Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Fire Brigade’s visit to Mr X’s shop, including his report of damage. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Insurers or the courts are better placed to decide whether Mr X is owed any damages.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that London Fire Brigade officers arrived without notice, searched his shop, and demanded access to restricted areas even though the premises were not marked as a fire‑risk site. He says the officers caused damage, removed documents, and acted outside standard procedure.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
• (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not take a second look at a decision to judge if it was wrong. We look at the process an organisation used to make its decision. If it followed the correct steps, we cannot question the outcome, even if the complainant disagrees.
7. The Brigade has apologised for giving Mr X wrong information when he first phoned to check the visit. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
8. The evidence shows the Brigade carried out a routine Fire Safety Check under its legal powers. It logged the visit in advance, introduced itself to staff, and received permission to inspect the premises. The officer denies causing any damage, and we have no independent evidence to resolve this factual dispute.
9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Fire Brigade’s visit to the business premises. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
10. Mr X has applied for compensation for damage to his property, and the Council’s General Counsel team will review the evidence. The Ombudsman cannot decide who caused the damage or whether compensation is due. These are legal matters better decided by insurers or the courts and so we will not investigate it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Insurers or the courts are better placed to decide if Mr X is owed damages.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman