Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Miss X about the London Fire Brigade’s handling of her complaint concerning the conduct of firefighters and the subsequent complaints process. This is because we could not add to the investigation already carried out by the Brigade or achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that London Fire Brigade (LFB) failed to properly investigate her complaint about comments made by firefighters at an incident. She says it reached conclusions based on inaccurate assumptions about staff knowledge of her former personal relationship with a staff member. She also complains that the LFB failed to investigate related concerns about inappropriate behaviour by staff, directed her to the police instead, and delayed unreasonably in providing a complaint response.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. When we find fault, we can recommend remedies for significant personal injustice, or to prevent future injustice, caused by that fault. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) 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. Miss X disputes the LFB’s conclusions about what firefighters knew at the time of the incident and how they behaved towards her. Miss X says a firefighter demonstrated prior knowledge of her relationship and a shared location. The LFB’s position is that staff only knew what Miss X told them at the scene and that any comment made was inappropriate but made in jest.
7. There is no independent evidence, such as recordings, CCTV, or corroboration beyond the conflicting accounts, to confirm what was said or what staff knew at the time. The LFB says it interviewed those involved and consulted its Professional Standards Unit.
8. Even if it were possible to identify fault, the Ombudsman could not direct or influence internal employment outcomes. The LFB confirms it took appropriate managerial action but cannot share details, which is consistent with employment and data protection obligations. This is not something the Ombudsman would normally investigate where an organisation has followed its internal procedures.
9. It was also reasonable for the LFB to distinguish between issues it could consider as an employer and matters relating to personal safety or alleged criminal conduct, which fall to the police. The Ombudsman would not normally find fault simply because an authority signposted the police for matters outside its remit, provided it still considered internal conduct issues, which the LFB says it did.
10. Miss X is unhappy with the complaint handling. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling in isolation where we are unable to investigate the substantive matter or achieve a different outcome.
11. We will not investigate this complaint because we could not add to the investigation already carried out or achieve a worthwhile outcome by continuing to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the London Fire Brigade or achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman