Being injured while wearing protective equipment does not automatically mean that the equipment was defective. The item may have been unsuitable for the hazard, poorly fitted, incompatible with another item, damaged or used without adequate instruction. It may also have performed as designed while the accident exposed a failure in the wider work system. Those possibilities need separating before responsibility can be assessed fairly.
The useful starting point is specific: what hazard reached which part of the body, what equipment was provided, and what was expected to protect you? A glove intended for one task may not address another risk. A harness cannot be assessed independently of the complete system in which it was used. A helmet damaged by an impact may have reduced harm rather than caused it.
This guide concerns civil injury claims in England and Wales. It explains selection, fit, training, replacement and causal contribution, with a PPE issue and maintenance log. It can support an initial enquiry about workplace accident claims. It is not a product-selection guide or a substitute for competent workplace assessment and medical care.
Start with the hazard, not the equipment label
Describe what happened to the body
Record whether the incident involved impact, cutting, puncture, heat, chemical contact, dust, noise, a fall or another mechanism. Identify the task, material and exposure route as accurately as you can. “My PPE failed” is a conclusion; “liquid entered around the cuff while I lifted the container” describes an event that can be investigated.
Some claims concern a single occurrence, while others involve repeated exposure and symptoms developing over time. Do not turn a developing condition into a one-off accident for convenience. Record the period of work, changes in equipment and first symptoms. Medical and technical evidence may be needed to determine whether the exposure caused or worsened the condition and over what period.
For recurring skin symptoms associated with wet work, products or glove use, the work-related skin disease guide provides a more detailed exposure diary. It helps distinguish contact patterns and changes across shifts from a single torn-glove incident, without asking the worker to diagnose the condition.
Obtain appropriate clinical advice promptly. Where contamination or a hazardous substance is involved, follow emergency and clinical guidance rather than trying to preserve clothing at the expense of treatment. A photograph or record may help later, but retaining an unsafe contaminated item in a home, vehicle or ordinary office can expose other people to harm.
Identify what the item was meant to do
A product's broad category does not establish its protection against every risk. Record the manufacturer, model, size, markings and instructions if available. A purchase record or issue log may establish the exact item more reliably than a general photograph. Keep packaging or instructions only where safe and lawful; do not assume the product on a current supplier website is identical to the one issued earlier.
The selection enquiry includes the task, exposure and wearer. The HSE guidance on PPE selection and use highlights suitability, fit and compatibility, including the possibility that one item interferes with another. It also emphasises information about limitations. A recognised product marking is relevant, but it is not proof that the item suited this person and operation.
Distinguish the employer's selection from a possible manufacturing defect. A sound product chosen for the wrong hazard raises different questions from a properly selected item that departed from its intended specification. The supplier, manufacturer, employer and user may have different roles. A solicitor can assess which legal basis and evidence apply without assuming every injury in PPE is a product-liability claim.
Hazard controls: why PPE may not be the central issue
Look upstream in the work process
Protective equipment is one part of risk control. The HSE explanation of the PPE regulatory framework places it after measures that remove or reduce exposure through the work itself. In a claim, the enquiry may therefore include why the hazard was present and whether reasonable precautions could have prevented the event before protection worn by the individual became necessary.
For example, an eye injury from material ejected by a machine may raise questions about guarding and the operation as well as eyewear. A foot injury from an unstable load may require examination of storage or handling. These are examples of possible lines of enquiry, not conclusions that a particular alternative was required. The facts must establish what precaution was reasonable and causally relevant.
Avoid presenting a hypothetical better item as the entire case. An alternative product may have different limitations, compatibility issues or task requirements. Technical assessment may be needed before stating that it would have prevented the injury. The legal analysis should identify a realistic precaution available at the relevant time, rather than assume that any equipment advertised as more protective proves the earlier choice negligent.
Do not substitute PPE for task-specific precautions
A lifting injury may not be solved by issuing protective clothing or a support device. The load, frequency, working position and available handling aids may be more relevant. The guide to lifting injury, training, equipment and the task explains how to reconstruct those conditions. This article focuses on an alleged equipment issue only where it has a plausible connection to the harm.
Similarly, a fall while wearing a harness requires examination of planning, collective protection and the complete personal system. The guide to a fall from height despite safety training addresses those wider arrangements. A harness issue should not distract from an unprotected opening, and the existence of an opening should not prevent investigation of whether the system limited the fall as intended.
For contact with machinery, more protective clothing is not always a safe answer. Some items may introduce entanglement or other risks. The relevant enquiry may concern access to dangerous parts, maintenance and safe intervention. See machinery injury, maintenance and missing guards where the alleged failure is principally in the machine or its operating system.
Selection and fit: establish what was actually issued
The issue record should identify an item, not just a category
A form stating “PPE supplied” may not show the make, model, size or condition. Record those details where known, together with issue and replacement dates. If different items were used over time, keep a separate entry for each. A respirator issued during a later investigation may not establish which model was worn during the earlier exposure period.
Explain whether you selected from available sizes, were fitted by someone, received a shared item or brought your own. These facts can affect the assessment but do not settle responsibility. A worker's choice from a limited range may differ from independently selecting an unsuitable product despite a suitable option being supplied. The account should preserve the circumstances rather than label either person automatically at fault.
Where the exact item is unavailable, identify possible supporting records: procurement invoices, stock lists, photographs, training materials and colleagues' independent recollections. Do not borrow a similar item and present it as yours. A comparison sample should be clearly described as such, with its differences and source, so an expert does not mistake it for the equipment involved.
Fit is about function in the real task
Record the specific difficulty: slipping, a gap, restricted vision, pressure, loose material or interference with movement. Explain when it occurred and whether it was reported. “It did not fit” is more useful when connected to an observable problem. An item may appear acceptable while standing still but behave differently when the user bends, reaches or works for an extended period.
Do not modify protective equipment yourself to make it fit or recreate the incident. Cutting, drilling, adding improvised straps or changing components can compromise protection and evidence. A complaint about fit should be investigated through the appropriate workplace process. For a past incident, preserve the issue history and any request for an alternative rather than creating a new configuration for photographs.
Individual characteristics and medical needs may require consideration, but assumptions based on gender, size or disability are not enough. Record what was communicated and how the selection process responded. A private condition unknown to the employer cannot automatically be treated as information it ignored, while an obvious or reported difficulty may raise a different question about reasonable assessment and response.
Multiple items must work together
A person may wear eye protection, hearing protection, head protection and respiratory equipment simultaneously. The combined arrangement can affect seals, positioning, visibility or comfort. Identify each item and whether they were assessed together. A successful demonstration of one item in isolation does not necessarily establish that the complete combination remained suitable during the task.
Record the order in which items were put on only if you remember it, and identify any instruction about combined use. Do not invent a sequence to explain the injury. Photographs taken during ordinary work may help, provided they are used lawfully and their date is known. Technical advice may be necessary to assess whether the alleged interference materially reduced protection.
If one item was changed because another was unavailable, note the substitution and who authorised it. A stock shortage, damaged accessory or different model can alter the arrangement. The significance depends on the equipment and hazard, so a substitution is not automatically a defect. It is a factual change that should be documented and assessed rather than overlooked.
Respiratory protection: a fit test is not every answer
Tight-fitting respiratory protection requires particular attention to the wearer and model. The HSE fit-testing guidance explains why a suitable seal matters and why one facepiece does not fit everyone. If this is the issue, identify the model and size tested, the date and whether the same equipment was actually used during the relevant work.
Do not assume that a test for one make or size applies to every later replacement. Record changes in equipment and any relevant changes affecting fit that were raised with the employer. Distinguish a formal fit test from a routine check carried out by the wearer. Both may be relevant, but they are not interchangeable pieces of evidence.
The equipment also needs to be appropriate for the substance and exposure; fit alone does not establish that it provides the required protection. A mask that seals adequately may still be unsuitable for the hazard. The enquiry may require exposure information, product specifications, task duration and other controls. Do not select replacement respiratory equipment from this article or test exposure by smell or symptoms.
Respiratory claims may concern occupational disease and cumulative exposure rather than one visible failure. Medical causation can require a detailed work and health history, and the relevant legal framework may include substance-specific duties. Identify every relevant period honestly, including non-work exposure where it may matter. Uncertainty about the cause should prompt assessment rather than an unsupported declaration that a particular mask caused the condition.
Training and replacement: what happened after issue?
Training should address the real use and limitations
Record what you were taught about putting the equipment on, checking it, using it with other items, removing it and reporting defects. The necessary instruction varies by product and hazard. A complex protective system may require more than a general induction. A simple item may not need an elaborate course, but the user still needs suitable information for its purpose.
A signed issue form can establish receipt without proving understanding. Preserve the form and explain the training experience: demonstration, supervised practice, written material and questions. Do not dismiss all instruction as inadequate because the accident occurred. The enquiry is whether the information and training were suitable and whether any deficiency contributed to the injury.
Limitations matter. Workers may need to understand when an item must be replaced, when it cannot provide protection and what to do if it becomes uncomfortable or ineffective. Record any instruction to continue despite a problem, as well as any instruction to stop and obtain replacement. Distinguish a direct instruction from your personal assumption about what production targets required.
Maintenance includes storage and access to replacement
The HSE PPE maintenance guidance addresses care, storage, suitable replacement parts and availability of replacement equipment. It also emphasises reporting defects and reviewing provision when work changes. In an injury enquiry, these principles translate into specific questions about what happened to the item between issue and use, rather than an assumption that age alone proves failure.
Record where the item was stored, whether it was shared and who was responsible for cleaning or inspection. Exposure to contaminants, damage or inappropriate storage may be relevant, but only if supported by facts. Do not conduct destructive tests or clean an injured person's equipment merely to make it presentable for photographs. Advice may be needed about safe retention, especially where contamination is possible.
Replacement arrangements should be examined practically. Were suitable sizes available? Could a night-shift worker obtain a replacement? Did a request require approval, and how long did that take? A cupboard containing different or unusable equipment may not answer a shortage, while a suitable replacement that was readily available but not requested raises another set of questions.
A complaint needs a dated response history
Keep messages reporting damage, poor fit or replacement needs. Record the words used, recipient, date and response. A request for a more comfortable item is not necessarily the same as reporting a dangerous defect, though the circumstances may connect them. Preserve the original message rather than rewriting it to sound more legally significant after the accident.
If the complaint was oral, make a dated note of your recollection and identify any witness. Do not backdate it or ask a colleague to confirm a conversation they did not hear. A later note can still be useful if its origin is clear. The employer's records, stock requests or subsequent replacement may provide independent support for parts of the chronology.
An improvement after the event can identify an alternative without automatically admitting earlier fault. Record what changed and when. The reason may be a revised assessment, a new product or information learned from the incident. Its significance should be evaluated with the prior knowledge and practicability, not treated as conclusive proof that the earlier equipment was unlawfully supplied.
Worker status, payment and the legal framework
As at 2 October 2026, the PPE rules described by HSE include the extension effective from 6 April 2022 to qualifying limb (b) workers as well as employees. A casual contract or irregular hours do not automatically exclude someone. The actual working relationship matters, and genuinely self-employed arrangements require separate consideration. Do not decide the issue solely from a payslip label or tax treatment.
Where the relevant duty requires PPE, provision should not be treated as an optional purchase by the protected worker. If you paid for equipment, retain the receipt, instruction and any reimbursement record. Payment alone does not establish that the item was unsuitable or caused injury, but it may identify who selected it and whether the workplace arrangements need closer investigation.
Some hazards are governed by more specific legal provisions, including exposure to noise or hazardous substances. It would be inaccurate to place every item and every exposure under one identical PPE rule. Your solicitor should identify the correct framework and event date. The civil claim must also establish the appropriate legal basis, causation and loss rather than assume that regulatory non-compliance automatically guarantees damages.
This article does not determine employment rights arising from a complaint, refusal or dismissal. Those issues have different tests and potentially short deadlines. If workplace treatment changes after you report a PPE concern, obtain specific employment advice promptly. Do not assume that pursuing an injury claim automatically protects every employment claim or prevents every form of lawful workplace action.
Causal contribution: what difference would suitable protection have made?
Separate accident prevention from injury reduction
Equipment may not prevent an event but may reduce its consequences. A claim therefore needs a clear theory: would suitable protection probably have prevented the injury, reduced its severity or made no material difference? Technical and medical evidence may address different parts of that question. It should not be answered simply by noting that the worker was wearing PPE when hurt.
A damaged item can have several explanations. It may have failed prematurely, been unsuitable for the force or protected the wearer while being damaged in the process. The condition after the incident is evidence, but not a complete diagnosis. Preserve the item safely, together with identification and context, so an expert can consider the likely sequence if the dispute requires it.
Likewise, an absence of visible damage does not prove adequate protection. A substance may pass through or around an item without an obvious tear, and exposure may occur over time. The relevant assessment depends on the hazard and product. Avoid informal tests with chemicals, heat or impact; they can injure people and produce misleading results under conditions unlike the original event.
Your use of the equipment may be disputed
If you removed, adjusted or did not wear the item, tell your adviser why and for how long. Possible reasons include a fit problem, inability to see, unavailable replacement or a personal decision. The legal significance depends on evidence and causation. Neither discomfort nor a short task automatically excuses non-use, while an unusable item may raise issues beyond the worker's decision.
A possible reduction for contributory negligence requires analysis of the established conduct and its contribution. Do not accept a fixed percentage because an internal report uses the phrase “PPE not worn”. Equally, do not assume the employer is responsible for every consequence regardless of training and available equipment. A balanced account gives the adviser the material needed to assess both positions.
If the item was used as instructed, identify supporting evidence without staging a demonstration. Existing workplace footage, issue records and witnesses may assist. A later photograph of how you usually wore equipment should be clearly labelled as illustrative. It is not the same as a contemporaneous image and should not conceal changes in the item or your condition.
PPE issue and maintenance log
Complete a separate entry for each relevant item or model. The log records evidence; it does not certify that equipment is safe. Do not reuse damaged or contaminated equipment to fill gaps. Identify unknown information and its possible holder so enquiries can be directed properly.
| Field | What to record | Supporting evidence to identify |
|---|---|---|
| Hazard and task | Exposure, duration and activity | Assessment, work instruction, task account |
| Product identity | Manufacturer, model, size, markings and batch if known | Label, packaging, issue or purchase record |
| Issue history | Date, supplier, selection and alternatives | Stock record, receipt, email |
| Fit and compatibility | Specific problem and other items worn | Fit record, safe existing photograph, report |
| Training | Demonstration, practical use and stated limitations | Course material, instruction, witness |
| Inspection and care | Checks, storage, cleaning and responsible person | Maintenance log, procedure, service record |
| Complaint | Date, exact concern, recipient and response | Message, dated recollection, request ticket |
| Replacement | Availability, request, delivery and changed model | Stock request, invoice, issue entry |
| Incident | Contact or exposure and equipment behaviour | First report, clinical history, witness |
| After the event | Custodian, contamination, damage and alterations | Photographs, retention acknowledgement |
Use the log to identify the missing link
The important gap may be between selection and issue, such as a different model being substituted from stock. It may be between complaint and replacement, or between a fit test and the item later used. Highlight the gap as a question. Do not assume that an incomplete log proves no assessment occurred; another department or supplier may hold relevant records.
A focused chronology can show what was known before the event. For example, an initial issue, a dated report of slipping and a later replacement request each establish different facts. Keep those events distinct. An adviser can then consider whether the response was reasonable and whether the reported difficulty relates to the eventual injury rather than an unrelated preference.
The log can also reveal evidence that challenges the claim, such as an available replacement or a new item issued shortly before the incident. Include it. Sound advice depends on the full chronology, and a later disclosure may otherwise create an unnecessary credibility dispute. Accuracy about the equipment's history is more valuable than presenting an artificially simple account of failure.
Three hypothetical PPE disputes
Eye protection that interferes with another item
A fictional worker reports an eye injury while wearing eye and respiratory protection together. The issue is not resolved by separate purchase records showing that both products were approved for sale. The enquiry concerns their combined fit, the hazard, instructions and whether the worker had reported interference. The medical evidence must establish the injury and the likely exposure route.
A later photograph using replacement items may not show the original arrangement. The useful evidence includes model identifiers, issue dates, existing fit records and a precise description of the problem. Expert advice may be necessary before concluding that the combination caused the injury or that another reasonable arrangement would have prevented it. This example illustrates a question to investigate, not a product recommendation.
Protective footwear and an uncontrolled load
A fictional warehouse worker suffers a foot injury when a load shifts during handling. The employer points to the supplied safety footwear; the worker says it should have prevented all damage. Neither position addresses the complete issue. The load's movement, work method, relevant footwear specification and medical mechanism require examination, including whether better handling controls would have prevented the event.
The footwear may have reduced the severity while not protecting against every part of the impact. Alternatively, selection or condition may be material. A visual inspection alone may not resolve that distinction. Preserving the item safely and identifying the product helps, but the claim should not ignore the operation that created the exposure in the first place.
A replacement request during repeated exposure
A fictional worker reports a damaged protective item during work involving repeated contact with a substance. Replacement is delayed, and symptoms later develop. The chronology should identify the item, substance, tasks, request and response, while medical evidence examines the condition and alternative causes. A delayed replacement is relevant but does not establish the extent or cause of every later symptom.
The legal framework may involve substance-specific duties, and the exposure period may make limitation more complex than a single accident date. The worker should not collect contaminated samples or conduct home tests. Safe preservation, workplace records and professional assessment can address the issue without creating a new exposure risk or overstating what the available evidence proves.
Preparing a focused legal enquiry
Provide the task, hazard, item identity, incident or exposure dates, employer details and medical position. Include the issue and maintenance log, photographs already held safely and any complaint correspondence. Explain whether the equipment is still available and whether disposal, contamination or replacement creates an urgent evidence issue. A list of likely records can be useful even where you do not possess them.
Civil personal injury proceedings in England and Wales commonly have a three-year limitation period, with knowledge rules and important exceptions. Developing conditions, children, capacity issues and other causes of action may require different analysis. An internal complaint, product return or insurer discussion does not ordinarily stop time. Seek advice about the actual deadline without waiting for every technical question to be resolved.
Ask whether the firm can assess the particular hazard and injury, whether technical or medical expertise may be needed, and what written costs terms apply. AJ Solicitors' services are private fee and do not include legal aid. Do not assume a free initial consultation, a particular funding model or that sending documents means the firm has accepted responsibility for protecting a deadline.
Different rules can apply in Scotland, Northern Ireland and other countries, even where the equipment or employer is the same. Regulatory reporting, employment rights and benefits also involve separate questions. The aim of this evidence process is to support an accurate assessment of a particular civil claim, not to turn every imperfect PPE record into an entitlement to compensation.
Frequently asked questions
1. Does an injury while wearing PPE prove the product failed?
No. The item may have been unsuitable, badly fitted, damaged or used in an unsuitable system, or it may have reduced harm while performing as intended. The hazard, product and medical mechanism need examination together. Describe what happened rather than relying on the word “failed”. A technical opinion may be necessary before attributing the injury to a manufacturing or selection defect.
2. What details identify the exact protective item?
Useful details include the manufacturer, model, size, markings, batch or serial information and issue date. A stock record, receipt, label or existing photograph may help. Do not substitute a current supplier listing for the actual item without checking differences. Where details are unknown, identify who may hold them rather than inventing a specification or handling unsafe equipment to obtain it.
3. Can equipment meet a product standard but still be unsuitable for my task?
Yes. A product's certification or marking does not mean it protects against every hazard or fits every wearer. Selection must relate to the exposure, task and person, including other equipment worn at the same time. Preserve the product information and work assessment. The claim needs to establish the relevant mismatch and its causal effect, not simply compare marketing descriptions.
4. What if only one size was available?
Record the available size, the specific fit problem, any request for an alternative and the response. A limited stock range may be relevant, but the effect depends on whether the item was suitable for you and contributed to the injury. Do not modify the equipment to demonstrate the problem. Existing issue records, messages and safe photographs may support the account.
5. Does signing a PPE issue form mean I accepted every risk?
A signature may show receipt and sometimes acknowledgement of instructions, depending on the wording. It does not automatically establish suitability, understanding or acceptance of all consequences. Read the actual document and explain the issue process honestly. If you raised a fit or condition concern at the time, identify the evidence. The form is one part of the overall assessment.
6. Can two individually suitable PPE items interfere with each other?
Yes, compatibility can matter when equipment is worn together. One item may affect another's position, seal or practical use. Identify the exact models and the observed interference rather than assuming incompatibility from discomfort alone. Training and assessment records may help. Any technical conclusion should relate to the actual combination and hazard, not a demonstration using different replacement products.
7. Does a respirator fit test cover every replacement mask?
Not necessarily. A fit test relates to the relevant facepiece and wearer, and changes in model or size may matter. Keep the test record and identify the equipment actually used during the exposure. A routine wearer check is also distinct from a formal fit test. Do not assume a previous result answers every question about later fit, selection or exposure protection.
8. Can a well-fitting respirator still be wrong for the hazard?
Yes. Fit is only one aspect of suitable respiratory protection. The equipment also needs to be appropriate for the substance, exposure and task. Technical assessment may require product and workplace information. Do not test protection by smell or symptoms, and do not choose a replacement from a general claims article. Record the evidence and seek competent workplace and medical advice.
9. What should I record about a delayed replacement?
Keep the date, exact problem reported, recipient, requested replacement and response. Identify whether a suitable alternative was available and what work continued meanwhile. Preserve the original message or make a clearly dated recollection of an oral report. A delay can be relevant, but the claim still needs evidence connecting the equipment issue to the injury or exposure being alleged.
10. Should I keep contaminated gloves or clothing at home?
Do not store potentially hazardous material in an ordinary home or vehicle merely to preserve evidence. Treatment and safe handling take priority. Tell your adviser that the item exists and identify the workplace or specialist responsible for safe retention or disposal. Photographs and records may help where physical preservation is unsafe. Do not clean or sample it without appropriate professional guidance.
11. Is damaged PPE automatically evidence of a defect?
No. Damage may show that the item absorbed an impact or was damaged during the event, rather than that it was defective beforehand. Its intended function, condition and the incident sequence need examination. Preserve identification and context safely. A qualified expert may be needed to distinguish premature failure from expected damage or exposure beyond the protection the item was designed to provide.
12. What if I removed the item because I could not see properly?
Explain the visibility problem, duration of removal, instructions and any report or request for replacement. Your decision may be relevant to liability or contributory negligence, while the equipment's suitability may also need investigation. Do not assume discomfort automatically excuses non-use or that non-use automatically defeats the claim. The evidence must establish what happened and its contribution to the injury.
13. Can my employer charge me for required PPE?
Where the applicable workplace duty requires provision to a protected worker, the equipment should be supplied without charging that worker. The exact framework and status need checking, particularly for genuinely self-employed arrangements or specific hazards. Retain receipts and instructions if you paid. Payment itself does not prove that the product was unsuitable or caused injury, but it may clarify the provision arrangements.
14. Do casual workers fall outside the PPE rules?
Not automatically. The extension effective from 6 April 2022 includes qualifying limb (b) workers as well as employees under the relevant framework. Actual working arrangements matter more than a casual label or irregular hours. Genuinely self-employed status requires separate consideration. Provide the contract and practical work details so an adviser can identify the relevant duties rather than assume exclusion.
15. Is the same PPE regulation used for every chemical, noise or impact claim?
No. Some hazards are governed by more specific provisions, and the event date and work circumstances can affect the legal framework. A solicitor should identify the relevant duties and civil cause of action. It would be misleading to assume that every protective item falls under an identical rule or that any regulatory breach automatically establishes compensation entitlement.
16. Would stronger gloves necessarily have prevented a machinery injury?
Not necessarily. Suitability depends on the machine and hazard, and some gloves or clothing can introduce additional risks around moving parts. The central issue may be guarding or the method of intervention rather than glove strength. Record what was supplied and instructed, but leave technical suitability and causal effect to competent assessment. Avoid testing different gloves against the machinery yourself.
17. Does a harness issue need to be assessed separately from the fall?
It should be examined within the complete work-at-height arrangement. Fit and condition may matter, but so can planning, edge protection, connection arrangements and rescue. A harness is not an independent guarantee against every fall consequence. Preserve identifiers and describe its use honestly. Technical and medical evidence may be needed to determine whether an equipment issue caused or worsened the injury.
18. Can I claim if suitable PPE would only have reduced the injury?
That possibility can require assessment. A claim may concern avoidable injury severity rather than prevention of the event itself, but the causal difference must be supported by appropriate evidence. Technical experts may address protection and medical experts the resulting harm. Do not assume the whole injury is attributable to the PPE issue if some consequences would probably have occurred anyway.
19. Does returning the product to a supplier protect my claim deadline?
No. A product complaint, return or investigation does not ordinarily commence injury proceedings or suspend limitation. Many personal injury claims in England and Wales have a three-year period, with important exceptions and knowledge rules. Product-related causes of action can raise additional questions. Obtain advice about the actual deadlines while technical enquiries continue, and discuss preservation before relinquishing important evidence.
20. What should I include in a first PPE injury enquiry?
Provide the task, hazard, item details, issue history, complaint dates and current medical position. Attach the log and relevant records already held safely, identifying any imminent disposal or replacement. Explain uncertainties and any period of non-use. Ask the firm to confirm whether it can assess the matter and provide written costs terms before assuming representation or a particular funding arrangement.
