Personally, I'd report it. Technically the IP was still 'at work', so I'd play safe if this was me and report just in case. In any event, if full details of what happened are put on the report form, as outlined in your post, I'd suggest it is unlikely there will be much follow up anyway.

Whether she was "at work" or not is a red herring in this case - i.e the clocking out isn't relevant IMHO. Was it "arising out of or in connection with work"? Seems to me the answer is yes, therefore it is reportable.

Just to play devils advocate....In the case of "arising out of or in connection with work"? how would you state that it was in connection with work, other than she was at work? The employees were not carrying out a work activity that would be covered by a RA and there was no hazards in place other than someone not looking where they were going. Other than moving the toilets or toilets door, would could you do to stop this from happening again? as this could happen to anyone, at anytime exiting from any doorway which leads onto a corridor.

As others have answered the clocking in issue is irelevant as IP was an employee in the workplace and as person in control of premises it should be reported.

As I see it the aim of RIDDOR is to make sure that all significant incidents are reported to the HSE. To make sure this is done, the list of things that have to be reported is as inclusive as possible- so even incidents like this, where it is difficult to see what can be done to improve matters have to be reported. As has been said before on this forum, just because something is reported under RIDDOR, does not make the employer/occupier liable for anything nor does it guarantee a visit from the HSE. Even when they had more resources they only checked up on the more significant incidents; now I doubt they’ll come for anything less than a serious injury/death or if an employer kept submitting the same sort reports over a short period of time ie they were obviously doing something wrong and not putting it right..

Thanks to all for your responses. We did report this as a Riddor. Just FYI, the area is a corridor, good flooring, plenty or room to manoeuvre, good lighting. It does appear this was wholly due to a lack of attention by those involved, but was questioning the reporting as in the previous post the HSE did inform us not report another similar accident as it was not connected with or as a result of a work related activity. Regards B

There are so many RIDDOR posts on here, its actually scary to think that we are confused ourselves about when and when not to report.

Purely on the basis of protecting or negating the organisation from potential probable loss I would report it. Not to do so could be leaving the organisation open to scrutiny in whatever form that might avail itself in. WE have had some complex questions on this same issue to do with days off/ annual leave where the person who had the incident reported to was confused as to whether they should report the accident as Riddor reportable. My advice was Yes!

Having over 2800 employees to manage I have has quite a bit of exposure with respect to RIDDOR reporting in the past. In my opinion this is not reportable because there was no work activity being carried out at the time. This opinion is base on the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law and as previously stated there is not much that can be done to control another likewise accident happening in the future. My opinion is also based on a respected HSE inspector whom gave me the following examples; Person walking down the corridor, falls and is off work more than 3 consecutive days = not reportable (no work activity) Person carrying files walking down the corridor, falls and is off work for more that consecutive 3 days = reportable (carrying the files is a work activity) I know that this is a crazy example and I expect the bombardment of responses, as I would expect on such a forum. The key factor is 'arising out of or in connection with work'. I agree with the post above that this is a poorly scripted regulation albeit it has been around for many years. DP is right about learning the basic requirements of RIDDOR to pass NGC examinations. The real test to understanding RIDDOR is using it over a number of years.