Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a food hygiene rating. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Gave his business an unfair food hygiene rating,
• Provided documentation for the food hygiene rating late,
• Mistakenly shared another businesses information with him,
• Failed to respond fully to his freedom of information request, and,
• Did not manage his complaint effectively.

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; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
  (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)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Councils may inspect food premises and give them a rating based on food hygiene standards, structural condition and management performance. Ratings range from five for very good premises to zero for those that require urgent improvement. Business Owners should be notified of their rating within 14 days of the inspection. If they disagree with the rating business owners can appeal.
9. Mr X’s business was inspected by the Council and awarded a food hygiene rating of two. Mr X complains the Council’s inspection was incomplete and that they awarded him an unfair food hygiene rating. He appealed to the Council. The appeal upheld the food hygiene rating of two.
10. I have reviewed the Council’s inspection records and have found them to be complete, with clear justification for the scores given and appropriate evidence obtained during the inspection. The inspection was also completed by a suitably qualified environmental health officer. I am satisfied there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council completed the inspection and reached its decision.
11. I have also considered the Council’s appeal process. Here, the Council arranged for an independent review of the food hygiene rating by a suitably qualified environmental health officer. The independent reviewer considered all the relevant documents and decided to uphold the food hygiene rating of two.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
13. While we recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, we could not find fault with the decision itself as there is no fault in the process followed or the way the Council reached its decision.
14. Mr X also complains the Council did not provide him with all the documentation following for the food hygiene inspection within the required 14-day timeframe.
15. Records showed the Council inspected the business in March 2025, and the records were not fully updated until April 2025. However, the records showed Mr X wanted the environmental health officer to get records from a member of staff who was away, which may have contributed to the delay. The Council also apologised to Mr X for the delay in April 2025.
16. While I appreciate Mr X is unhappy there was a delay in the documentation being issued, we will not investigate this part of his complaint because the injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The food hygiene documentation was issued within 14-days from the point the Council officer was able to speak to Mr X’s staff member and Mr X was then able to bring his appeal.
17. Mr X also complains the Council sent him information about another business in error. The Council have confirmed the correct process was followed following this data breach, including reporting the incident to the Information Commissioner. I recognise Mr X is unhappy at the Council’s response, but we will not investigate as the injustice caused to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
18. Part of Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s failure to fully respond to his information requests. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data and respond to requests for information. In the absence of a wider complaint within our remit, there is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.
19. We will also not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not looking at the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman