Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to a food safety issue. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should not have given a food manufacturer prior warning of an inspection. He wants the Council to change its procedures.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate food manufacturers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the report by the manufacturer and the Food Law code of practice. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mr X complained to the Council after he found some glass, from a sauce jar, in his mouth while eating. In response the Council inspected the factory and the manufacturer commissioned a report. The tests included examining the glass under an electron microscope and doing chemical analysis. The report concluded the product was contaminated after the production process. The report noted there was no damage to the jar and no trace of saliva was found on the glass fragment. Mr X says this is because the glass was thoroughly washed before he sent it to the manufacturer.
6. Mr X complained the Council had given the firm advance warning of the visit. In response the Council explained that the Food Law code of practice recommends unannounced visits but recognises that it may be appropriate to give notice. In this case the Council decided to give notice due to the size and complexity of the manufacturing operation. It explained to Mr X that the reports had shown the glass fragment had not been manufactured by the firm.
7. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s response and says he has lost faith in organisations. He wants the Council to change its procedures. He says firms will not cut corners, as they normally would, if they know they are to be inspected. He suggests the glass got into the jar from another broken bottle.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council acted appropriately by contacting the manufacturer after Mr X reported what had happened during his meal. It gave notice to the manufacturer of the visit which is permitted under the code of practice and it explained to Mr X why it was appropriate to do so in this case. The Council acted in accordance with the code of practice so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. In addition, the outcome of the investigation rested on detailed examinations and tests of the glass fragment. These tests could not have been done without prior warning and the outcome would have been the same regardless of whether advance notice was given.
10. I cannot comment on where or how the glass got into the jar because I have no power to investigate the manufacturer. If Mr X remains of the view that the manufacturer is responsible for the incident then he will need to take action against the manufacturer.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman