controller of an undertaking - opinions sort Background Owner of land has no daily proximity to their land - they have comissioned others to maintain, install etc Situation a member of public has an accident that has arose out of a work activity* and is taken immediately to hospital - [*a piece of the equipment on the owners land that was installed and maintained by others on behalf of the owner failed thus causing the accident] Opinion An interesting question: Who completes the RIDDOR?

Does it matter who reports? The report needs to be as accurate as possible, so it should be whichever knows most about the incident, however, I agree with DP, the landowner needs to make sure the report has occurred.

I am surprised the police did not arrive with the ambulance!! It seems to be fairly normal nowdays. That said as this equipment is presumably outside of your project area then leave it to the owner. If inside your project area then you have some major issues to consider as well as reporting. Bob

DP Should that not read Ambulance - followed by claims solicitors? Or am I just being cynical? Clive

Bob Y In my view by analogy to Section 4(3) of HSWA I think it's down to those contracted to instal and maintain the plant.

Thats my demise posting on here ha. Thank you Ron.

For info the kit concerned [children's play equipment] is in a park and the work undertaken is general park maintenance to include mowing, planting, playground maintenance, tree felling etc - the owner owns the land but others do everything on it/with it on a day to day basis - the owner is miles away and probably never visits the area

Bob - sounds to me with the extra info that there is a clear employer here, and their undertaking is parks maintenance. That appears to include the provision of the play equipment which may or may not be contributory to the incident. Seems to me that the landowner identity / location is now irrelevant. Their 'undertaking extent' is owning land - even if they too are an employer. That did not create any risk but the operation of the park may have.

1 Who are these experts you refer to? ==== Various chartered people as well as the experts on the IOSH legal help desk 2 Did the installation / maintenance company specify the equipment to be installed or did the landowner specify the particular model / make ...............................” === The owner had a designer design, all the owner did was say; I want such and such a type of kit / additionally the day to day maintainer had no input in any installation / manufacturing process 3 If the landowners are specifying exactly the equipment to be installed and who it is to be purchased from, would they not retain responsibility if there was an accident because the equipment was not fit for purpose ? Rather than not being installed / maintained properly. If they do retain some responsibility should they be the ones to report === v-good point however they did not specify & hired a specialist in to maintain on their behalf and its the specialist who controls the area on a day to day basis 4 If the situation is as I describe in Q3, who then decides responsibility / takes responsibility. == a day to day controller is the responsible person on a day to day basis 5 Did the installation/maintenance company know they were taking on the duties/ responsibility of an occupier? ...........................==== the philosophy of the meaning of 'controller' is a legal philosophy and the term controller does not necessarily need to be specifically put into a contract 6 If the installation and maintenance company were different, where each could point the finger at the other in terms of fault. Would it then be down to the maintenance company as they have taken ongoing control? === installer long ago went to the wall - only the maint company and land owner now in place and only the maint co access ther area and undertakes any work etc. therein I have to be honest my initial thought following your post #12, this was a landowner trying to be slippery. Having re read the Occupiers liability Acts 1957 and 1984 and looking into the (apparently) acknowledged test for ‘occupation’ the case of Wheat –v- Lacon [1966] AC 552. Where it was said ...... “Wherever a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person lawfully there ......”. I get to the same conclusion, it’s down to the maintenance company. I still feel that the wording in the contract would be key, but instead of saying explicitly that they are deemed to be in control, more the extent of the service they are providing. I would guess there is a real big grey area between oil squeaky swing twice a year and responsible for all grounds and facility maintenance. thanks and the answers are great especially the case law