Oxford City Council Audit Report 10-12 July 2001
Friday 20 June 2003
10-12 July 2001
The Authority was selected for audit because no food sampling activity had been undertaken during 1999.The Authority was clearly focused on achieving compliance with food legislation using an educational approach,and was particularly strong in relation to business advice and food safety promotion. However, to provide an effective service,this approach needs to be balanced with a range of enforcement actions. Although the Authority had resumed food sampling in September 2000 and were generally inspecting food premises at the appropriate frequency,there were a number of significant deficiencies in relation to food hygiene enforcement action,internal management monitoring of this activity and record keeping.
The Authority's Strengths:
Advice to Business - The Authority was proactive in providing advice to businesses,and was particularly strong in the range and extent of food hygiene courses offered to local food handlers.
Food Safety Promotion - The Authority was carrying out a wide range of promotional activities aimed at raising awareness of food safety issues.
Key Areas for Improvement:
Three key areas for improvement were identified,all of which are inter-related,and all of which are important in providing an effective service.
Internal Monitoring - There was limited evidence of internal monitoring of enforcement activities,and this could undermine subsequent enforcement action.The development and implementation of both quantitative and qualitative internal monitoring procedures covering all areas of the Standard is key to ensuring an effective food law enforcement service.
Enforcement - Food hygiene enforcement was not being carried out in full accordance with Food Safety Act Codes of Practice in areas such as the service of improvement notices, voluntary food surrenders,and voluntary closures.This could undermine any subsequent prosecution action.
Records - There were significant deficiencies in the Authority's file and computer records.Records were missing in a number of areas and, where present,contained insufficient detail to provide an accurate premises history for subsequent inspections,to determine whether follow-up enforcement action was appropriate,and to enable effective internal monitoring of the quality of food enforcement work.
Related links
(pdf 154KB)