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.