Unbelieveably we have a claim in against us for a contract cleaner injuring herself whilst cleaning a public toilet seat.The seat came away from its fitting whilst she was wiping it clean and it hit her in the knee - result claim - injury to knee. The solicitors state 1. this is work equipment that was not fit for purpose. 2. Seat was not maintained correctly 3. We failed to inform the cleaner the seat was damaged 4. We exposed the cleaner to risk of injury 5. Failed to provide safe plant and equipment 6. Failed to carry out a risk assessment - ON A TOILET SEAT. Since when does a toilet seat come under the PUWER ? Absolutely mind boggling We intend to dispute the claim vigourously, but what is happening to the claim culture and the solicitors - this is absolutely ridiculous. SBH

Appreciate that Bob, where would I be able to find that info? SBH

Not sure but I think Bob is referring to Knowles v Liverpool City Council 1993 - re paving slab being work equipment. Chris

Just how long does the employee spend there?!!!

My thoughts exactly. What quantum are they hoping to achieve? Following the Jackson Review it is more difficult for claimant solicitors to pursue such trivial cases, unless there is significant injury and therefore worthwhile pursuing. Fixed costs (as with fast track RTA claims) are hampering claimant firms and their vast costs for trivial, minor injuries. Can't see why a claimant firm would pursue such a case to be honest. I'm going to jump the gun a bit (as I don't know the extent of the injury) but the costs in this case would outweigh any compensation. What PSLA (pain, suffering and loss of amenity) can there be? In any event, pass it on. Insurers will sort.