Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Fire and Rescue Service's decision to force entry to his home following a welfare concern. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to pursue any claim for property damage through the appropriate legal route.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Fire and Rescue Service wrongly forced entry to his home following a request from the Ambulance Service. He says the decision-making, actions taken and complaint handling were flawed. He is concerned the Service provided inconsistent explanations about the reasons for entry, including later referring to flies and an odour. He says the incident damaged his property and caused distress and inconvenience to him and his wife.

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 and we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (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)
4. The law 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)
5. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) have statutory powers to enter premises by force where they reasonably believe an emergency may exist. The FRS explained it attended following a welfare concern raised by the Ambulance Service, considered there was a potential risk to life, checked for alternative means of access and jointly decided entry was necessary to establish whether anyone inside required assistance.
9. The Service investigated Mr X’s complaint and provided detailed explanations of the circumstances surrounding the incident. It acknowledged and corrected an error in its correspondence concerning the date of the incident and later provided further information about factors it said were considered at the scene. While the complaint responses were not entirely consistent, this does not provide sufficient evidence that the original operational decision was taken improperly or outside the Service's powers.
10. The available evidence shows the Service considered the information available at the time and acted because it believed there was a potential welfare emergency. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision to force entry.
11. Mr X also seeks compensation for damage to his property. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. One of these concerns claims about damage to property. We cannot determine liability claims for property damage. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts.
12. Consequently, any claim for damages, which Mr X considers the FRS to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. It is therefore reasonable for Mr X to pursue his claim through either the Council’s insurer or the courts. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Fire and Rescue Service's decision to force entry to justify our involvement. Any claim for compensation for property damage is more appropriately pursued through the courts or the relevant insurer.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman