A community enforcement officer who received injuries after being issued with ill-fitting, second hand body armour has received personal injury compensation. The officer, Anthony Roach, succeeded with his compensation claim through the help of his trade union, as well as a firm of leading personal injury lawyers. The duties of community enforcement officers involve investigating a wide range of potentially dangerous situations including noisy neighbors, fly tipping and illegal street trading.

Mr. Roach, who comes from Eaglescliffe in Teeside, received the work related injury because he had to wear ill fitting armour while working long shifts for Stockton Borough Council. Mr. Roach was left with serious back strains and shoulder problems after he was issued with faulty second hand armour, which he required to protect him from stabbings. For his compensation claim, Mr. Roach was awarded £2,000 by the Middlesborough County Court, which found Stockton Borough Council liable for failing to provide the victim with appropriate protective equipment.

The ill-fitting armour had been issued to Mr. Roach in April 2006. He complained to his superiors in September that the armour did not fit well, and that he had developed back strains and shoulder pains. It was found that Mr. Roach had been given second hand armour from Northumbria Police and the Kevlar plates that were inserted in the back and front were of different sizes. This weight pulled the officer to the left, and he had to compensate for the imbalance by adjusting his body, which resulted in his injuries.

Mr. Roach said that he had suffered from a lot of back strains, pains, aches and sleepless nights for ten months, because of the ill fitting armour. The community enforcement officer won his compensation claim for the work related injury through the assistance of his trade union Unison, which enlisted the services of specialist accident claim solicitors on behalf of its member.

The thirty one-year old community enforcement officer worked eleven-hour shifts for Stockton Borough Council’s neighborhood services team. His duties involved having to investigate complaints in potentially dangerous situations, for which he had to wear the faulty body armour at all times. Several of Mr. Roach’s colleagues had also complained about their ill fitting equipment, but nothing was done about these complaints until June 2007 when Mr. Roach was put on light duties. His solicitor has since stated that employers have a duty to ensure that protective equipment fits correctly and is adequate for the job the employee is expected to carry out.