Andrews v Reading BCThe main bedroom of Mr Andrews’ house was on the ground floor at the front facing the road. Following a consultation exercise, Reading implemented a new traffic scheme in October 2000. This considerably increased the volume of traffic on that road. Andrews found the additional noise intolerable and was unable to sleep properly as a result.

He added wooden shuttering and secondary double-glazing.

When the council refused to pay for this, Andrews began a “small claim” in his local court. He said the noise interfered with his human right to respect for his private life and his home.

A High Court judge agreed. He decided that, although an individual’s human rights had to be balanced against the interests of the wider community, Andrews had suffered particular loss as he was on the busiest part of the road. The council should have compensated him; it had power to do so under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Andrews was awarded £2000 damages.

Source

Housing Today

Reference

This case is not only important for councils but for all social landlords. The noise was not caused by the council but by public traffic.The council failed to control its impact on the individual by prevention or compensation.

The same issues arise with individuals affected by antisocial behaviour that a landlord or council has failed to control.