Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded after the complainant reported that some tea had made her son ill. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the way the Council responded after she reported that a tea had made her son sick.

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 the actions of private firms. (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 comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

What happened

5. Ms X ordered two teas on 14 December, one was strawberry flavoured. As soon as her son tasted the strawberry tea he was violently sick. A few minutes later Ms X contacted the company that had made the tea. Ms X states the employee (Ms B) stated a staff member had washed the tea bags in washing-up liquid. Ms X says Ms B said the tea had also made her ill.
6. On the same day Ms X sent an email and called the Council. She was unable to speak to anyone. An officer started dealing with her report on 15 December. Ms X was unaware of this until she spoke to the tea provider on 18 December. The manager explained to Ms X that its test results had been inconclusive. He arranged a refund and said the Council was looking into what happened.
7. Ms X complained to the Council because, despite several attempts, she had been unable to speak to anyone. The Council responded on 23 December. It said the firm was inspected in early December and had a good hygiene rating. It said the firm denied the tea bag had been contaminated and denied this was reported by Ms B. It explained that 37 customers had bought tea that day and nobody had reported any problems. The Council said it was not its usual policy to take samples from an uncontrolled environment but would collect the tea from Ms X if she wished. The Council collected the tea on 29 December.
8. The Council sent a further response in early January. It said its tests had found no evidence of washing-up liquid. It explained that both the teas had been made from the same tea base and only one had been reported as contaminated. It said the firm had checked the syrup and the tea base and found no problems. The firm watched the CCTV for the day of the incident and the day before and there was no evidence of staff not following the correct washing-up procedure. The Council explained that washing-up liquid is not toxic and there was inconclusive evidence the tea was contaminated. It said it appeared to be an isolated incident and it was not proposing to take any further action. But, it apologised for the problems Ms X had in getting through to the service and said it would review the process.
9. Ms X is dissatisfied with the response. She says the Council delayed dealing with her report which meant the sample had degraded by the time it was collected. She says the Council did not visit the firm and did not check if there was an audio recording. She questions whether the Council did start work on her report on 15 December. Ms X wants compensation for the stress she has been caused. Ms X says her GP has confirmed that her son has not suffered any harm.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council delayed acknowledging the report but it did not delay dealing with it. The officer started work on the report on 15 December and by 18 December had been in contact with the firm. The Council had reached a preliminary finding on 23 December which it explained to Ms X. It then provided a further report after it tested the sample. The Council decided not to take further action because the body of evidence did not suggest this was anything more than an isolated incident. The evidence the Council considered includes Ms X’s report, the response from the firm, the previous inspection, and the test. The Council’s policy is to take an approach which is proportionate to the incident. This includes considering the impact of the incident and what is known about the firm. The Council is not required to test every product, visit every firm, or carry out a full investigation of every report.
11. The Council’s response to Ms X was delayed and it has apologised. But, there is no obvious lack in its response about the tea. It does not usually test samples from an uncontrolled environment and it was aware from other evidence that no other problems with the tea had been found. In addition, even if Ms B had made the comments reported by Ms X, that does not alter the fact that no evidence of a contaminant was found and no other customer reported a problem. There is no reason to doubt the Council’s finding that, even after a couple of weeks, evidence of the washing-up liquid would have been found. And there is no evidence that ingesting a small amount of detergent would cause instant vomiting.
12. Ms X questions whether the Council did start dealing with her report on 15 December. But, the firm’s reference to the Council’s involvement during the conversation on 18 December supports the Council’s assertion. Ms X also says the Council did not visit or ask if the CCTV had sound. The Council doubts there would have been sound and, in relation to a visit, the premises were inspected in early December so it is not clear what a further visit would have shown.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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