Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his complaint of poor food safety and hygiene practices at a business in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take appropriate enforcement action in response to his complaints about poor food safety and hygiene practices at a business in its area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about poor food hygiene and food safety practices at a business in the Council’s area. The Council considered his complaint, the supporting information he provided and visited the business concerned. It also considered the report from a recent pest control inspection. It decided overall it was satisfied the business was safe, had good food safety procedures in place and no enforcement action was needed. It raised some minor maintenance issues with the business management, which it said it would follow up on its next scheduled inspection.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. We look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. The Council has appropriately investigated Mr X’s concerns. It considered relevant information and conducted a site visit before reaching its decision that no enforcement action was needed. Although I accept Mr X disagrees with this outcome, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman