Havering

Monday 3 March 2003

18 - 21 June 2002

Havering is the second largest Borough in Greater London with a population of around 230,000 and an area of 40 square miles, half of which is green belt.

The north and east of the Borough are bordered by the Essex countryside, to the south by a three mile river Thames frontage and to the west by the neighboroughing Boroughs of Redbridge, and Barking & Dagenham.

The main population areas within the Borough are the towns of Romford, Hornchurch and Upminster.

Food hygiene and food standards enforcement was carried out by officers of the Environmental Health Service and feeding stuffs enforcement was carried out by the Trading Standards and Registration Service.

The Council Offices were open from 09:00 to 17:00 Monday to Friday. The Authority also operated an emergency service outside of normal working hours.

In addition to food law enforcement, the food team officers within Environmental Health Services were also responsible for the enforcement of health and safety legislation. The officers involved in
the enforcement of feeding stuffs legislation were also responsible for enforcing the full range of trading standards legislation.

The Authority’s Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive (OCD) monitoring returns made to the Agency for the 4 quarters making up 2000/2001 indicated that the Authority was responsible for enforcing food hygiene in 1,739 premises and food standards legislation in 1,362 premises.

These food businesses were predominantly within the catering (58%) and retail (38%) sectors.

Executive Summary

The audit highlighted a number of key management and operational deficiencies. Little internal monitoring took place, which did not allow the Authority to make sufficient checks and take corrective measures to ensure that the Authority was achieving an effective level of service.

More generally, the poor quality of information found on files and other records prevented a full assessment of the Authority’s performance in most areas of the Standard.

However, a new computer database system was being installed at the time of the audit providing a foundation on which internal monitoring and better recording of information could be based.

There were significant problems with formal enforcement actions and concerns about the Authority’s approach to approval of premises under product specific legislation. Minimum inspection frequencies for both food hygiene and food standards were not being achieved, with over 25 percent of high risk food hygiene inspections overdue at the time of the
audit.

The findings of this audit reflect to a large extent the findings of an inter authority audit carried out in June 2000.

Key Areas for Improvement:

Internal Monitoring

There has been no effective internal monitoring which has clearly had an impact on areas of enforcement activity and this must be addressed as a matter of urgency. The implementation of
both qualitative and quantitative internal monitoring procedures covering all areas of the Standard is key to ensuring an effective food law enforcement service.

Follow up Action

Although in many cases investigations had been carried out, it was clear that the appropriate follow up action was not always being taken. There was little evidence of any revisits or
appropriate enforcement action in relation to inspections, complaints, sampling and food poisoning outbreaks. This was contrary to the Authorities own policies and procedures.

Approved Premises

There was clear evidence of premises trading illegally without any enforcement action being taken. Approval documents were missing from files and other key information had not
been recorded, giving cause for concern about the Authority’s approach to the enforcement of the product specific hygiene regulations.

Enforcement Action

There were significant problems with enforcement in relation to improvement notices and voluntary closures which were not being carried out in accordance with Food Safety Act Codes of Practice, particularly with regard to drafting and following up on compliance. Formal enforcement activities must be carried out in accordance with official guidance. Failure to do so renders the Authority vulnerable to successful legal challenge.

Inspection Frequencies

Inspections were not being carried out at the minimum inspection frequencies according to risk and in particular high risk food hygiene inspections were not being prioritised. The minimum
frequencies determined by the Code of Practice risk rating schemes are devised to ensure that enforcement authorities are regularly monitoring food safety and standards in businesses and to enable timely interventions to be made where necessary.

Records

There were gaps in details of enforcement activities across many areas of the Standard; particularly paper records relating to inspection records and high risk premises such as those approved under product specific hygiene regulations. Records are important to provide information for subsequent inspections, to enable decisions on the most appropriate enforcement action and to allow internal monitoring.