Summary: There was no fault in London Fire Brigade’s response to a fire in the block of flats where a disabled man, Mr A, lives.

The complaint

1. Mr A complains about London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority’s (London Fire Brigade’s) response to a fire in the block of flats where he lives.

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 cannot question whether a decision, policy or action is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a body’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr A’s complaint, London Fire Brigade’s complaint responses and documents described later in this statement. The parties received a draft of this statement and I took comments into account.

Back to top

What I found

5. In May 2019, there was a fire in a flat on one of the floor below Mr A. Mr A called the emergency services and said he was disabled.
6. The block is owned and managed by a housing association. Complaints about the housing association’s actions or failures to act are not for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to investigate. Responsibilities for creating a fire evacuation plan, including a personal evacuation plan lie with the housing association.
7. Statements from members of the fire crew attending the fire said two officers spoke to Mr A and his partner twice in their flat. The fire crew said the corridor outside the flat and staircase were heavily smoke-logged on both occasions. There was no sign of any smoke in the flat on either occasion. Mr A was noted to be very calm, but his partner was slightly shaken.
8. Mr A told me one of the firefighters asked him why he was living on the second floor (the implication being he should be in a ground floor flat because of his disability). Mr A also told me his flat was smoke-filled and this affected his partner. This goes against the statements of the fire crew (see previous paragraph).
9. The Fire Brigade’s fire report into the fire said the fire crew arrived at 23:10, having been called at 23:05. The fire was under control by 00:35. A smoke alarm had sounded in the room where the fire started. The exit route (the communal hall and stairs) was blocked by smoke. The cause of the fire was an electrical fault in a fridge freezer. The fire was on the first floor only (the block had four floors) and did not spread to the whole building. No other property was affected.
10. The Fire Brigade’s responses to Mr A’s complaint said:
• The station manager interviewed officers who attended the fire, which was controlled within 10 minutes. Ventilating the building took 45 minutes. A crew manager and fire fighter checked on Mr A and noted there was no smoke in his flat. They assessed the situation and decided it was safer for Mr A and his partner to stay in their flat, because the flat was smoke free, the corridor and lower floors were still smoky, Mr A’s partner said she had asthma and Mr A had mobility issues.
• Two firefighters checked on Mr A a second time and the situation was the same: there was no smoke in his flat.
• Had the fire not been put out, officers would have evacuated Mr A and his partner. But the fire was under control on a lower floor and so it was safer for them to stay in their flat.
• On leaving the building, fire officers checked the ambulance service, who confirmed all occupants of the building were fit and well (other than the occupants of the flat where the fire was.)
• The stay put policy is for the building owner to determine through a fire risk assessment.
• No-one commented that Mr A needed to live on the ground floor.
11. London Fire Brigade told me:
• It does not routinely hold information about disabled people in blocks of flats, but this can be made available if the person responsible for the building (here, the housing association) and the person agree.
• If Mr A needed to be evacuated during a fire, the Fire Brigade would carry out a risk assessment and he would either remain or be moved in the safest way possible.
• The landlord should have facilities to store materials that may create a hazard or risk in communal areas (such as scooters).
• Mr A’s landlord was responsible for siting the washing machine but the advice was to keep escape routes free from obstruction.
• The landlord was also responsible for smoke alarms.
12. Commenting on a draft of this statement, Mr A said his complaint against the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust) had been upheld. He provided me a copy of the Trust’s investigation report. The report considered only the actions of the ambulance crew and was critical of the ambulance crew’s failure to make a written record of its liaison with London Fire Brigade. This failing meant Mr A and his partner were missed or confused with people in other flats. The Trust’s report did not criticise London Fire Brigade’s actions. It recommended the Trust approach London Fire Brigade to agree joint procedures for investigating complaints.

Was there fault?

13. There was no fault in London Fire Brigade’s response to the fire in Mr A’s block. It acted in line with its established procedures. It contained the fire quickly and officers carried out a risk assessment having seen Mr A and his partner. I note Mr A does not agree his flat was smoke-free. But I have no grounds to criticise the approach of risk-assessing the situation and deciding it was safer for Mr A and his partner to remain in their flat rather than to evacuate them through communal areas which were still smoky.
14. I am satisfied that officers did not comment on the floor height Mr A should be living on.

Back to top

Final decision

15. There was no fault in London Fire Brigade’s response to a fire in the block of flats where Mr A, who is disabled, lives.
16. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman