London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (23 010 709)

Category : Planning > Planning applications

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 15 Nov 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the London Fire Commissioner (LFC) has refused to pursue the complainant’s concerns about amendments to a planning application for a dry riser inlet. There is not enough evidence of fault by the LFC causing the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

  1. Mr X says the London Fire Commissioner (LFC) has refused to investigate why the design/position of proposed dry riser inlets for his building was changed during the determination of a planning application for the works.
  2. Mr X says the amended position is less safe for firefighters than the original design.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We can 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. So, we do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
  • there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
  • any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. I appreciate Mr X is concerned about the changed design of the dry riser inlets and wants answers to his associated questions.
  2. But the local fire crew has inspected the site and has no concerns with what has been installed. This is a professional judgement it was entitled to reach, even if Mr X disagrees with it.
  3. In addition, the LFC was not the applicant for the proposed works, nor was it responsible for approving the planning application.
  4. In light of the above, there is not enough evidence to conclude that fault by the LFC has caused Mr X a significant personal injustice, so we will not pursue the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings