CPA Bulletin

34 CPA Bulletin > August 2021 www.cpa.uk.net Q&As: 1 q&a s Under RIDDOR, the regulations require the employer, as the responsible person, to undertake the reporting. What the regulations do not take into account is any sub-contractual arrangements where workers (who are not self-employed) are hired to another organisation and under their control. However- and it is something that is debated on health and safety practitioner forums - is that irrespective of any contractual arrangements, it remains the employer’s responsibility i.e., whoever pays the wages of the worker, to notify the HSE accordingly. The only variation to this is in the event of a dangerous occurrence, for which it should be the person in control of the premises as the responsible person. Unless it is a dangerous occurrence, RIDDOR reporting is in principle not about accountability or apportioning blame, but about data collection to prevent re- occurrences. Feedback that the CPA have had from the HSE indicates that it not about who reports it, but that it is reported. Sometimes on larger construction projects, the client or principal contractor may arrange to carry out RIDDOR reporting on behalf of sub-contractors as part of the health and safety planning arrangements; or require that they are advised of RIDDOR notifications made by their sub-contractors. Amember of our staff who had been hired out with one of our items of plant under the Model Conditions, has been involved in an accident. The accident happened during the hire period, and the staff member had been following the customer’s Risk Assessment/ Method Statement (RAMS). Would the customer have to report the accident under RIDDOR, or would we have to report it as his employer? In your question, you did not specify how long the machine had been on site before this unfortunate incident occurred. Within clause 5(a) of the Model Conditions, reproduced below, two points which need to be considered are: i) How long had it been on site before the incident occurred? ii)Whether there is an inherent fault or a fault not ascertainable by reasonable examination? 5. DELIVERY IN GOOD ORDER AND MAINTENANCE: INSPECTION REPORTS (a) Unless notification in writing to the contrary is received by the Owner from the Hirer in the case of Plant supplied with an operator within four working days, and in the case of Plant supplied without an operator within three working days, of the Plant being delivered to the site, the Plant shall be deemed to be in good order, save for either an inherent fault or a fault not ascertainable by reasonable examination, in accordance with terms of the Contract and to the Hirer’s satisfaction, provided that where the Plant requires to be erected on site, the periods stated above shall be calculated from the date of completed erection of Plant. The Hirer shall be responsible for the safe keeping of the Plant, its use in a workmanlike manner within the manufacturer’s rated capacity and in accordance with the manufacturer’s and / or the Owner’s recommendations, and its return on the completion of the Hire Period in equal good order (fair wear and tear excepted). You should note that the clause specifies that the plant will be in good order after 3 or 4 days on site depending on whether an operator was supplied or not; although this is subject to whether there is an inherent fault or a fault not ascertainable by reasonable examination. If the incident happened, for example, on the first morning of the hire period, then the customer may argue that the machine was not fit for purpose. We have had a situation on site where amachine that we delivered has discharged hydraulic oil on newly laid paving and part of a building. Our customer is trying to charge us for cleaning and laying new paving slabs. Our preliminary investigation indicates that the hose unfortunately failed when the machine was being used. What is the extent of our liability, and do the Model Conditions, which it was hired under, offer us any protection? Continued over