The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s report of food poisoning from business premises in its area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has failed in its duty to protect the public. He says it failed to follow the correct procedures and should request a response from the business who he says caused him to suffer food poisoning. He seeks compensation for the impact caused to his health and for time lost to injury.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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) 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X contacted the Council three months after he suffered a severe bout of food poisoning which he attributed to business premises whose food he had eaten.
The Council explained to Mr X that because of the time lapse there would be no food to sample and because no faecal sample had been taken at the time, it would not be able to conclude the premises caused his illness. It did not uphold his complaint that its food safety department had failed to fulfil its statutory duties in investigating his concerns.
It is not our role to act as a point of appeal and review the merits of decisions taken by councils. We cannot question their decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman