Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a food safety inspection the Council carried out after Mr X reported concerns. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant personal injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about a food safety inspection the Council carried out at a hostel after he raised concerns. Mr X is unhappy with the outcome of the inspection. He wants the officers involved dismissed and for the premises inspected to lose its licence.

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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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 Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. In January 2020, Mr X contacted the Council about food hygiene standards in a local hostel. Mr X’s concerns included the way refrigerated food was stored and a lack of “sneeze guards” on refrigerators. Mr X was also concerned the hostel was using food after its expiry date, about rodent infestations, and issues with fire extinguishers. He also referred to alcohol being sold to minors. The Council inspected but Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s actions. In its responses to Mr X’s complaints the Council said:
• It issued the premises with a one out of five-rating meaning major improvement was necessary. The changes required were put in writing.
• If issues Mr X raised were not taking place when the Council inspected, it could not assess them.
• Sneeze guards were recommended as good practice but were not a legal requirement. This meant the Council could not enforce them.
• The Council makes referrals to the fire brigade, but it does not enforce fire safety.
• If Mr X has concerns about underage drinking, he could contact trading standards.
• A follow up visit had taken place. The business had addressed the issues the Council had raised.

Assessment

6. We will not investigate a council’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in how it was reached. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body for people who simply disagree with a council’s decision. In deciding whether to investigate, we also need to consider what impact the alleged fault has had on the person complaining. Unless it has caused the complainant significant personal injustice, we will not normally investigate.
7. Mr X was clearly concerned about food safety issues at the hostel. The Council acted on Mr X’s concerns and inspected the premises. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) used their professional judgment to identify areas where improvements were needed. The Council communicated these to the business and the outcome of the inspection is reflected in the rating the Council issued. I have not seen any evidence of fault in how the EHO acted and so we cannot question their decisions.
8. The Council then arranged for a follow up visit to check progress had been made. It was satisfied the business had addressed the Council’s areas of concern. It has explained its decision to Mr X. While he is clearly unhappy with the Council’s response, that is not evidence of fault. I have not seen any evidence which suggests the Council’s actions were affected by flawed decision making. There is also not enough evidence the matter complained about has personally affected Mr X. We also have no powers to dismiss council officers or to close the hostel. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant personal injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman