Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a food hygiene inspection at Mr X’s business. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating, and we cannot achieve the outcomes that Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the result from a food hygiene inspection by the Council.
2. Mr X said the Council officer who carried out the inspection racially targeted him, and he linked low ratings by an officer, to pay rises and promotions for those officers. Mr X also disputed the accuracy of the report the Council produced.
3. Mr X said this has caused him distress and affected the sale of the business.
4. Mr X wants the Council to award him compensation, reinspect several businesses nearby and commission inspectors from another council to carry these out.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Food Hygiene Rating Schemes are run in partnership by local authorities and the Food Standards Agency (FSA). 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.
9. Businesses with low ratings are given advice about how to improve. Business owners can seek a re-inspection and revised rating when improvements have been made, and they also have the right to appeal. Businesses do not have to display the food hygiene rating but the information is available to the public through the FSA website.
10. When the Council inspected Mr X’s business, it told him significant improvements were needed and awarded the business a low rating.
11. The report the Council sent to Mr X following the inspection also set out, in detail, the improvements the inspector considered necessary and the reasons for the low rating.
12. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council considered Mr X’s appeal and had different officers review all the information. There was no change to the rating after the appeal.
13. The Council then considered Mr X’s complaint through its two-stage complaints procedure.
14. It is not our role to decide what food hygiene rating Mr X’s business should have had; that was the Council’s responsibility. Our role is to assess whether the Council made its decision properly. We cannot question a decision the Council has made if it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence.
15. I appreciate that Mr X disagrees with the rating his business was given. However, there is not enough evidence of fault with the processes the Council followed to justify our investigation.
16. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcomes that Mr X seeks. We cannot award Mr X compensation for defamation; only the court can do this. We also cannot order the Council to commission food hygiene inspectors from other councils. How the Council chooses to use its resources is at its discretion.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation, and we cannot achieve the outcomes that he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman