Summary: Mr X complains about Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service’s involvement in inspecting his house since a fire there in November 2017. In particular, he says it made mistakes in a home fire safety check in December 2018. The Ombudsman found the Fire Service was at fault for failing to provide Mr X with a full explanation why his deep fat fryer was considered unsafe. This caused him an injustice in the form of frustration, and we have recommended it should be remedied by way of an apology to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service’s (‘the Fire Service’) involvement in inspecting his house since a fire there in November 2017. In particular, he says it made mistakes in a home fire safety check in December 2018. He says it was wrong to say his deep-fat fryer was an industrial or commercial appliance and to conclude it was a fire risk.
2. Mr X says the Fire Service informed his housing association of its findings and they are being used against him in efforts to evict him from his house.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about the home fire safety checks that took place in 2018. I have considered his complaint about the Fire Service’s conclusion about his deep fat fryer.
4. I have not investigated other parts of Mr X’s complaint. An explanation of which parts and my reasons are at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. Administrative and operational failures of Fire and Rescue Authorities can be investigated by the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(bg), as amended)
6. 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)
7. We cannot question whether a decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
8. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. If we are satisfied with a fire authority’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)
10. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I spoke with Mr X and considered his comments about his complaint. I wrote to the Fire Service to make enquiries and reviewed the information it sent in response.
12. I also made enquiries with Mr X’s housing association and his local council to assist my investigation.
13. I shared a copy of my draft decision with Mr X and the Fire Service and invited them to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

14. This complaint revolves around several home fire safety checks carried out by the Fire Service in 2018 at Mr X’s house. A home fire safety check involves a trained member of staff visiting premises and assessing the risk of fire at that address. This could be as a result of the condition or suitability of appliances or other equipment, the behaviours of the occupier and any prevention or detection measures in place. These checks take place with the permission of the householder.
15. Mr X says there was a fire at his house in November 2017. The Fire Service says the first record it has of carrying out a safety check at that address was in March 2018. This was at the request of Mr X’s housing association. An employee of the housing association was present at the same time to speak with Mr X. After the visit, Mr X complained the Fire Service’s staff member had gone along with the views of the housing association’s representative without checking properly or listening to his explanations.
16. The Fire Service essentially upheld Mr X’s complaint, finding the circumstances of the joint visit may have left the impression of a lack of impartiality. A manager offered Mr X a new fire safety check and records suggest he accepted the offer. When the manager called Mr X afterwards, the Fire Service says Mr X said the new check had been ‘spot on’. However, after asking to see the paperwork completed by the staff member who carried out the inspection, Mr X then complained again. He felt references to him hoarding were unfair as he was redecorating and therefore had cleared some rooms for that purpose.
17. Records show Mr X had a telephone conversation with a manager and, as a result of that call, he closed the complaint. Mr X had asked for a further safety check to be carried out to correct the record but the Fire Service said it would not re-visit for at least six months, even at his request. It explained this was because it had already carried out two checks in the space of a few weeks. It said a note about the hoarding would be on its system for 12 months, to inform its crews should they have to attend an emergency at Mr X’s house. The manager explained it would reviewed at that point as a matter of routine.
18. Later in 2018, Mr X’s housing association contacted the Fire Service to request another safety check at Mr X’s house. The Fire Service initially refused, as it felt the circumstances could not have changed enough in the meantime to justify it attending for a third time in nine months. However, after further liaison between Mr X’s housing association and a manager from the Fire Service at a community risk meeting, it decided another check should take place. The concerns raised were specifically about Mr X’s deep fat fryer.
19. A visit was arranged with Mr X and took place in December 2018. The outcome of this third safety check was Mr X’s deep fat fryer was deemed unsafe for domestic use. The Fire Service found it was an industrial or commercial model. Mr X strongly disputes this. He says he bought it online from a normal retailer and, although it was dual fryer, he only used one at a time unless he had guests. Mr X believes the Fire Service condemned his deep fat fryer without any evidence to justify doing so, which in turn meant he faced action from his housing association.
20. Mr X says he spoke to Trading Standards and it informed him the Fire Service was wrong. The Ombudsman asked the local council if it had any records of contact between Mr X and its Trading Standards officers. It told us that function is outsourced to a national consumer group and it has no record of an enquiry from Mr X. However, it said that did not mean the enquiry did not happen.
21. Mr X complained to the Fire Service about its conclusions about his deep fat fryer. In response, the Fire Service told Mr X it had reviewed the report from the check, spoken to the staff member who carried it out, looked at photographs and carried out research online. It stood by its decision. Mr X escalated his complaint, but in a letter in February 2019, the Fire Service maintained his deep fat fryer was “unsuitable for use within a private dwelling”. It went on the say this was because he was “heating several litres of oil to extremely high temperatures” and this could cause serious burns and fires.
22. Records show the Fire Service deliberately left out any reference to the industrial or commercial nature of the deep fat fryer from that letter, choosing to focus on more general concerns instead.

Back to top

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman is not an appeals body. I cannot substitute my view about the suitability of Mr X’s deep fat fryer for the Fire Service’s professional judgement, as long as the Fire Service has taken all relevant information into account.
24. There was fault in how the first home fire safety check was carried out in March 2018. The Fire Service quickly recognised its impartiality could have been compromised by the nature of the joint visit that had happened. Any injustice caused to Mr X by that fault was soon remedied by the Fire Service arranging for a second safety check to take place.
25. Mr X wanted me to consider the impact these two fire safety checks had on his Housing Association’s decision to start injunction proceedings. He says the finding he was hoarding was used against him. However, the evidence already available strongly suggests the Housing Association was already intending to take action against Mr X before the first home fire safety check took place. Even if the Fire Service’s findings had some influence on that process, I cannot say it was fault. It has stood by its finding there were signs of hoarding at his property, even after considering Mr X’s counter-arguments, and that is a professional judgement it is entitled to make. I also take into account the Fire Service is not ultimately responsible for the actions of the Housing Association.
26. Mr X has complained about the number of checks that happened within a relatively short period of time. The evidence shows there were three between March and December 2018. However, as I explained in the previous paragraph, Mr X openly agreed to one of these checks. The others two were carried out with his permission and while he was present, although at the request of his housing association. The Fire Service was not at fault for carrying out those checks. In particular, there is evidence showing the third check only took place when enough evidence to justify it was provided by Mr X’s housing association.
27. Mr X has also expressed concern about the updates that were given to his housing association. As I explain at the end of this statement, part of this complaint is being considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office. However, looking at what remains, I am satisfied available records show the relationship between Mr X’s housing association and the Fire Service was not fault. In particular, although the housing association was aware of the first safety check because its staff member was present, the Fire Service refused to provide any information about the second follow up visit when asked.
28. I have carefully considered the points Mr X has made about his deep fat fryer. I also asked the Fire Service which websites it had researched to decide it was an industrial or commercial model. It no longer had a record of them. However, there is evidence from around the time that strongly supports a view such research took place.
29. The decision about whether any appliance presents a fire safety risk is a matter for the professional judgement for the trained member of staff carrying out the safety check. I am satisfied the Fire Service considered all the information put forward by Mr X in reaching its decision. That includes the outcome of its visit, the observations of its staff member and the research it carried out afterwards. Mr X disagrees with the conclusions it reached but that does mean they are fault.
30. However, the explanation given to Mr X in the letter in February 2019 was not adequate. The decision was taken before the letter was written to deliberately remove any reference to whether the deep fat fryer was an industrial or commercial model. This seems to have been a recognition that Mr X’s arguments about this were missing the wider safety concerns his appliance was causing. I see no evidence those involved acted in bad faith.
31. The explanation given was too vague. The description of the danger posed by the deep fat fryer could apply to any such appliance. Although the Fire Service maintains all home appliances, including deep fat fryers, present a fire risk, there are clearly ways in which the risk can be reduced. The fact it was prepared to replace Mr X’s with another model supports this view.
32. Instead, the letter might have concentrated on its staff member’s direct observations, any issues with the condition Mr X was keeping his deep fat fryer in, the specific volume of oil used in cooking with this appliance, the design of the model or the manufacturer’s safety record. Although I understand why the Fire Service chose to step away from the dispute about whether the model was industrial/commercial or suitable for use at home, it should then have provided a better explanation to Mr X. The failure to do so was fault.
33. I note the Fire Service provides detailed guidance for its staff carrying out home fire safety checks and provides a breakdown of key factors to consider about many different appliances and behaviours. There appears to be no such advice relating to deep fat fryers.
34. In considering the injustice caused by this fault, I have taken account of the actual effect of the Fire Service’s actions. Mr X was offered a replacement deep fat fryer at no charge to him. He could also have chosen to ignore the advice he had been given and the Fire Service was clear with Mr X’s housing association it could not force him to swap it.
35. I am satisfied Mr X was caused an injustice in the form of frustration in this case, because he had to pursue this matter more than should have been necessary. The letter sent to him in February 2019 should have given a clearer and more objective explanation why his deep fat fryer posed a fire safety risk. Later complaint correspondence also provided little extra clarity.
36. However, there is no evidence to support Mr X’s view the Fire Service’s findings about his deep fat fryer in December 2018 have unduly influenced his relationship with his housing association. Although the housing association did suggest to the Fire Service it would “consider tenancy action” if he refused to swap the fryer, it has confirmed no such action has been taken.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. By 22 November 2019, the Fire Service has agreed to write to Mr X and apologise for any frustration caused to him by its failing to fully explain why his particular deep fat fryer posed a fire safety risk.
38. By 22 January 2020, the Fire Service has agreed to add a further appendix to the internal guidance it gives to members of staff carrying out home fire safety checks, so they have a clearer set of criteria against which they can objectively judge the safety of a deep fat fryer.
39. The Fire Service should write to the Ombudsman to confirm when it has completed these actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. The Fire Service was at fault for failing to provide Mr X with a full explanation why his deep fat fryer was considered unsafe. This caused him an injustice in the form of frustration.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

41. Mr X has complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about the decision of the Fire Service to share the outcome of his complaint with his housing association. We will not investigate the same matter.
42. Mr X also complained about inaccuracies in some of the answers the Fire Service’s staff member recorded on the safety check forms. The available evidence suggests these forms were not shared with Mr X’s housing association or any third party. Nor was the inaccurate information directly linked to a scoring system. This means even if some inaccurate information was recorded on the forms, it cannot have caused any personal injustice to Mr X. I also consider it would be difficult now to investigate the reasons for any inaccuracies given the time that has elapsed.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman