Summary: Ms X complains TfL has taken no action to address the loud volume of public announcements made at the open-air platforms at the tube station close to her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence that Ms X has been caused injustice as a result of fault by TfL and an investigation by the Ombudsman will not achieve the results she seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says TfL has taken no action to address the loud volume of public announcements made at the open-air platforms at the tube station close to her home. These are affecting her health and business and she wants TfL to reduce the volume of the announcements, increase or redesign the platform cover and pay her compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information Ms X provided. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered the comments she made.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X moved into a flat in a block close to a tube station. She realised noise from the station could be an issue and so raised the matter with the estate agent and visited the property several times on different days and at different times. Having satisfied herself the noise was at a level she found acceptable, she moved in.
5. Having moved in, Ms X now finds the public announcements made by staff at the open-air platforms to be at a level she finds unacceptable. This is impacting on her health and business.
6. She contacted TfL about the problem but it has written to her to explain that while the station manager is aware of her complaints, there is little the station can do to reduce the announcements. It explained the platforms from which the announcements are heard are open-air so messages will always be heard outside the station and that the majority are safety announcements drawing attention to the gap between the platform and the train. It explained that the sound level of the announcements are set to take into account the ambient noise level and sound reflection from near-by buildings, matters which are outside TfL’s control.

Assessment

7. Ms X is clearly greatly affected by the noise she hears from the announcements. However, the fact that this is the case and that the announcements are made at a level sufficient to be heard over the ambient noise level is not evidence of fault by TfL.
8. Ms X has set out the action she wants TfL to take so that the announcements do not impact on her to the same degree they do currently but what she seeks is not action TfL would realistically take nor would it be action the Ombudsman would propose even if we were to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence that Ms X has been caused injustice as a result of fault by TfL and an investigation by the Ombudsman will not achieve the results she seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman