Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s response to his concerns regarding a locked fire door at a bank whose premises he visits. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has not properly addressed his concerns about the locking of a fire door at a bank he visits. He is not satisfied with the responses he has received and believes the relevant legislation is not being followed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B, including the responses he received to his complaint. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Concerned about a locked exit at the premises of a bank he uses, Mr B sought a response to his concerns and received a reply from the Council’s Fire Safety Adviser.
5. The officer told Mr B that he had visited the premises and spoken to senior management at the branch. He said he had satisfied himself that adequate safety arrangements were in place to manage an emergency situation should it arise and that the building and emergency procedures satisfied the requirements of the relevant fire safety legislation, the Regulatory Reform Order (Fire Safety) 2005.
6. Dissatisfied with the response, and quoting only part of a section of the Order to support his view that the legislation had not been correctly followed, Mr B continued to pursue his complaint.
7. The Fire Group Commander wrote to Mr B to confirm the original response he had received. He told Mr B that due to the nature of the bank’s business, it had a process that takes place each day and requires, for a very short time, the whole of the premises to be secure. The bank manager had provided satisfactory evidence to show what would happen in an emergency during this short time frame and fire officers are satisfied staff and customers are not being put at risk.
8. The Commander referred Mr B to the full text of the relevant section from the Order. At section 14(2), this reads: “The following requirements must be complied with in respect of premises where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons- (f)emergency doors must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency”. He highlighted reference to “where necessary” and concluded the premises were complying with the legislation and would not discuss the specifics of the arrangements due to security issues.

Assessment

9. In coming to his view that the premises are in breach of the Regulatory Reform Order, Mr B has not looked at the full text of the relevant section. Fire officers have visited and satisfied themselves of the arrangements in place and I see no evidence of fault by the Council or grounds on which to base an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman