Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fire safety. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Fire Authority failed to properly investigate fire safety concerns at her home and accepted certificates from unlicensed contractors. She said she now lives in fear for her safety and in emotional distress. She would like an apology, and for the Fire Authority to carry out an urgent re-inspection.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Authority’s complaint responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X complained the Authority did not properly investigate fire safety concerns at her home. She said the fire escape route door was locked and safety certificates for the property had been provided by unlicensed contractors.
6. In its complaint response, the Authority said it had carried out a visit to Miss X’s property and confirmed the fire alarm system was properly fitted, and the fire escape route was clear. It also confirmed that paperwork for the property was appropriate and confirmed that suitable works had been carried out. It said fire safety measures at the property were in place and key risks had been appropriately addressed.
7. Miss X made a further complaint to the Authority about her fire safety concerns. The Authority made a second visit to the property and confirmed the fire escape route was free and available. It also said it had provided advice to the Responsible Person about evacuation routes and signage. The Authority advised Miss X to follow up with the Responsible Person about the evacuation route.
8. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
9. The Authority considered the concerns shared by Miss X and carried out assessments on site. We will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Authority made its decision to justify us investigating.
10. Miss X also complained the Authority did not investigate her further complaints about the matter. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman