Posted By mrs.seed Do you mean acoustic shock from headphones or general background noise in call centres (which can get quite loud as people compete to talk). If its the background noise then I may be able to help a little. I wasn't able to find any case law, but in our call centre we had lots of complaints about background noise and coincidentally the subject fitted into my assignment for NEBOSH dip 6. With help from our Occupational hygienist I was able to find standards to compare a noise assessment to suitable for that sort of environment. If this is the type of thing you are after you can have my report and see if it helps at all.

Posted By mrs.seed Its on my home computer, I'm at work, will send it to you over the weekend.

Posted By Richard Cotterill Hi May I have a copy of that report to please.. Thanks crackers636@hotmail.co.uk

Posted By Andy Graham-Cumming There is a great deal of misunderstanding over acoustic shock, as opposed to noise induced hearing loss in call centres. A well-managed and well-designed call centre should not have noise levels suficient to breach the levels defined in the Control of Noise at Work Regulations, but, as suggested by Patel & Broughton's paper and other noise surveys I have seen, there are likely to be several where there is a low risk of conventional hearing damage. The current regulatory framework is concerned only with noise induced hearing loss and acoustic trauma. There is no regulatory framework for acoustic shock, and HSE guidance on the subject is weak. This is because the relevant HSE officer is, to a considerable degree, basing his advice on reports through RIDDOR, even though HSE has already accepted that RIDDOR is ineffective. A recent PQ on acoustic shock reveals only 33 RIDDOR reports over 2001-2006, of which 11 were specifically for acoustic shock. For details see Hansard http://www.publications....1205/text/61205w0029.htm This does not square too well with the rate of out-of-court settlements for acoustic shock, now in excess of 700 since 1998. There is no case law relevant to acoustic shock, since no claim has gone to trial. There is now growing recognition medically that acoustic shock is a real medical problem, not explainable by the conventional understanding of auditory function. A paper is currently in press and will appear soon (McFerran DJ, Baguley DM (in press) Acoustic Shock. Journal of Laryngology and Otology). Further information is available through the Acoustic Safety Programme www.acousticsafety.org. I declare an interest as I am the medical director of the Programme.