Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about noise from a tube station below his former property. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about noise from a tube station which was located under a property he used to live in.
2. Mr X says the Authority failed to monitor excess noise and vibration coming from the tube track, failed to tell him about scheduled maintenance work which increased the noise and vibration, and refused to acknowledge its responsibility for this.
3. Mr X says this caused him regular discomfort and distress, and was one of the reasons he had to move out of the flat. He also says it caused him to seek treatment for anxiety and depression.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an authority has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X. He and the Authority had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

7. Mr X lived, for nine years, in a flat above a tube station. The Authority, which is responsible for the station, was also Mr X’s landlord.
8. Mr X says he complained to the Authority in 2013 and 2015 about noise from the tube. He says the Authority visited his property and acknowledged responsibility for the noise, but did not do anything about it.
9. Mr X moved out of the property in May 2020. The Authority returned his deposit, but deducted Mr X’s final month’s rent, which he had not paid before moving out.
10. Mr X complained to the Authority and said it should not have taken money out of his deposit. One of the reasons for this, he argued, was because he had suffered from excess noise and vibration from the tube station since 2013, and the Authority had not done anything about it.
11. The Authority said it could do nothing about the sound of trains in a flat above a tube station. It said Mr X had been aware of the flat’s location before moving in.
12. Mr X also complained about the noise to his local council. It told him it has no power to enforce noise complaints about the Underground. However, it arranged a joint visit with the Authority to assess the noise. When it discovered Mr X had already moved out of the property, it cancelled the visit and took no further action.

Analysis

13. Although Mr X says the Authority accepted responsibility for excess noise in 2013 and 2015 but did nothing about it, this is too old for me to consider. The events happened considerably more than a year before Mr X approached the Ombudsman, and there does not appear to be a good reason he could not have complained about them earlier.
14. There are no legal noise limits to existing railways. But the Authority should still consider complaints about noise, and can take steps to reduce noise if it thinks this is reasonable.
15. The Authority received Mr X’s complaint in May 2020; however, he moved out of the property at the end of May. Although the evidence Mr X has provided suggests the Authority did intend to visit him in August (along with his local council) to find out how bad the noise was, he had already moved out.
16. Because of this, it would not have been reasonable to expect the Authority to monitor the noise in the flat, or to take steps to reduce the noise – as any steps taken would have had no possible benefit to Mr X. And I would not expect the Authority to compensate Mr X based solely on his claim that the tube station – which he had lived above for nine years – had been too noisy during that period.
17. Because of this, I do not consider it likely that any further investigation would lead to a finding of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have discontinued my investigation. It is unlikely I would find fault with the Authority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman