Summary: Ms D complained that Transport for London has failed to notify her of or effectively manage works on a site opposite her home since 2019 and did not deal with her complaint. As a result, she has suffered significant disruption and distress affecting her mental health. We found fault by TfL as it did not respond to Ms D's complaints about the works. It has agreed to apologise, make a payment, meet with her to discuss her concerns and provide a contact point for future issues.

The complaint

1. Ms D complained that Transport for London has failed to notify her of or effectively manage works on a site opposite her home since 2019 and did not deal with her complaint.
2. As a result, she has suffered significant disruption such as air pollution, noise, disturbed sleep, being blocked in, damage to her property and loss of property value. This has caused her significant distress affecting her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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. I spoke to Ms D about her complaint and considered the information she sent and the Authority’s response to my enquiries.
6. Ms D 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

Ms D’s complaint

7. Ms D lives opposite an entrance to a site owned by Transport for London (TfL). She says works have been going on at the site since 2019 and the works are noisy and disruptive. She cannot open her windows and uses atomisers due to the noise, smells and fumes from the lorries arriving at and leaving the site. There is dust and debris on her car. Ms D says there is no traffic management and the lorries park on the pavement and block her driveway.
8. Ms D has provided evidence of lorries arriving early in the morning (sometimes before 7am) and after 10pm. She says the noise of the lorries and light from floodlights disturbs her and her neighbours’ sleep.
9. There was also a lack of security which had allowed intruders and travellers to move on to the site. TfL had installed concrete blocks at the gate to prevent this, but Ms D says these are noisy when they are being moved, unsightly and enable intruders to climb over the gate.
10. Ms D says she has had very little or no notification of works and no information about when the works will be completed, which have been delayed and gone on for much longer than she was initially notified in 2019. She also says TfL has not responded to her complaints.
11. Ms D sent evidence that she complained to TfL on 2 February, 26 April and 10 May 2022. She came to the Ombudsman in June 2022 as she had had no response.
12. TfL told us they had not received Ms D’s letters until June as they had been sent to an old address. It replied to Ms D in November 2022, but she says she did not receive this. Ms D came back to the Ombudsman then as she remained dissatisfied. She says it has been a nightmare living next to the site, especially during the COVID-19 lockdowns.

TfL’s response

13. TfL explained that the works were the South Harrow Sidings project related to the Piccadilly Line upgrade. It said this was a challenging and complex project and apologised for the disruption. Some delays had been caused by flooding. It hoped to complete the works in May 2023.
14. Some of the works at the site had been the responsibility of Network Rail (which is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction) so TfL had no information about those.
15. TfL accepted it had not responded promptly to Ms D’s complaints and that there had been a lack of notification letters. I have seen evidence of TfL letters sent to residents in July 2019, November 2020, and February, April and December 2021.
16. TfL says a letter was also sent in December 2022 but this was not sent to Ms D’s address as it had understood works at that entrance had ceased. This is not in line with Ms D’s experience, who says lorries are still using the entrance in spring 2023.
17. TfL had applied to the local authority under section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 for consent for works to be carried out which were likely to cause noise. The application sets out the standard work hours as 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm Saturday. But it says start up and close down can take place up to one hour before and after this. Works may also take place during agreed engineering hours (midnight to 5.30am) and extended hours (6pm to 8pm).
18. TfL says access is required to the site by various staff and contractors, sometimes at night when maintenance and inspections must take place. Due to delays, there have been overnight works and a sub-contractor has had deliveries at night, which TfL was not advised of beforehand. It has instructed the sub-contractor to stop overnight deliveries, though there had been further incidents.
19. The section 61 application describes the steps TfL will take to minimise noise and disruption and how it will communicate with residents, including putting up signs, having a 24-hour phone line and sending notification letters, though it does not send letters for all works. For example, it will not send letters for urgent works or those of brief duration.
20. TfL says works are supervised by a site management team and periodic and daily inspections. It also uses noise and vibration monitoring equipment to ensure site levels are maintained at acceptable levels.

My findings

21. I appreciate that the works are clearly very disruptive for Ms D and her neighbours and they have continued for a number of years. My role is to consider whether there is evidence of maladministration by TfL in the way it has managed the site, complied with its policies and notified residents.
22. There is evidence that TfL has sent some notification letters. I cannot explain why Ms D has not received these. We do not expect authorities to hold proof of delivery so the fact that Ms D has not received the letters is not evidence of fault by TfL.
23. There is evidence that lorries arrive on site around 7am, sometimes before, and late at night. But I cannot say this is fault because TfL has agreement for working hours that include from 7am and from midnight to 6am. Nor do I have evidence, despite the issues Ms D has faced, that TfL has failed to manage the site in line with its processes or the section 61 approval.
24. Nonetheless, Ms D is being caused significant disruption and TfL has not responded to her complaints about this, which is fault. This has caused her distress, frustration and time and trouble.
25. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Our guidance says that, for distress caused by fault, a moderate, symbolic payment is an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within a month of my final decision, the Authority has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms D and pay her £100 to acknowledge the distress caused.
2. Arrange for the site manager to meet with her to discuss her concerns and how they may be addressed; and
3. Provide a contact point for future issues to be reported.
27. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was fault by the Authority. The actions TfL has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman