Hi Woolhouse=Smith, I think you could help us a bit here!

So, as example why do you not think it is NOT a RIDDOR and how are you counting the days?

My standard advice on these Forums (as anywhere else) is never to take much notice of the guidance that HSE produces on RIDDOR but to look at the detail of the Regulations including what is NOT in scope.

For many years I have thought that the HSE guidance on RIDDOR has been desiened (whether or not deliberately) to encourage duty holders to find excuses NOT to report/record incidents that on the basis of the Regulations SHOULD be reported and/or recorded.

Possible reasons why HSE might do this?

1. Pressure from successive Governments not to burden business with "red tape". Ironically the changes made in 2013 probably INCREASED red tape for those organisations who try to play by the rules!

2. HSE uses RIDDOR reports for two main purposes - A [the primary purpose] to help with collation of statistics and B to a lesser extent to inform regulatory activity though in practice HSE and other enforcing authorities only make a visit to a tiny fraction of organisations that have reported something under RIDDOR. If we look at A, it might suit the HSE to receive less RIDDOR reports as it might help HSE portray the UK as being safer, particularly when it comes to benchmarking against other nations. Evidenced by its repaated refual to extend the scope of RIDDOR to include the most road traffic work-related accidents that are currently excluded from scope even when otherwise the injuries would meet the RIDDOR (and Eurostat) threaholds. 

3. Someone at HSE has to spend time processing every RIDDOR. Less reports means less HSE resources spend on data input. Good news in a Department that has been subject to continued year on year funding for well over a decade.

But why do you think it is not a RIDDOR?

Unfortunately you are confusing potential lead swinging with regulatory duty.

The golden rule is report everything that way you won't be found wanting.

It's over seven days so fits one criteria and is not an admission of blame.

If there are sickness related attendance issues that is a separate matter for line management and HR.

Meanwhile when that ambulance chaser claim arrives for personal injury the insurers are going to want to see a copy of the relevant reports.

Your reason for thinking it's not a real injury is just speculative and not based on evidence.  Even someone who has pretended to be sick in the past can still become genuinely injured.

So you will need to report it as a RIDDOR, even though you don't really believe it.  You are able to mention your suspicions in the online form if you wish.

That of course doesn't stop a disciplinary investigation being initiated if you think lies may have been told.

Not RIDDOR is your personal opinion.

Personally I would rather explain a number rather than defend a prosecution.

Reporting is NOT an admission of guilt.

Those lost days are in the company statistics anyway.

Hi Woolhouse-Smith

To paraphrase Roundtuit's "Golden Rule" when I worked for HSE our advice was always "If in doubt, report." Pre RIDDOR but similar legislation in place.

The rationale was largely that something that HAD been reported but turned out NOT to actually be reportable could not be subject of criticism from the regulator.

Conversely if the incident was NOT reported but turned out to have been reportable the potential was for enforcement action, most likely via prosecution. [OK we didn't go down that route very often].

One problem is that in recent decades people have got hung up on three issues:

1. The myth that putting in a report is an admission by the duty holder that they have done something wrong. Not true. RIDDOR iis mostly a means of enabling the statisticians to get an idea of how many incidents (meeeting certain criteria) occur. When the UK was in the EU it had to provide annual information to Eurostat and had to make up some of the data to be provided as e.g. it didn't have much of a clue as to how many work-related accidents were happening on the roads.

2. Playing numbers games, sometimes to try and keep the numbers down for the likes of answers to questions asked by customers in e.g. prequalification. I do understand why some feel the need to massage the numbers as some of those reviewing such information as very poor at interpreting the information they are given. 

However anyone half competent in making the assessments should be much more interested in a potential supplier's processes for investigating incidents and learning, where appropriate, so that future incidents with common causes (more particularly the underlying or "root" causes) can be avoided and not reading too much into the raw data.

There are so many variables to consider that it is usually impossible to compare potential Supplier A and potential Supplier B on the basis of how many incidents they have whether as number or rates.

3. Any culture of "Zero Harm", "All accidents are preventable" or similar mantras. Yes if a business locks its doors then it shouldn't have any incidents going forward, but that probably means that theiir current workforce are MORE likely to be harmed away from work. Plenty of statistical evidence to show that going to work is, on average, good for people's Health and Safety.

Problem is that these mantras are usually stated in absolute terminology with no consideration of what migth be pragmatic and meet whatever the legal test might be e.g. that of doing what is "reasonably practicable".

SOME accidents (and other harmful outcomes) can and will always happen even when all relevant criminal and civil legal duties being fulfilled.

The floor might be in immaculate condition. Someone will still fall during work.

As Kate indicates it's VERY unlikely that you are going to be able to prove to whatever legal standard that this individual did NOT have an accident "at work" (WHATEVER your suspicions), so the best thing to do (IMO) is to report the incident and accept that your RIDDOR count has just gone up by ONE.

NO. HSE are not going to De-RIDDOR something that HAS been reported and proves to have been NOT reportable. 

YES, if you can actually demonstrate that this person has been "at it", then by all means take it off YOUR own stats. However it will take a lot of effort to prove this to a satisfactory standard and most people are busy and probably have more constructive things to do.

Edited by user 13 August 2025 16:13:29(UTC)  | Reason: Typo