The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to Mr B’s correspondence about a food safety issue. This is because Mr B has not suffered a significant injustice which would justify an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council did not respond to his correspondence about a food safety issue. Mr B says this meant he did not know whether the Council would investigate his concerns, so he had to put in a complaint. Mr B says the Council’s response to his complaint was evasive and inadequate. Mr B would like the Council to pay him compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In response to Mr B’s complaint, the Council accepted it did not respond to some of Mr B’s correspondence. The Council apologised to Mr B for this.
The Council added that its environmental health department investigated Mr B’s concerns about the food company.
The Council said there was no direct food safety issue the Council could deal with. This was because the company has no manufacturing sites within the Council’s area. Also, the company has a Primary Authority partnership with a different local authority, which deals with company policies and procedures.
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint.
The Council has accepted it did not respond to all of Mr B’s correspondence and has apologised for this. This was a suitable response from the Council. Mr B says the Council has not identified all his contacts which did not receive a response. But, I find Mr B has not suffered a significant injustice which would justify an investigation or the pursuit of a financial remedy by the Ombudsman.
The Council has also responded to Mr B’s food safety concerns and has explained why it will not be taking further action. The Council has taken relevant factors into account. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Final decision
For the above reasons, we will not investigate Mr B’s complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman