Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her residents’ group’s report of a breach of fire regulations at a local premises. There is not enough evidence of fault in the officer actions, nor sufficient significant injustice stemming from the matters complained of, to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X chairs a local residents’ group. A member saw a fire exit in a business premise padlocked shut during opening hours and reported this to the Council’s fire and rescue service (WSFRS). Mrs X complains:
1. the WSFRS officer ignored and failed to act on a report of evidence of a fire breach at a local business;
2. the officer abused his authority and position when responding to the report;
3. the service is coercing residents to not report fire regulation breaches.
2. Mrs X considers the officer’s reply implied the residents’ group made a false claim about the fire regulation breach. She says there is concern, stress and fear about fire safety risk in the area because of the loss of faith in the authorities caused by this incident. Mrs X wants the Council to apologise, retract the officer’s email reply, acknowledge the photographic evidence provided, explain why they ignored the evidence, and to commit to acting on all future reports of breaches and do so respectfully.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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

5. I considered information from Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We may only go behind an officer’s decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process followed and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. In response to the report of the fire regulation breach, the WSFRS officer attended the premises on the same day. They did not see the padlocked fire door as reported. The officer’s actions do not demonstrate they ignored and failed to act upon the report. The officer’s reply explains what they had witnessed on their own visit. Their decision not to take action on the basis of the group’s report does not mean the officer disbelieved it.
7. It is for officers to decide how to respond to information received and how to seek compliance from premises in their area. The officer followed the process here by visiting the premises to gather information to make their decision on what action to take. The officer was entitled to make that response within their professional role. It follows that there is also not enough evidence of the officer abusing their authority and position when responding to the group’s report to warrant investigation. We recognise Mrs X and her group may disagree with the officer’s decision on what action they should take after receiving their report. But it is not fault for an officer to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
8. Mrs X alleges the WSFRS is coercing the public to not report their fire regulation concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault by officers in this regard to justify an investigation. The Council’s website gives information to residents on how to make any concerns known to relevant officers and provides their contact details.
9. Even if there has been fault by the officers here, we will not investigate. We recognise Mrs X and others would have preferred a more detailed response to their report and feel annoyed and upset about the one the officer provided. But that annoyance and upset is not sufficient injustice to Mrs X or the group to warrant investigation.
10. Mrs X claims as an injustice wider implications of the incident for local fire safety, including concern for properties near the premises they reported. The officer response to the group’s report does not put at risk the fire safety of nearby buildings. Locking a fire exit does not make a fire more likely in a building. It affects the safety of users within the building should there be a fire, not the safety of people in nearby properties. Mrs X also believes the matter calls into question future fire safety in the entire Council area. She is concerned officers may not act on other public concerns. The officer’s response to Mrs X’s group’s report does not lead to the entire area being placed at increased fire risk and we cannot include as injustices future events and incidents which have not happened. There is not enough significant injustice to Mrs X or her group from these issues to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the officer actions or decisions to warrant us investigating; and
• even if there were fault, there is insufficient injustice to her or her group stemming from the matters complained of to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman