Veto story: Parent of a student

In the short interview they said crime is a worry, that a good mobile signal and a walkable area are the priorities, and that going out matters: restaurants, pubs and nightlife.

So Veto looked at:

Safe streets. Recorded crime within 250 metres over the last two years and which way it is heading, plus police-reported injury collisions within 500 metres.

A signal that holds indoors. Mobile coverage for the area, across all four networks.

Somewhere with life around it. How many places to eat and drink are within about 800 metres and within 2km, with their food hygiene ratings.

Easy to get about. The bus routes within a short walk, and the nearest railway station.

Both streets came back as a Fair match, 67 and 66. The score is the headline. What differs is what sits behind it. The first has 80 places to eat or drink within 800 metres and falling crime, with 569 recorded crimes nearby. The second has 30, and 880 recorded crimes with a flat trend. Both have a high number of recorded injury collisions within 500 metres, 114 and 103, and the report flags that for both.

For a parent a long way away, that is the difference between choosing on the photographs and choosing on what is actually around the door.

From the written report for address one:

You asked for two things above all: mobile signal that works every day, and the kind of everyday walkability that makes life easy without a car. On both counts, this address delivers. Mobile coverage across the Lewisham North constituency is as good as it gets: 100% indoor 4G from every network and 100% outdoor 5G, meaning you are not tied to one provider and should not notice dead spots. Walkability also checks out on paper: a food shop, green space and bus stop all within 800 metres, nine bus routes within a short walk, a railway station at New Cross Gate 489 metres away, and 80 places to eat or drink within 800 metres. The straight-line distances are good; the real test is the one you have to do yourself, on foot, at the hours you would actually use these routes.

The score of 67 reflects a property that meets your stated priorities clearly but sits inside an area with a few things to watch rather than ignore. The single figure that pulls the score down is road safety: 114 police-reported injury collisions within 500 metres over three years, including 20 serious and 10 involving pedestrians and 33 involving cyclists. That is not a dealbreaker you named, but it is the most significant finding in the whole report and it interacts directly with walkability, since the same streets you would walk daily are where these collisions are recorded. Everything else, flood risk, air quality, planning, schools infrastructure nearby, is either reassuring or simply needs a routine check before you commit.

Run each shortlisted address before you sign, and compare them side by side.

Run your free trial report →

See an example report