Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about how the Council handled a food safety inspection. The courts are better placed to consider his complaint, and we could not achieve the outcome he wants. Also, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider his complaint about the Council’s response to his information requests.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of a food safety inspection of his business in May 2025. Mr Y says, because of this, his business’ food hygiene rating was not displayed for several months and the Council incorrectly marked his business as having “ceased trading”. He says this caused his business to lose income and caused reputational damage because his customers relied on the rating before making a booking.
2. Mr Y complains about the Council’s response to his Freedom of Information (FOI) request and subject access request (SAR), as well as its complaint handling.
3. He wants the Ombudsman to review the Council’s handling of these matters, as well as the impact of the Council’s actions on his business. Mr Y says the situation caused his business a substantial loss of income and reputational damage. He thinks the Council should provide a financial remedy of between £8,500 and £14,000.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

7. 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)
8. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by the complainant.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s food safety inspection because we could not achieve the outcome he wants. Mr Y complains the Council is liable for his loss of income and reputational damage to his business. We cannot make findings on claims of liability or order councils to pay compensation in the way the courts can. These are legal matters only insurers or the courts can decide. If Mr Y considers the Council negligent or liable for loss of income, it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to make a claim through the Council’s insurers and, if needed, pursue the claim at court. I have not seen anything to suggest it would not be reasonable for Mr Y to take the matter to court.
12. Part of Mr Y’s complaint is about the Council’s failure to fully respond to his information requests and its handling of these requests. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) 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. So, we will not investigate because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to refer the matter to the ICO.
13. We will also not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling alone when we are not looking at the substantive issue. Any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about how the Council handled a food safety inspection. The courts are better placed to consider his complaint, and we could not achieve the outcome he wants. Also, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider his complaint about the Council’s response to his information requests.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman