Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council carried out fire risk assessments on the building where the complainant’s home is located. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council completed the assessments. Nor is further investigation likely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council failed to contact departments such as building control or the major works team about the fire risk assessment for the building where he has his home. He says the Council instead relied on information from its fire safety team only when deciding not to alter a fire risk assessment (FRA).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council that the fire assessment team refused to alter the FRA which says the external wall insulation on the building which contains his flat is low risk. He says he received two conflicting letters. Letter A stating the external wall insulation is unlikely to be removed and letter B stating it may be removed during the next major works on the building.
6. The Council says letter A shows the FRA states “Long term the external wall insulation should be removed, this is deemed to be low risk and should be carried out at the next major works.” However, as no major works are scheduled it advised Mr X the cladding was unlikely to be removed.
7. Mr X told the Council he considered the information in the letter ambiguous. The Council sent letter B to Mr X. It confirms there are no major works planned and the current cladding falls within the tolerance levels set by the Government. But because of his complaint it has added a ‘placeholder’. This allows for future replacement of the cladding should Government guidance change.
8. The Government issued new guidance. This says only buildings above seven storeys will be subject to an external wall review. Therefore, the cladding on the building where Mr X’s flat is located will be subject to an evaluation and review using a priority-based approach.
9. The Council confirms it has followed all requirements from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and Government guidance on fire safety and building regulations.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out fire risk assessments on the building where Mr X’s home is located. Nor do we consider that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman