Still report it - over 7 day injury.

Explain about the delay on the RIDDOR form.

It may be that he thought his ankle would get better during his holidays and he would be able to return afterwards. Bear in mind her can self-cert for up to 8 days absence.

As said above, definitely report but explain why its late (better late than never), i have recently had to report an accident late.

John W, unfortunately the HSE no longer offer the service of an advice or helpline.
They used to, and there helpline was rather helpful. However they do have contact the HSE FAQ section which states:
You can request technical advice or interpretation of guidance from HSE using the online advice form. If you are unable to use the online form, you can request advice by email or by telephoning our Advisory Team on 0300 003 1747 during office hours - 8.30 am to 5.00 pm, Monday to Friday. However, please note HSE does not operate a telephone helpline for general health and safety information.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/contact.htm

John W, bear in mind that they say the HSE will aim to respond to advice requests within 30 working days. So you may be waiting a while.

If they are not willing to take your word its reportable, could you just point the relevant part of the Reg's / guidance. Or is this another one in the grey area.

You could try the forum, there may be a first time where everyone agrees :0)

Chris

Hi John

I hate these types of incidents, in relation to RIDDOR. In some cases it's damned if you report, damned if you don't! Bear in mind, an activity is 'work-related' if any of the following played a significant role:

1) the way the work was carried out.

2) any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for the work or

3) the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened

I know you're not thinking this, but it's not reportable solely because the person is 'at work' and sustains an injury. I would be looking at how he exited the cab, footwear, condition of kerb (if possible). If any of the three criteria are met, then it would be reportable.

Cheers

I agree with Chris, a person exiting a piece of equipment in/or on which he is working is "at work" and undertaking a task that is a "work-related". Regulation 4(1)(a) makes the matter reportable I am afraid.

Regards.

DJ

John W,

Sunstone makes a very valid point in his post. You seem to be concentrating on whether he was classed as being at work rather than if it was work related.
You don't want to just be looking at whether he was at work, you need to look at whether the accident itself is work related. Just being at work at the time of the injury does not constitute it being work related.

Look on the HSE website under the definition of 'work related'. It states The fact that there is an accident at work premises does not, in itself, mean that the accident is work-related – the work activity itself must contribute to the accident. An accident is ‘work-related’ if any of the following played a significant role:

the way the work was carried out
any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for the work or
the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened

So in your position I would carry out a full investigation and take pics of his footwear, the vehicle steps, pavement etc if possible prior to making a decision.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...nitions.htm#work-related


Hope this helps, Gavin

Ha! Manager said 'Tacho switched off, so NOT at work'.

But their transport policy includes



When the accident occurred the cab had not yet been locked. So, still at work?

Apologies for posting twice, the site went a bit crazy there for some reason

Iv'e had a similar incident where a driver slipped while stepping down from cab.

My take on it - the lorry was new so no defects with the handles or steps, the ground was level (Although he slipped before he got there!) his boots were fine - no loose laces and treads in good condition and free from contaminates, said he was getting down with three points of contact and the weather was good and light - but he still slipped and fell.

He said it "was one of them things and he was just clumsy" - I didn't report it as a RIDDOR. Yes it was in working hours but still not reporting it. (Please don't grass me up if you disagree ;-)

quote=Gav81]John W,

the way the work was carried out

Ok I'm not sure I'm following your point here sorry if I have missed it.

If we agree he was actually "working" not simply at work, how can this not be work related?

Gav81,

Again your scenario of walking to the printer and falling for unknown reason I could also argue not work-related.

But what about a joiner who accidently hits his thumb instead of a nail? Surely that is work-related?

And similarly a truck driver parking his truck and stepping down from the cab misses the pavement - because he parked too far from the kerb, further than he should normally.

A previous HSE inspector once explain the following to me;

Person at work walking down the corridor trips (no defects etc...) off more that 3 days (old requirement) = not reportable - no work activity they were just walking.

Person at work carrying files walking down the corridor trips (no defects etc...) off more that 3 days (old requirement) = reportable - work activity was carrying the files.

Is stepping down from a vehicle a 'work activity' here lies the question. Reportable or not HSE/LA will do nothing about it anyway, just another statistic.

Don't you just love RIDDOR.... 20 years on and we (safety professionals) still don't understand it...

I wouldn't report.

Another way of looking at it would be; where was the employer at fault, or, now you know about the accident what is the employer going to to prevent future recurrences? What are you going to do that's different to what you already do?

Just because your at work - which this person was - doesn't mean it was a work related accident.

If your company makes the drivers exit the cab carrying a bag, flask, wearing slippers, then yes. If the environment is at fault, then yes.
If I choose to walk in to the office wall it's not reportable, if I walk in to a wall because my role requires me to carry a stack of paperwork and I can't see where I'm going then yes.

DJ

Re: The case you mention 'in connection with work'. This case provides guidance on how to interpret the term “arising out of” in insurance policies. There has previously been conflicting interpretations in case law. In this case, the Judge adopted a strict “proximate cause” test, drawing a distinction between the use of the term in determining whether there is cover for an event.

This doesn't cover the explanation of work related in relation to RIDDOR.

Re; Your statement 'The condition of the lorry steps, kerb stones, etc. is irrelevant to whether or not the matter is RIDDOR reportable'

And I say yet again the surrounding environment, condition of equipment being used, failures in H&S managements systems etc is totally relevant to the work related definition within RIDDOR.
All the examples of RIDDOR on the HSE website relate to specific work related issue, whether it be in catering, rail or whatever. The term work realted also applies to examples of injuries to members of the public, dangerous occurrences and so on. RIDDOR guidance for care homes it states some incidents are not reportable under RIDDOR. But this does not mean that the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (‘the HSW Act’) do not apply. Depending on the circumstances, the enforcing authority may decide it is appropriate to investigate such incidents.

INDG453(rev1) - Again when deciding if the accident that led to the death or injury is work-related, the key issues to consider are whether the accident was related to:
the way the work was organised, carried out or supervised;
any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for work; and
the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened.

If none of these factors are relevant to the incident, it is likely that a report will not
be required. <<<<<<<<<<

So how can we say condition of lorry steps, kerb stones etc is irrelevant, when it's relevance is there for all to see in black and white???

Again in a document I have seen in which the HSE responds to a committee in relation to sports injuries, again see the references below on describing if the accident is reportable:

Whether a particular accident is reportable will depend very much on the particular circumstances and nature of the accident. RIDDOR reportable accidents will normally relate to the condition of premises, equipment or procedures at a sports facility. Examples might include a defect with a race track causing an accident; defects in the design of the playing surface; defects with any sporting equipment or safety features, eg safety barriers; and failings in organisational arrangements.

So without a doubt condition and suitability of equipment, how the work is organised, supervised and environment the work is carried out is undoubtedly relevant!!!

Chris

You do not need to use CAPS, I understand the point of the work was carried out, as I have mentioned it in previous posts!!
I have never said that the way work is carried out isn't relevant. You seem to arguing a point with yourself for some reason.

The OP has not once said that the driver jumped down from the cab or did not have 3 points of contact so I'm not sure why you have mentioned this on two occasions as it's not relevant, you seem to be clutching at straws and trying to pluck a cause out of the air. The OP carried out an investigation and did not mention this as a contributing factor.

The reason why 'at work' was extended to this legislation is because police officers are public servants and 'at work' for them may extend to being off-duty. For example a police officer may be off-duty but are able to arrest a person at any time, and therefore if they were to be injured during the arrest they would be able to claim sick pay, so not on duty but considered at work when acting as an officer of the law.. So for this reason this does not apply in this case.

My friend is a Police Officer for BTP, he does not pay for his train tickets he just shows his warrant to the guard and that's it. However, as a public servant if the guard want his assistance during the journey as a police officer he cannot refuse to help. So not on duty but maybe deemed 'at work' if acting as an officer of the law at any time.