Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her report of mice droppings found inside a packet of crisps. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about the Council’s response to her report of mice droppings found inside a packet of crisps Ms X bought from a local shop. Ms X says the shop has not been held accountable and wants an apology and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X contacted the Council in April 2020 after she found mice droppings inside a packet of crisps she bought from a local shop. Ms X then sent the Council information from the manufacturer. It was confident the mice droppings did not occur while the product was under its control. Ms X complained to the Council and said she felt “left in the dark” about what it had found in the shop. Ms X said she felt nobody had been held accountable and wanted compensation for what had happened.
6. In its response to Ms X’s complaints the Council said:
• It had investigated but officers could not find any evidence of a mouse infestation in the shop.
• Some issues had been identified and so the shop’s food hygiene rating had been reduced from 5 (very good) to 3 (generally satisfactory).
• It had acted appropriately and could not accept Ms X’s request for compensation.
7. I understand how distressing the issue at the heart of Ms X’s complaint must have been. But the Council investigated and could not find any evidence of a mouse infestation. I have not seen any evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision. It is not therefore one the Ombudsman can question.
8. Ms X wants to be compensated for what happened. But the transaction which led to her complaint was between Ms X and the shop she purchased the crisps from. Even if the Council had been able to establish where the mouse droppings came from, it was not responsible for the issue which led to Ms X’s complaint. Any request for compensation therefore needs to be directed to the shop Ms X purchased the crisps from – not the Council. So, even if an investigation was appropriate, we could never achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman