Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about actions taken by the Council under food hygiene legislation. It is unlikely he would find fault by the Council and it was a court that made the order that affected the complainant’s food business.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, complained to us as the owner of a food company, Company X. He says Company X had to cease trading as a result of harassment and discrimination by the Council’s Environmental Health officers. He says unlawful actions by the Council has led to financial losses of about £250,000.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the commencement or conduct of court proceedings. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these.
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault; or
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and background information provided by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council has a duty to inspect food businesses within its area ensure they are complying with the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013.
8. The Council inspected Company X on several occasions. It became so concerned about food safety issues it served a hygiene emergency prohibition notice on Company X under the Regulations.
9. The Council then successfully applied to a magistrates’ court for a hygiene emergency prohibition order. Following this, Company X affectively stopped trading.

Analysis

10. There was no fault in the Council carrying out its legal duty to ensure food safety by inspecting Company X’s premises and issuing a hygiene emergency prohibition notice.
11. We cannot look at the court proceedings which I consider began with the service of the hygiene emergency prohibition notice. In any case, Mr X could have raised any issues when the magistrates’ court considered the Council’s request for a hygiene emergency prohibition order.
12. Further, the Regulations provide for a right of appeal to the Crown Court against a magistrates’ court’s decision to make a hygiene emergency prohibition order.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Further, the impact on Company X arose from a decision of a magistrates’ court which Mr B had a right of appeal against in the Crown Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman