Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a food hygiene inspection of the complaint’s business. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has been inconsistent in its reasons for downgrading the Food Standards Hygiene Rating for her business. She also complains the Council’s inspections followed an unfounded allegation from a disgruntled customer.
2. Miss X wants an independent inspection of her business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers.

3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X including the Council’s response to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.

7. Businesses with low ratings are given advice about how to improve. Business owners can request 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.
8. It is not our role to decide what food hygiene rating Miss 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.
9. Miss X says a disgruntled customer, who had not eaten at her restaurant, complained to the Council that her child had eaten contaminated food on Miss X’s restaurant. They said the child had to attend the accident and emergency department.
10. When it receives a report that a person has suffered an allergic reaction from food contamination it must investigate, regardless of where the report comes from.
11. From the information I have seen I am satisfied the Council considered the relevant evidence when it carried out an inspection in July 2024. Also, it clearly explained the reasons for the rating it gave. I appreciate Miss X disagrees with the inspector’s decision. However, I cannot question the professional judgement of the Council’s officers where they make decisions without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out an inspection of her business.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman