Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Fire and Rescue Service. This is because we could not make the finding
Mr B wants or say the Fire and Rescue Service (F&RS) should reimburse him the cost of his legal fees.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Fire and Rescue Service (F&RS) wrongly accused him of being an arsonist which resulted in him being arrested by the Police. Mr B says additionally the F&RS did not properly secure his property when it first attended and made a series of mistakes resulting in his property burning down. Mr B says he has incurred legal expenses of £7000 and wants the F&RS to reimburse him these costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Police (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The F&RS investigated Mr B’s complaint in 2021 and considered an appeal in 2022. It said oil supplies had been isolated after the first fire, but the police prevented the fire crews from switching off the welder. It confirmed the welder could not have been the source of the second fire. We could not make a finding that the F&RS were responsible for Mr B’s property burning down. He will need to pursue this point through his insurers.
7. The F&RS upheld Mr B’s complaint that it would have been appropriate for fire crews to supply an updated handover form after the second fire. It also upheld Mr B’s complaint that the incident report should not have recorded the fire as ‘Deliberate, Own property’. It says the attending Incident Commanders were told at the time there had been an admission by Mr B but he refuted this. The F&RS acknowledged there was no first-hand evidence to support this admission and amended its system to record the cause of the fire as ‘Deliberate-Unknown owner’.
8. Mr B says has incurred £7000 in legal costs and wants the F&RS to reimburse the costs. We do not usually investigate to pursue the reimbursement of professional fees unless there are exceptional circumstances. In this case there are no executional circumstances. There is a difference of recollections of what was said about who started the fire. The F&RS have acknowledged there was no evidence to support what was said and amended its system to reflect this. We could not make a finding on what was said when we were not there or say the F&RS should reimburse Mr B to cost of his legal fees. Mr B says he has to endure being arrested by the Police because of the F&RS’s accusation; however, we could not make this finding. It is for the Police to decide who it arrests. We cannot consider the actions of the Police.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we could not make a finding of the kind Mr B wants or say the F&RS should reimburse him his legal fees.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman