Posted By Peter Rose Hi IMHO as the accident happened on company premises, irrespective of the fact that he had "clocked out", it would be RIDDOR reportable. Peter

Posted By Paul Devlin Yes. There might be some confusion if it wasn't a company car park as such but if its provided by the company for the use of staff then he's still technically on work premises. I'm sure there will be other trains of thought! Cheers Paul

Posted By Adrian Watson Oh NO! "any person not at work suffers an injury as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work and that person is taken from the site of the accident to a hospital for treatment in respect of that injury" As he was not at work; and the injury did not arise out of or in connection with work the answer is no it is not reportable. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By lwbm He was leaving site when he stumbled down a steep slope on the car park which he did not see. He was still on our premises but had clocked off his shift... This has resulted in a fracture and looks like at least a week off work/away from his normal duties.

Posted By holmezy If he was not "at work" then it could be argued that he is not an employee, ie outside of his normal contacted hours, so it also could be argued that he was therefore a visitor to your site, and hey presto....needs reporting. Cant see the hassle myself. Best to report it and it come to nothing, rather than not report it and reap any consequencies later down the line.

Posted By ITK Not reportable: IP not at work and no defect in the premises.

Posted By Merv Newman No defect on site ? He stumbled down a steep slope which he did not see. That is a DEFECT. (actually I can't believe that an employee, using the car park every day, was not aware of the slope) Reportable. Merv

Posted By Adrian Watson Brett, I suggest you read Regulation 3 of RIDDOR 95. This states: "3.—(1) Subject to regulation 10, where— (a) any person dies as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work; (b) any person at work suffers a major injury as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work; (c) any person not at work suffers an injury as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work and that person is taken from the site of the accident to a hospital for treatment in respect of that injury; (d) any person not at work suffers a major injury as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work at a hospital; or (e) there is a dangerous occurrence, the responsible person shall— (i) forthwith notify the relevant enforcing authority thereof by the quickest practicable means; and (ii) within 10 days send a report thereof to the relevant enforcing authority on a form approved for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, unless within that period he makes a report thereof to the Executive by some other means so approved." The key point for reporting a death or an injury to a non-employee is that the death or injury must result from an accident arising out of or in connection with work. Therefore, if it didn't result from an accident arising out of or in connection with work, it ain't reportable- even if it resulted from a defect in the site! Regards Adrian

Posted By Paul Duell Why didn't he see the slope? If lights were out of action because they were being worked on, then this is "an accident to a person not at work, arising out of or in connection with work". If he didn't see the slope because he was texting on his mobile phone or whatever, then the accident is NOT "out of or in connection to work". Of course there are lots of other factors which could cause this to be "in connection with work", my point is that just because it happened in your car park, it isn't AUTOMATICALLY in connection with work. On the other subject - why not just report it anyway: I don't know about the OP, but part of my annual appraisal - on which my continued employment depends - is based on keeping the number of reportables below a target level. I'm not going to commit an offence by not reporting something I should, but by the same token I'm going to be very careful not to report anything I don't have to.

Posted By JD Chalmers There is much confusion here about at work, not at work, clocked on or clocked off etc which in the majority of cases is not relevant, the main criteria for deciding whether to report or not should be the three key factors which are reproduced below together with explanations and practical examples courtesy of L73) to show the areas they cover. The broad meaning of 'arising out of or in connection with work' means that an accident may still be reportable even if there had been no breach of health and safety law and no-one was clearly to blame. 'When using the three key factors to help decide if an accident arose 'out of or in connection with work', it is useful to think first about the circumstances of the accident and the factors involved. Examples might be: • What work was going on at the time? • What was the injured person doing? 2 • What were others doing? • Where did the accident happen? • Were factors such as structures, equipment or substances involved? The key factors are: • 'the manner of conducting an undertaking'. This refers to the way in which any work activity is being carried out for the purposes of an undertaking, including how it is organised, supervised or performed by an employer or any of their employees, or by a selfemployed person; for example: boxes spread across a walkway cause someone trying to get around them to be injured. • 'the plant or substances used for the purposes of the undertaking'. This includes, for example: lifts; air conditioning plant; any machinery, equipment or appliance; gas installations; and substances used in connection with the premises or with processes carried on there. One example would be somebody who enters a lift and trips and falls because the lift had not stopped level with the floor. • 'the condition of the premises used by the undertaking or of any part of them'. This includes the state of the structure or fabric of a building or outside area forming part of the premises and the state and design of floors, paving, stairs, lighting etc; for example, a building is being refurbished and a temporary wall collapses, injuring a passer-by. In this case I would look at the condition of the premises and consider whether the condition of the Car Park could have contributed to the accident. If I was satisfied that it did not then I would NOT report it. If as is possible the IP was thinking more about his tea than where he was going then it is NOT reportable if however I felt that this slope could have been fenced or identified in some way which could have prevented the accident then I WOULD report it. Simple eh........

Posted By SeanThompson different points of opinion here, i would ring the helpline and ask for there advice.

Posted By Paul Devlin So JD in essence would we base whether you would report it or not on personal opinion of whether the slope was a hazard and what the IP was thinking of at the time? Or is that 1 interpretation of the guidelines? Just out of curiosity was the injury etc noted in the accident book for the company?