Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the advice given to the Responsible Person for fire safety for the building where Mr X lives. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Fire Service’s actions. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Service provided incorrect information in a Fire Risk Assessment and refuses to retract it.
2. He says this led the management agent of his leasehold property to decide to install additional fire doors and pass the costs on to residents.
3. Mr X wants the Ombudsman to require the Service to retract the email and help him and other residents stop the work and the associated costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr X and the Service.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. From the information I have seen, the Managing Agent for the leasehold property where Mr X lives is the Responsible Person on whom the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (as amended) (the Order) imposes various duties in relation to fire safety. In addition, the Fire Safety (England) regulations 2022 apply to the leasehold properties where Mr X lives.
8. The Service has confirmed it conducted a Fire Risk Assessment at the apartment complex where Mr X lives.
9. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Service confirmed at the time of its inspection that the Responsible Person had failed to adequately complete an assessment and any associated actions. It says its officer gave advice to help the Responsible Person by guiding them to assess the suitability of the fire doors.
10. The Service also confirms the person who carried out the assessment was suitably trained and had relevant qualifications specific to inspecting and evaluating fire safety within properties. The advice given was also subject to an informal peer review process with another qualified inspector. It was also reviewed by the Fire Safety Team, Fire Engineering Design Technician and Fire Safety Manager.
11. I understand Mr X disagrees with the advice given. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to adjudicate on disputed points of view. Our role is to consider the way in which a service has arrived at its decision.
12. From the information I have seen, the assessment was carried out and the professional advice given was subject to review by several suitably qualified persons. I have not seen sufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
13. Also, Mr X wants us to require the service to retract its advice and help him and other residents stop the management agent from installing extra fire doors and passing the costs onto residents. This is not something we can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the process the Service followed before issuing its guidance. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman