Food Safety Enforcement Policy

[Decision making - authorisations | Food hygiene inspections | Food hygiene inspection reports | Enforcement options | Detention and seizure |  Withdrawal of licences and approvals | Human Rights Act 1998 | Internal appeals | Revisits

General statement of Policy

This enforcement policy is supplementary to the departmental enforcement policy.

All authorised officers must abide by these policies when making enforcement decisions.

It is this Council’s policy to ensure that food which is intended for human consumption is produced, stored, distributed, handled and consumed within this district in such a way that any risk to the health or safety of the consumer is minimised as far as is reasonably practicable.

In deciding on an appropriate course of action Officers must give due consideration to the statutory codes of practice issued under section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990, LACOTS/Food Standards Agency guidance, and Industry Guides to Compliance.

Any departure from the Policy must be exceptional, capable of justification and be fully considered by relevant senior officers before the decision is taken, unless it is considered there is a significant risk to the public in delaying the decision.

Decision making — Authorisations

The following Officer is empowered to authorise prosecutions and formal cautions:-

The Head of Environment and Health

Before formal action of any nature is taken the matter must be discussed with the Principal Environmental Health Officer (Commercial), unless it is considered that there is a significant risk to the public in delaying the decision.

All officers must act within the limits of their authorisation under the Food Safety Act 1990 as detailed in the annexe to the authorisation procedure.

[top of page]

Food Hygiene Inspections

Food hygiene inspections will be carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Food Safety Act 1990 code of Practice No. 9 and with due regard to all relevant advice issued by LACOTS/Food Standards Agency.

The aim is to ensure that all inspections are carried out to a uniform standard and that action taken by Officers following an inspection is consistent within the Authority.

The inspection programme is a five-year cycle, which started in 1993.

All food businesses are risk rated and priority is given to high-risk premises.

Inspection frequencies are dictated by risk rating and the programme involves inspection of premises at these frequencies.

Premises risk ratings are reassessed following a programmed inspection.

A management system has been implemented which prescribes arrangements for inspection quality and consistency monitoring.

[top of page]

Food Hygiene Inspection Reports

Inspection reports must be issued following all programmed inspections. This applies even where at the time of inspection, the premises are found to be satisfactory.

Any written documentation issued or sent to proprietors must:-

Contain all the information necessary to understand what work is required and why it is necessary.

Indicate the regulations contravened and measures which will enable compliance with the legal requirements; and

Clearly indicate any recommendations of good hygiene practice, for example under an appropriate heading, to show that they are not a legal requirement.

Note: The need to clearly differentiate between legal requirements and matters which are recommended as good hygiene practice, should be recognised in all enforcement action, even if only giving verbal advice.

[top of page]

Enforcement Options

Having considered all relevant information and evidence, the choices for action are:-

to take no action;

to take informal action;

to use statutory Notices;

to detain or seize food;

to use formal cautions;

to prosecute; or

to suspend /revoke or refuse to renew a licence or approval.

The criteria to be considered when selecting the correct enforcement option are mostly detailed in the departmental enforcement policy, apart from the detention and seizure of food and actions regarding licences and approvals. Guidance on these actions is given below.

Where enforcement action is, or is believed to be, inconsistent with that adopted by other authorities or contrary to LACOTS/Food Standards Agency advice this action will be discussed at the local food liaison group. If a reasonable, consensus group view cannot be achieved, or the issue appears to be of national significance, or it is felt existing guidance has not adequately taken account of the legal provisions, case law, relevant research or other evidence, the liaison group should ask LACOTS/FSA to consider the issue to ensure consistent enforcement.

[top of page]

Detention and Seizure

Where food is discovered during an inspection or complaint investigation that is suspected of not complying with food safety requirements it must be decided whether it is necessary to seize or detain the food.

Officers must be aware of the limits of their authorisation.

The decision to seize food must only be taken after consultation with the Principle EHO (commercial) or higher management.

Officers must consider the financial implications of detaining/seizing food for both the authority and the food business. Compensation may be payable to the owner of the food if a detention of food notice is withdrawn or a JP refuses to condemn seized food.

Detention and seizures must be conducted in accordance with code of practice 4.

Withdrawal of Licences and Approvals

The decision to withdraw a licence or revoke an approval for a food business is likely to effectively close that business. As such the criteria for withdrawal of licences/approvals are the same as those for Emergency Prohibition.

An adequate level of evidence required to successfully defend an appeal must be gathered before withdrawal is considered.

Licences and approvals may only be withdrawn by the lead officer for food safety in consultation with the Head of Environment and Health and Principal Environmental Health Officer (commercial).

[top of page]

Human Rights Act 1998

Before instigating a prosecution or withdrawing an approval or licence the human rights implications of that action must be considered. A human rights act form is included in the prosecution procedure and must be completed in these cases.

Internal Appeals

Food business proprietors must be given the chance to discuss the requirements of Improvement Notices and informal notices, particularly where the proprietor indicates that the requirements are inconsistent with those demanded by other food authorities.

Should a proprietor not be satisfied with the officer’s discussion of the requirements the matter should be referred to the Health Manager.

[top of page]

Revisits

Where a food business does not comply with legal requirements a revisit will be scheduled to ensure that any such deficiencies are remedied within the time scale agreed with the proprietor.

Where possible the revisit will be conducted by the Officer who originally inspected the business

If legal requirements have not been met at the time of the revisit the choice of enforcement option will need to be reviewed.

[top of page]