Summary: There was no fault in the way London Fire Brigade considered evidence submitted by the complainant, that the fire risk assessment for his building was flawed, or in its decision no further action was required. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr D.
2. Mr D complains London Fire Brigade (LFB) has not acted upon evidence he has provided, which shows inaccuracies and fabrications in the fire risk assessment completed for his building. Mr D says this has left him afraid for his safety and that of other residents, and believes LFB should inspect the building and take enforcement action against its management.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and LFB as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

6. The 2005 Order makes it mandatory for the responsible person of a commercial premises (which includes residential properties) to complete a fire risk assessment of the building. The responsible person will typically be the owner or manager of the property.
7. Fire and rescue authorities are responsible for enforcing the Order in their area. They do not generally collect completed fire risk assessments, but will review them during routine fire safety inspections, or as part of the investigation of a fire.
8. Fire and rescue authorities have enforcement powers in the event of non-compliance with the Order. They may issue an enforcement notice, requiring the responsible person to remedy compliance failures within a certain period, or a prohibition order, which immediately prevents or restricts the use of a property presenting a serious risk of harm. A fire and rescue authority also has the power to prosecute the owner or manager of a property for breaches of the order.

Mr D’s complaint

9. Mr D lives in a block of flats. In December 2023 and January 2024 the responsible person for the block completed a fire risk assessment.
10. In January 2025 Mr D contacted LFB. He said he had reviewed the risk assessment and believed it contained inaccuracies, and LFB to carry out its own evaluation of it.
11. In an exchange of emails over the following days, LFB explained it would not review a risk assessment unless it had serious concerns about a building, warranting an inspection. Mr D responded to say his submission should raise such concerns, and insisted LFB should use its enforcement powers because of the deficiencies he considered were in the assessment.
12. LFB replied:
13. “[We] conduct our premises audits in line with our risk based intervention program. And audit all premises periodically according to that strategy. We may also attend premises in the event of a fire. Or, if we are made aware of risks at a premises that pose a significant and imminent risk of death or serious injury in the event of a fire. [Although] there may be some inaccuracies as you suggest. There is nothing within the [fire risk assessment] that I deem to be such significant risk or concern that would warrant any further action by us or would warrant an audit at this stage.”
14. Mr D then submitted a stage 1 complaint. He alleged LFB had not properly read his submissions and accused it of dishonesty, and listed the deficiencies in the risk assessment he said his review had identified. Mr D highlighted a recent case where a different fire authority had successfully prosecuted a responsible person in what he considered similar circumstances, and said LFB should learn from this example.
15. LFB responded in March. It reiterated it did not consider there was evidence to justify an audit or other action, and added its two previous audits of Mr D’s building had produced “broadly compliant outcomes”. LFB assured Mr D it had properly reviewed the information he had submitted, but said it had explained why it did not consider an audit was necessary. It explained it was required to manage its resources carefully.
16. Mr D submitted a stage 2 complaint on the same day, repeating his previous concerns, which he said LFB had not addressed. In June, LFB responded, also reiterating its decision. Mr D then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

17. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way authorities make their decisions. We may criticise an authority if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information when making a decision, or acted with undue delay. We call this ‘fault’, and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the authority in question to address this.
18. However, we do not provide a right of appeal against an authority’s decision, or make our own decision on the authority’s behalf. If an authority has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if a complainant disagrees with its decision. We cannot uphold a complaint simply because a person believes an authority should have done something different.
19. In this case, I acknowledge Mr D has strong feelings about the fire risk assessment, and what he considers LFB should be doing about it. But I do not agree the fact LFB has drawn a different conclusion is evidence it has not properly considered his evidence. There is no reason to believe it has failed to understand Mr D’s concerns, or its own powers, as Mr D asserts.
20. Rather, applying its professional judgement, LFB has decided it is generally satisfied with the fire risk assessment, even accepting Mr D’s reservations, and that it does not need to take any action about it. This is a decision LFB is entitled to make.
21. Mr D is equally entitled to disagree with LFB’s view. But this is not evidence of fault and does not give me grounds to uphold his complaint.

Back to top

Decision

22. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman