Just to point out one of my experiences with a HSE inspector in the past. An inspector was investigating an incident and he could not fine anything to go on so he wanted to see my accident reporting data (not RIDDOR reports). When I asked why, he could not give me a valid reason as to why he wanted to see it. I said to him that if I had this information I would not show it to him, as this information would not have been legally collated for safety purposes. I said that if I did have this information is was to comply with legislation outwith HSAWA (in which he is only empowered). He did not call my bluff and duly left not seeing my accident reporting information and did not return.

This type of debate has come up many times on this forum, often without resolution. Over the years the following seem to have come out of such discussions. 1) Some people feel they are at work therefore there is a link to the working activity which is sufficient for it to be reportable. 2) Some people feel that if they are moving between work bench A to work bench B they are working, so would be reportable. However if they are moving from work bench A to go to the loo or make coffee then not working, so not reportable. 3) Some people feel that even if they are moving from work bench A to go to the loo, or go home, it is covered by access and egress as per HASAWA, So reportable. 4) Some people feel that if they are not actually at work bench A or workbench B then it is not reportable, as moving between work areas is not working. 5) Some people just don't care and wont report regardless. Even with the above options and say you feel the movement between A and B or A and the Loo is part of working, did the workplace condition etc play a part. It is immaterial if anything can be done or not about the issue or even if there was anyone to blame. It is up to you which of the above groups you fall into and the part played by the workplace. For me I think I would be in group 3 above in terms of were they working (yes they are). It is obviously poor layout, however many desks are adjacent to walls and people don't stand up and walk into them (often). So unless there is a real issue of the post blending into the background or light from a window that blinds the person temporarily, I don't think I would report. I personally don't think the HSE are interested in this. If they are they need to provide better guidance as they can not be ignorant to the dilemma this type of issue creates and have deliberately not qualified the issue for everyone. I would ask her if she would have been fit for work on the Saturday and your problem may go away. Just IMHO Chris

That definition has further clearer (hah!) explanations and tests on the HSE website which are listed earlier in the thread. They also give examples of what is and isn't reportable: http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...reportable-incidents.htm The examples are far from perfect but as proof of what I think everyone currently on the 'no' side of the debate is saying I would look under 'People not at work' and 'Catering/Hospitality'. I believe it demonstrates that the fact that someone has an accident 'at work' is not sufficient. This is actually explicitly stated on the HSE website so there must be scope for accidents to occur that are NOT work related. There must be a contributing factor or clear work task involved. Chris42 has highlighted the debating points around this and probably the reasons why these threads can go on...! But I would use one of the HSE examples, merely stepping awkwardly and spraining your ankle on work premises is insufficient. Doing so in a pothole on work premises MAY make it reportable i.e. a contribution from the work environment. It's not an ideal example. We all probably have differing views on the placement of the pillar etc., whether standing up from a desk is a work task but ultimately we're all guessing at the detail. Hence the need for investigation and a decision from someone competent who ultimately has to form an opinion about whether there is anything work-related going on. From initial descriptions, I don't think there was. You can see why the question was asked in the first place though! The HSE used to have an excellent inspector training module on RIDDOR which posed all sorts of grey area accidents to really make you think about it. Darned if I can find it anymore. As regards the second issue arising...as someone who has taken prosecutions under RIDDOR, it is very much something that is appended to more significant charges. I've never taken one by itself. RIDDOR alone would unlikely ever warrant prosecution...there are other enforcement methods more appropriate.

Thought I would check Xavier's link, but it was one I had seen before. However why do they add in their example "not started work for the day". Would it be different if they had clocked in, but had the same accident with no defects to car park? Why add it if it has no importance. I note you say there was guidance for regulators on the grey areas, but not the rest of us - Nice. The example Q. An employee steps out of his private car in the office car park. In doing so, he somehow twists his ankle. As a result, he has more than seven days off work. The employee had not yet started work for the day. There were no defects to the car park surface, debris or spillages etc present that may have contributed to the incident and the light was good. Is this reportable?

I totally agree Chris. The examples are frustrating as they still leave some scope for interpretation! There are some others in children's play areas and countryside incidents that again make reference to consideration of whether an intended control measure had failed in order to make the difference between work-related and not. Yet all these examples remain for members of the public rather than employees. But employee or no doesn't fundamentally change the 'arising out of or in connection with work' to my mind. Still got to apply the tests. Why have those tests at all if every single accident that occurs whilst you are at work counts as being work-related?

I didn't commit either way, just gave an opinion on how it could be viewed. I'm in the 'No' camp - so its 14 No, 13 Yes

What broken foot? The original query was about someone walking into a building structural pillar. Mild head ached/concussion etc.

That was #9, discussing a different incident to the very original query. Do keep up with the discussion.

I am being swayed towards reporting it on the grounds that: 1. Better to report than to be condemned for not reporting it 2. Reporting is not an admission of liability or guilt, it is simply recording that something has happened Overall I think that RIDDOR is a rubbish system with poorly thought out criteria. I have in the past reported minor accidents that clearly fall in the scope of RIDDOR while have not reported events which had potential for serious harm but are outside the scope of RIDDOR

Thanks for looking

Ok just to spice up the debate. Recently, a representative from the HSE was asked to answer some questions on RIDDOR associated to the healthcare and social care sector, and came up with the answer in the link below (I hope it works). http://www.nashics.org/w...porting-under-RIDDOR.pdf Interesting concept - someone goes to hospital from your premises (reportable) but then the hospital says their is no injury (the goalposts now change - not reportable) muddy waters me thinks.

Very interesting comments on the pros and cons of RIDDOR reporting. Just as an embellishment, I was asked some years ago whether a serious incident (fatality of a member of public) was a RIDDOR. I looked at the Regs and decided it was strictly reportable although like other examples fell in the grey area. My boss (Director of Safety) disagreed with me and it was not reported. Later that year we got into the final three companies for the prestigious ROSPA Sir George Earle award only to fail with indignation when they found out we had not reported the aforementioned incident within our submission.

What I mean by rubbish is the fact that it there is so much vague stuff going on. The requirements to report incidents, goes back to the old Factories Act, where the risks were obvious (machinery and the like) but in our more complicated workplace places it does not seem to work. There is also a wider recognition of what H&S includes so things that weren’t regarded as a big deal in the past are now a priority, like workstation layout etc. Unfortunately there is also pressure on the reporting system to only include ‘relevant’ incidents, rather than saying any incident that involves an injury at work is reportable they have to use lots of vague terms to describe when something is reportable. And as someone has said the final decision on what the law means is down to the courts but there have been so few cases involving RIDDOR that there is no real precedent for how the law should be applied.

Not reportable...exactly what did the person do over the weekend between the Friday bump and presenting at A&E? Fell off her bike? Went to a rock concert and indulged in some headbanging? Played rugby? Too many variables to need to report it as a work-related accident.