Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about forced entry to her home by the London Fire Brigade. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to take court action for compensation damage to her property. It is unlikely investigation by us would reach a clearer view or achieve significantly more on other points.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the London Fire Brigade (LFB) forced entry into her home unnecessarily, causing damage to her property and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The Act says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and London Fire Brigade.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X lives in a flat. Firefighters came to the building because of an emergency call about flooding in one flats. LFB says officers considered the water might be coming from Ms X’s flat (which transpired to be the case), worried about the risk of the water causing electrical problems and fire and feared Ms X might be incapacitated inside. Officers entered Ms X’s flat by breaking the door while she was asleep inside.
8. The LFB and Ms X disagree about whether officers properly tried to alert Ms X so she could have wakened and let them in without damage and about whether officers properly considered alternative routes of entry to breaking the door. Ms X also disputes the accuracy of some of LFB’s account of the incident.
9. Ms X wants LFB to compensate her for her financial loss dealing with repairs. The courts can consider this, so the restriction in paragraph 3 applies. If LFB does not respond to Ms X’s compensation claim, Ms X can take court action. This point concerns LFB’s legal rights and responsibilities, with arguments about what LFB could legally do in the circumstances and whether it is liable for the cost of the damage. These matters are not necessarily straightforward legally. They are more appropriately for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide. There might be a cost implication of taking court action, but that in itself does not mean the Ombudsman should investigate. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect Ms X to go to court for a decision on this point.
10. Ms X also wants LFB to pay her for the trauma, inconvenience and fear she says she experienced and to change its procedures and staff training. It is unlikely we could reach a clearer view of the disputed accounts of the events and explanations. So it is unlikely any investigation by us would be able to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that LFB was at fault in the circumstances.
11. Regarding officers’ conduct once inside the flat, LFB has apologised for any distress and reminded officers of the impact forced entry can have on residents. It is unlikely any investigation by us would achieve significantly more. So it would be disproportionate for us to investigate to try to establish whether there was fault on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. It is reasonable for her to pursue her claim for damages through the courts. Investigation by us is unlikely to reach a clearer view on whether there was fault by LFB causing Ms X distress and inconvenience. It is also unlikely we could achieve significantly more on the point about officers’ treatment of Ms X inside the property.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman