree with stuff4blokes and like him would normally run away from these threads :) I can't format this in away that is readable FROM: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l73.pdf Page 18 WHAT. Death, or injury requiring removal to a hospital for treatment (or major injury occurring at a hospital): of a person who is not at work (but is affected by the work of someone else), eg a member of the public, a student, a resident of a nursing home WHO IS DUTY HOLDER The person in control of the premises where, or in connection with the work at which, the accident causing the injury happened: - at the time of the event; and - in connection with their carrying on any trade, business or undertaking

Is the estate agent at work carrying out his business.

This is a domestic premise in the ownership of the vendor. Cannot see how the Estate Agent could have any control over the premises. 'Control' as I understand would imply that they are responsible to some degree for the management and condition of the premise which the Estate Agent clearly does not.

They may not have 'control' in the sense you are thinking, but they have control over the tour... They do not have to take a client to a house with holes in the floor, loose needles, and an aggressive dog! I would expect them to inspect properties and decide they are suitable for a client to tour? If I visit off my own back then it is clearly not work related, as soon as I put my trust into someone who is trying to make lots of money there is IMHO a clear DoC! maybe I am being stupid, it's Friday, roll on the weekend...

the terms 'controller' - 'undertaking' has a far wider meaning than most think - I would RIDDOR [if the event fits RIDDOR] as the 'undertaking' was a viewing not the whole house and all its parts and the 'controller' of that viewing was the employer not the owner - the person who was hurt was invited in by the employer not the householder - the event was hurt by the unployer undertaking his business activities The house holder has another type of duty and liability

Firstly could I try and knock on the head the suggestion that going to hospital by ambulance (#2) is part of the criteria for reporting under RIDDOR? It isn't! The criteria for reporting for people not at work are (paraphrased) if they are taken from the scene of the accident DIRECTLY to hospital by WHATEVER means (on a sledge pulled by an Alsatian if you like!) AND the injury arises out of, or in connection with work. (see para 45 of the RIDDOR guidance - it doesn't mention sledges in fairness) I'm with Heather. I don't believe with the information that we have in front of us that this is reportable. IF someone visits my house, to view it without an estate agent (as is normally the case) and has a similar accident would it be reportable under RIDDOR. I suggest NOT (ok it isn't!) and nor do I think that RIDDOR was ever intended that it should be. So, the same person wants to view my house and I can't be there to let them in, so I allow the estate agent to do that for me. Same accident happens. Reportable? Wouldn't make much sense to me! Are they really in control of the premises? I suggest for the main part, probably not. I suggest unlikely to be reportable, and suggest that this was not what RIDDOR had in mind either. Happy to be wrong though.

*If somebody gets hurt in a private persons home [the owner] where they are invited in by the owner and 'controlled' by the owner the private person may claim towards the owner but as the owner is not at work the the owner has no RIDDOR reporting duties - If the owner was showing somebody around who was sent etc by a company that they [the owner] have commissioned again the owner has no duties; but;- The situation described was different!; a person was invited into a *place [could have been a football pitch / a factory [open or closed - with the owner there or not] by a business as part of their [the selling agents] undertaking and 'controlled' by them e.g. if the viewer asked to view the loft would the viewing agent have let them [without prior arrangements], no they would not so they are controlling them, a business who have duties in law e.g. to report via RIDDOR. IT does not matter what that place was nor who ownes it or if the owner was present as teh business was managing the situation and not the owner! Just some thoughts

Wow, I did not think this question would generate such a response. Amoungst other things I spent most of my Friday investigating this accident and finding more facts. I put the question up Friday morning as a general question in case it became RIDDOR. I see from the responses that this is not clear cut. I now know that in this case IP did no go to hospital. Therefore I will not RIDDOR. Many thanks for all the answers you have given. I can see that some of you have really looked into this in detail which I really appreciate. I think that this all boils down to "was the estate agent in control of the veiwing?" As we do a lot of work with Estate Agents, the scenario above will no doubt raise it's head again at some point so the responses you have given to this will be invaluable. Ivor