Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London took no action over noise and vibration from the underground line. There was no fault in the way the authority investigated the complaint. While the final complaint response was delayed, this did not cause any injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about Transport for London’s (TfL) decision to take no further action about noise and vibration in his home from the underground line. Mr X is unhappy with TfL’s explanation for its decision, which he said was based on anecdotal evidence rather than expert opinion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• Mayor of London Transport Strategy 2018.
• The Environmental Protection Act 1990.
6. I wrote to Mr X and TfL with my draft decision and considered comments received from Mr X before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. There are no statutory noise or vibration levels which TfL must comply with and it has no duty to provide a remedy for noise nuisance.
8. According to TfL’s website, it is committed to minimising disturbance and its engineers will take measurements if someone reports noise at their property. TfL says, based on the source of noise, it will decide if it can take practical steps to reduce it.
9. London’s transport strategy aims to reduce excessive noise and vibration by carrying out works, using quieter trains, shock absorbing track fastenings, investigating complaints, communicating with residents and reducing noise and vibration at source.
10. The duty to investigate complaints about statutory nuisance lies with the local council, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
11. For a noise to count as a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:
• Unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premise; or
• Injure health or be likely to injure health
12. In certain cases, people who have used the best practicable means to stop or reduce the noise nuisance may be able to use this as grounds for appeal or a defence if prosecuted. Best practicable means involves having regard to local conditions and circumstances, the current state of technological knowledge and financial implications.
13. Members of the public can bring their own case to the Magistrates Court and ask it to serve an abatement notice.
14. However, noise from railways and public roads is exempt from enforcement over statutory nuisance and it is unlikely the council could take any action.

What happened

15. Mr X telephoned TfL to complain about noise at his home from the underground on 9 August 2017. TfL contacted Mr X on 15 August 2017 to ask for further information so it could investigate.
16. A questionnaire was sent to TfL’s engineers on 2 October 2017 and on 24 October 2017 engineers produced a report showing low levels of noise had been measured in Mr X’s property. TfL wrote to Mr X to provide a copy of the noise report, which showed noise readings of 32 decibels for the Northbound line and 25 decibels for the Southbound line. The report considered the noise levels to be low compared to other complaints TfL investigated. TfL told Mr X it had no plans to carry out works in the short term and it had to prioritise areas where noise was greater.
17. Mr X’s partner, Ms Y, replied to TfL indicating her confusion. She said the couple heard no noise for the previous 20 years of living in the property, it had only recently become a problem. Ms Y said an engineer told her noise was caused by a bend on the line which needed to be grinded and they would not hear noise once this was done. Ms Y asked when this would be done, as it was not mentioned in the report.
18. TfL responded on 10 October 2017. It said the benefits of grinding were short term and it was not using the practice as much. It was considering new ways to address noise issues. It had tried rubber pads, but they did not have the desired effect.
19. TfL carried out remedial works in November 2017. It told Mr X and Ms Y they may live too far away from the line to benefit from the works. It asked if they would like new noise readings.
20. Mr X and Ms Y said they did notice a reduction since the remedial works, but they could still hear a rumble. They suggested trains were noisier than they used to be and should not be heard from the distance they lived. They declined the offer of more noise readings as they doubted they would reflect the disturbance. They asked what further measures could be taken.
21. TfL acknowledged Mr X and Ms Y noticed an improvement on 6 December 2017. It said it could not guarantee no noise and there was nothing further it could add to previous correspondence. On 11 December 2017 it said it could not take further action. It would monitor noise levels and will consider further action if noise levels increase.
22. On 13 December 2017 Mr X and Ms Y asked the Council how vibration compared between before and after the remedial works were carried out. TFL replied the same day. It said residents living closer to the line reported a reduction in noise since the recent works. Engineers said Mr X and Ms Y would probably not benefit due to the distance of their home from the line. It said it would not be taking further action.
23. On 15 December 2017 Mr X and Ms Y asked for a comparison of readings taken before and after the works, as well as how it sought information from residents.
24. TfL replied on 19 December 2017. It said no measurements were taken since the works finished, but residents said they were happy with the reduction in noise and vibration.
25. Mr X and Ms Y were not satisfied with the response and asked for clarification about the evidence TfL relied upon. TfL told them on 15 January 2018 that three residents gave feedback saying they were satisfied. It could not provide evidence of the responses due to data protection.
26. On 16 January 2018 Mr X and Ms Y told the Council its feedback was not reliable. Although sound levels may be low, they said it was still irritating. They expressed surprise TfL thought it was acceptable for them to hear noise at such a distance from the underground line.
27. Mr X corresponded with TfL’s Freedom of Information Team between 30 April 2018 and 6 July 2018. He asked if:
• Remedial works had been carried out between Kentish Town and Tufnell Park in November 2017
• There were positive responses from residents following the works and, if so, how many
• TfL met with engineers regarding track noise between March and April 2018 and if there is a record of what they discussed
• Concrete sleepers had replaced wooden sleepers on this stretch of the track
28. Over the course of its responses to Mr X, TfL confirmed:
• Works had been carried out to the section of the line in question. Joints were removed in November 2017 and resilient track fastenings installed in June 2017.
• It met with engineers in March and April, but not exclusively about noise on that section of the line. Such meetings are regular and informal, so there is no record.
• Feedback received after the works was positive, but mainly casual and anecdotal. There is no record or information TfL could provide. TfL provided Mr X with noise readings to show an 11dB reduction in noise.
• Concrete sleepers had replaced wooden ones in 2005, but only for about the first 420 metres of that section of the track.
29. Ms Y contacted TfL on 5 March 2019 to complain that she was being woken by low rumbling of trains for the last two years. She asked when the tracks would be fixed.
30. TfL said engineers had done all they could and offered to carry out fresh noise readings. Ms Y asked why the problem could not be fixed. TfL said the noise levels were low and Mr X and Ms Y had noticed an improvement after the maintenance works.
31. Ms Y responded to TfL on 22 March 2019. She said it had not answered her questions. She said she wished to change her earlier statement there had been an improvement after the works were carried out. She said there hadn’t been.
32. TfL said it had to prioritise areas with higher noise levels. Attempts at using track fastenings to reduce noise had resulted in more noise for train customers so it was not installing any at present.
33. Mr X and Ms Y took their complaint to a manager on 23 April 2019. They said they had experienced noise since the spring of 2017 after 20 years of no noise. TfL had carried out remedial works but there was no benefit.
34. TfL responded on 25 May 2019. It said there was nothing further it could add to previous correspondence and signposted Mr X and Ms Y to the Ombudsman if they remained unhappy.
35. Mr X and Ms Y asked for a copy of TfL’s investigation or engineer report in June 2019, as previously it had only sent a noise report. In August 2019 TfL said there was no report from an engineer, but the noise survey shows noise levels were low. Engineers made a professional judgement they wouldn’t be able get noise levels lower, having already installed resilient track fastenings. TfL again offered Mr X and Ms Y new noise measurements. Mr X and Ms Y said TfL had provided no evidence to back up what its engineers said.
36. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 7 August 2019.

Response to my enquiries

37. TfL told me the noise surveys at Mr X and Ms Y’s property found noise from the Southbound track was barely perceivable. Northbound noise was slightly more noticeable, but still quite low compared to other complaints investigated.
38. As the noise levels were so low, the Southbound track was not seen as a problem. Before Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint in July 2017, a resilient track fixing was installed on the Northbound track within the vicinity of Mr X and Ms Y’s property. This was beneficial for other residents in the area that had much higher noise readings than Mr x and Ms Y, with up to an 11-decibel noise reduction. This was already the best option to reduce noise.
39. At the time of Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint, it was a priority area TfL was investigating. Other properties in the area had noise levels of between 46 and 51 decibels. Resilient track fastenings reduced the noise by 11 decibels.
40. TfL told me its engineers concluded nothing practical could be done to lower noise levels for Mr X and Ms Y, because noise levels were already low to start with. TfL decided no further reduction in noise levels could be achieved.
41. The case notes and correspondence I have read from TfL show:
• Input was sought from engineers in relation to what possible action could be taken.
• Mr X and Ms Y’s property was considered too far from the underground tunnels to benefit from improvement works.
• Noise levels at Mr X and Ms Y’s property were considered to be low, so TfL did not plan any action in the short term. Further noise measurements were offered, but declined by Mr X and Ms Y.
• TfL did not consider it could do any more for Mr X and Ms Y, as it can never guarantee no noise.

Back to top

Analysis

42. As per paragraphs 7 and 14 above, there are no statutory noise levels TFL must comply with and noise from railways and public roads is exempt from statutory nuisance action.
43. Mr X and Ms Y have complained directly to TfL about noise and vibration over the past two years. TfL measured the noise at their property and engineers considered whether they could offer a solution. Works were carried out in November 2017 but TfL have since said no further improvements can be made and, because noise levels at Mr X and Ms Y’s property were low, it is prioritising other complaints. Unfortunately, Mr X and Ms Y still experience noise and vibration in their home, and TfL’s current position is that there is nothing more it can reasonably do.
44. I do not find fault with the action TfL has taken. I understand Mr X and Ms Y’s frustration at the lack of a positive solution after so long, but I cannot change TfL’s decision. It has explained that it considers noise levels at their property to be low and there are no more practical measures it can take. Mr X and Ms Y may disagree with the decision, but I have not found fault with the way TfL reached its decision.
45. Mr X and Ms Y are unhappy TfL has not explained why they are experiencing problems with noise and vibration now, when they did not in the twenty years before they made their complaint. I do not find fault with TfL for being unable to answer this point. TfL’s policy is to investigate complaints about noise to see if it can take action to resolve the problem. TfL has acted in line with its policy, but it has decided there is no action it can take which will lower the level of noise and vibration for Mr X and Ms Y, and it cannot reasonably prevent all noise.
46. Mr X and Ms Y are not happy with TfL’s explanations, that it did not answer every specific point they made, and for not offering to do further works, or grinding. I do not find TfL at fault for not answering every specific question or point within the complaint. Its policy is to investigate noise complaints by measuring the noise levels to try and identify the problem. It did this. It did not think the situation could be improved for Mr X and Ms Y, due to the distance they lived from the tunnel. It said why it was not doing grinding works at the present time. When it carried out remedial works it told Mr X and Ms Y that it could not eradicate all noise and could offer no further solutions. It explained why it was not using track fastenings, as this increased noise for passengers. It said it had to prioritise areas of greater noise. TfL considered Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint, in line with its policy. It measured noise levels and offered up to date noise readings later. It considered noise levels to be low and did not think it could take action to reduce the noise or its impact on Mr X and Ms Y. I cannot fault TfL for the decision it makes, or the conclusion its engineers reach, when it has followed the correct procedures and fully considered the complaint, which I consider that it has.
47. Mr X and Ms Y are unhappy at what they perceive to be a lack of evidence to back up the views of TfL’s engineers, and at the lack of follow up readings after remedial works. TfL said residents reported an improvement. I do not find it was at fault for not carrying out more noise measurements when residents have reported the works improved the situation. Nor do I find TfL at fault for relying on the professional judgment of its engineers, where noise levels were measured to be low. TfL offered new noise readings to Mr X and Ms Y, but they declined. While I appreciate Mr X and Ms Y do not see a benefit in new noise readings if TfL has said it cannot take any further action, this is the only way TfL will reassess their complaint.
48. Ultimately TfL has no statutory duty in terms of noise and vibration. It investigated Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint in line with its policy. Unfortunately for Mr X and Ms Y, TfL has decided noise levels are low and it cannot take any further action. I do not find fault with the way TfL reached its decision and I therefore cannot question the merits of the decision.
49. Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman also outlined his unhappiness with delayed responses from TfL. TfL’s general responses up to the point Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman have been acceptable. It is only the final complaint response which was late. TfL’s policy is to respond to complaints within ten working days, which it did not do. However, the delay did not cause any injustice to Mr X and TfL did confirm its stance on his complaint, as well as signposting him to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the way the authority investigated the complaint. While the final complaint response was delayed, this did not cause any injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman