Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s offer of a property and its assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about being offered a property when she was on the housing list which she says has noise and vibration affecting it from an underground railway line. She says the Council made no mention of this is in the offer. She also complained about being informed that she is now low priority for a transfer because her previous overcrowding priority was remedied by accepting an offer of larger accommodation which meets her needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied to the Council’s housing register and was offered a property in November 2023. The flat was a new-build social housing property and she accepted the tenancy in December. Shortly after she moved in Miss X experienced some noise and vibration which she says is affecting her son’s sleep and his health as a result. She found out that the building is built over the Victoria underground railway line and trains are responsible for the disturbance.
6. She complained to the Council because it had not advised her of this before the signed the tenancy agreement. The Council says the property was built to the required building regulations and planning requirements. Investigations concluded that the noise and vibration is within acceptable limits and is not affecting the building in any way which would require remedial action. The Council told her that there is no requirement for it to inform her of matters in the outside environment. Prospective tenants should make their own enquiries about the neighbourhood and location of an offer.
7. I can see no fault in the Council offering Miss X a new-build property which met her housing needs. She did not register any previous concern about being sensitive to traffic noise and vibration and the flats are in an area where many other residents experience the same background noise without complaint. It is inevitable that much if the capital and other cities have transport infrastructure which co-exists with residential dwellings and noise from it is to be expected. Traffic and railway noise is exempted from statutory nuisance investigation under the Environmental protection Act 1990 and the Railways Act 1993.
8. Miss X has re-applied to the housing register because she wants a transfer to a different location. The Council has placed her in the lowest banding under its allocations policy because she no longer has the previous overcrowding priority which was met when she accepted the offer of a suitable sized property. She was considered under a medical assessment but this has not changed her current banding which does not entitle her to bid on vacancies.
9. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s offer of a property and its assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman