Posted By Lee Ainsworth Clive I personally would still investigate these accidents and collect all evidence possible if only to pass on to the company's legal department in defending a claim. There is always the chance of fraudulent claims, but also there is the genuine cases that need investigating to prevent them happening again. I feel that by refusing to follow up a report of injury you could be leaving yourself wide open to prosecution. I don't think the excuse of you believing it to be fraudulent would be acceptable without the proof of an investigation. This is only my opinion, but will be interested to read others views on this matter. Regards Lee

Posted By Andy Petrie whether it was reported 3 days or 3 months after the incident, you should still investigate the accident. On top of the point detailed in the response above, you should consider the following: There may be a very valid reason why the accident was reported late. e.g. the reportee may feel 'silly' about having the accident, an you need to be sympathetis to this, not dismiss it for being late. There may be improtant lessons to be learned from an accident. Even anicdotal evidence may be enough to determine a cause or dangerous situation, which you can then tackle to ensure no similar, or worse, accidents happen again. It may be true that people are (excuse my french) taking the [expletive deleted], but you should conduct the investigation professionally. Leave the lawyers to sort out the messy stuff.

Posted By Jim Sweetman Clive, There's an old saying, 'better late than never'. I concur completely with everything that has been said so far, especially as legislation, guidance etc. does not refer to any timescales for investigation. What I would add is that you ensure that investigation results are absolutely clear as to what is fact, as opposed what is opinion. For example, someone stating that 'there may have been a spillage of water on the floor' could, if one is not careful, be converted into the factual statement 'there was water on the floor'. Someone once said to me 'never waste an accident'. It sounded a strange comment, but the wisdom of it eventually dawned on me. We all need to learn from mistakes. Regards Jim Sweetman

Posted By Clive Richardson Just to say thanks for the responses. We do have a very good accident reporting and investigation procedure and all are investigated. The vast majority of our retrospective reports make a mockery of our accident stats and the genuine portion of the workforce who work safely. The late reports come from the same people who report the accident late and then have the following day off which is usually just before they go on holiday, a friday or the day before a bank holiday. From the point of view of a safety professional it infuriates me to know that all the good work , effort and systems implemented can be torn to shreads by a small proportion of the work force. I am sure I am not alone.

Posted By Bob Pedley Clive, I totally agree with Lee on this. You must capture all information available to you in order to protect the company in the event a claim in future. I believe a civil claim can be submitted up to 3 years following an injury. For some this is their ploy in making a successful claim as it will cost more to defend, so the tendency is to pay out. Also you will be demonstrating the importance of your reporting system to employees. I would suggest possibly using disciplinary procedures against people who fail to report in order to emphasise the importance of reporting. Another good element of your reporting system should be home visits to verify work related accidents. Bob

Posted By Jack But Laurie surely this would have been picked up by the accident investigation immediately after the accident. After all to be reportable it must have resulted in a visit to hospital so surely there would have been an investigation. This would also help when responding to the claim ie you would be able to provide evidence that your investigation at the time failed to identify any premises defects (if that was the case). Jack

Posted By Ian Mycroft This may be changing the subject slightly, but I work in a similar environment to Laurie, in so much as we have a lot of mebers of the public passing through our premises. I can support Laurie on this that RIDDOR reporting becomes a bit of nightmare and the usual thing that tends to happen is that people take the easy option of reporting everything that involves a member of the public being taken to hospital. When you get a late report (and sometimes the first you know of it is a PI claim a couple of years later, thanks a bunch "Accident Group", etc.) it is often near impossible to determine the true cause. In the case that Laurie has quoted I would tend to take the stance that the premises were not defective in any way and so there is no need to report and no valid claim for damages.

Posted By Allan St.John Holt Sorry, Laurie, I think you're missing the point here. If it wasn't reportable at the time then just because there's a claim doesn't make it reportable now. Injuries don't 'become' reportable solely because there's a claim. It may be that more facts about the injury or its treatment became available to you, but that's not what you said. Allan

Posted By Paul Huber This is such an active discussion I thought I would add my two new p's worth. Clive, it sounds like you have a problem with the behaviour of a certain group of people rather than a cultural problem (ie: most people act according to your procedures). If you really believe these people are swinging the lead there are a number of steps you could consider. Take them out and shoot them at dawn is my favourite! But as that is reportable let's not add insult to injury (pun). I tend to swing towards the disciplinary measures (particularly for persistent offenders). Other less draconian measures would be to: Re-communicate the procedure to all employees. Place more responsibility on line managers and supervisors to ensure the accidents are reported. Possible enhancements to your procedures. Having said all that I would not consider 2 days late retrospective. If employees are then using the (alleged) accident as an excuse for a sick day or two there should be some sign of injury, have you considered having them thoroughly (and humiliatingly) examined by the Company Doctor or Nurse? In the military large hyperdermic needles, etc used to deter any would be loafers. The sight of a surgical rubber gloves still makes my eyes water! On the other subject raised by Laurie I would strongly recommend that such incidents are not reported under RIDDOR. If you do then you are making the judgement that the condition of the building was to blame and therefore accepting vicarious liability for the injury suffered. You initial judgement was that this was unreportable and that should remain so. Reacting to the judgement of a claiment can only enhance their chances of success in the courts. By reporting the accident you are implicitly accepting that you have breached your duty of care thereby creating all the necessary criteria for a successful claim. Ultimately this will lead to you losing any defence of the claim. Well that's what I think any way. Paul