I should know this, I really should... Lady in work trips on car park Tuesday, carries on working WT&F and rings in on Monday complaining of pain and is now off for 10 days, is this still reportable despite the fact She worked for 3 days as normal prior to going off?

To clarify what that means. For example,if there was a hole or something that she tripped on, some sort of maintenance issue that the company had control over, then it is reportable. If she was just tripping over her own feet, then no it is not reportable, even though it was a work car park.

I'd say it's not reportable. Not because she returned for 3 days first but because I don't think tripping over a small stone the size of a 10p in the car park is really what RIDDOR is about!

Thanks all, for what it's worth I agree with you all will probably report but as Animax has said it is not reasonably foreseeable, we have had no near misses, no complaints and our wonderful Union have carried out their own inspections (but try explaining reasonably practicable to them, they do want a billiard smooth surface).

Hi Did she report it at the time, was she seen by a first aider at the time, was it recorded and investigated at the time? If so you would have to link it to her work - access and egress - so it is reportable in these circumstances. If she did not report it at the time, then are you certain she did it at work? Ian

That post worries me.

Sorry Claire :) !!

Such poor understanding of RIDDOR.

Let's take this in easy stages. 1 - forseeability has no place in RIDDOR. If an accident happens and it's within the reporting parameters, then you report it. Simples. 2 - Likewise arguments along the lines of "I don't want to bother them". Six months down the line your friendly enforcement office gets a letter from the lady's solicitor asking for details as he is putting in a claim. They haven't heard of the accident so come steaming in under full FFI sail. You're on the back foot from the word "go". (Sorry to mix metaphors). 3 - If the lady affected had hobbled into your office as soon as the accident happened then immediately took a week off, you would report the accident. So this establishes a presumption that it is reportable. 4 - The lady has worked several days then phones in with aches and pains. Do you have any robust grounds for believing that they are not a result of the accident? The default is that it's reportable unless you are comfortable that you have evidence to decouple the event from the absence. 5 - "in connection with work" is defined thus: ..."attributable to the manner of conducting an undertaking, the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking and the condition of the premises so used or any part of them." This casts a very wide net so, as with my points above, you need to be very sure that you could evidence your claim that an accident was out of scope for reporting on this basis. The default would be to treat it as reportable.

I would report, straight forward in my opinion

I agree the Daily Wail would love this over the top story. Small stones in car parks can be very dangerous! Was she taking due care and attention whilst walking through the car park looking out for a small lonely stone lurking and waiting to trip her up? Was it her fault? But then, she worked on for 3 days seemingly without any problems has the weekend off and calls in sick on Monday. Did she injure herself on the Saturday / Sunday? Who knows? IMO a waste of time reporting.

No it is not clearly reportable. It is not in connection with work. As an ex-inspector I can say that it is irritating when nonsense like this fills up an in-box. Not reportable as far as I'm concerned and it is worrying that so many of you think it is.

For what its worth - I fully agree with Claire on this one. HSE do not help themselves by issuing guidance (INDG453 (rev1) (draft) which states that: "Reportable injuries (including deaths) do not have to be automatically reported....." ermmmm surely if its reportable - then it needs to be reported? Isn't that part of the definition??? It kinda means what it says on the tin doesn't it?? Oh wait... there's more : "but must be reported if they occur as the result of a work-related accident..." ???? But surely to murgatroyd - if it doesn't occur as the result of a work related accident then its not a reportable accident - so its not reportable??? Oh dear, I've never seen such badly drafted official guidance. No wonder there are so many differences of opinion on this subject!!! I need to go and stick my head in the fridge again. Steve

Just to throw my hat in the ring. I would not report this, as in my opinion, its not in connection with work. Andy

This thread seems to have veered off target. The original concern, as I read it (do please correct me...) relates to the time delay between the accident and the absence. Are we all agreed that, assuming that there is a plausible connection, then it remains reportable? Now, moving on to the apparently contentious issue of "in connection...". I have had the pleasure (!) of being on the receiving end of numerous communications from EHOs over the years on this subject, including falls in car parks. Never mind the HSE's currently badly worded guidance or views of ex-Inspectors (which includes me), there is sufficient diversity in the interpretation of this phrase to make me apply the precautionary principle. If in doubt, report it. The fact that it makes the HSE's staff do a bit of work sorting the inbound is nothing new. To a select few I would say "13, 7, 99". And no, I won't explain. Jim

As posted above if you take the perfectly reasonable position that compliance equates to less risk exposure, then it follows that the default position will be - if in doubt report it. You know it is trivial and it won't be followed up, however you know for certain you are compliant no matter how you interpret the guidance, and it is as stated above open to interpretation. Two things which I do not take into account when making decisions on behalf of an employer are the work load of HSE inspectors and how they collate and publish RIDDOR figures - why would I?

Just to clarify, I am not telling people not to report just to protect workloads and statistics etc etc. I just am telling people to report correctly and not take the either lazy or misinformed view that they should report it anyway. That was no what RIDDOR was set up to achieve.

I feel that I should reply to set a few points straight. I have been a consultant for rather longer than an Inspector. As such I have a duty to give my clients best advice. When it comes to RIDDOR it is clear and simple: unless you are sure that you can withstand challenge on reportability, then you should comply with the absolute duty to report. I have first hand experience of divergent views on exactly what is and isn't reportable, which is what makes me cautious. There are more EHOs out there than HSE Inspectors and they tend to have a wider divergence of view. The cases are client confidential but I am aware of prosecution action for failure to report in various rather debatable "real life" situations, not least where the phrase "in connection..." has been live. Let us leave the effect of reporting on statistics within a business as it is so far off the original question. I cannot however leave suggestion that a report like this somehow sullies the purity of the HSE's statistics. Have I been living in some parallel universe these last many years? They aren't pure neither are they accurate. Go look at the HSE's published data on the subject. As for laziness, I think I must leave that for others to consider.

quote=Clairel] Because walking across the car park is not a work activity (just as making yourself a cup of tea when you are at work is not a work activity) and there was nothing inherently wrong with the condition of the car park surface. Tripping over a loose stone the size of 10 pence piece is clumsiness. Not preventable other than to ban people being people. Just because it is a work premises does not mean it becomes a reportable injury. Likewise if someone trips on some stairs it will not be reportable if it was just down to clumsiness. If the stairs were in good condition,well lit etc. You have to look at the purpose of RIDDOR and it is not to document clumsiness. Reporting such things does nothing but distort the true figure of (mostly) preventable accidents.

L73 expects you to make report accidents in line with the information laid out in it. Based on the information here, none reportable incident for me. Not been on here for a while settling in my new job and really enjoying it. Not much has changed her though!!! DP