Great Yarmouth

Wednesday 20 November 2002

11-13 June 2002

The Authority was able to demonstrate a well established emphasis on supporting and assisting local food businesses to meet legal standards. There were, however, significant problems with formal enforcement actions taken by the Authority and internal monitoring procedures were not effective.

There was also a significant backlog of inspections, and several high risk premises had not been visited at the minimum inspection frequencies.

The Authority’s Strengths:

Advice to Business – The Authority had carried out a wide range of pro-active initiatives aimed at helping businesses comply with food legislation.

Key Areas for Improvement:

Formal Enforcement – There were significant problems with formal enforcement actions, many of which had not been carried out in line with relevant Food Safety Act Codes of Practice and other centrally issued guidance. There were a large number of significant errors in the drafting and content of formal enforcement documents, particularly improvement notices. Formal enforcement activities must be carried out in accordance with official guidance, the relevant Food Safety Act Codes of Practice and the Authority’s own documented policies and procedures. Failure to do so renders the Authority vulnerable to successful legal challenge.

Internal Monitoring – The Authority had not developed a systematic approach to qualitative monitoring of service activity, and there was only limited evidence that the Authority was verifying its conformance with legislation, centrally issued guidance and its own policies and procedures. The development and implementation of effective qualitative monitoring procedures covering all areas of the Standard is key to ensuring an effective food law enforcement service.

Records – File records of actions for some areas of activity were either missing or insufficiently detailed to determine in full whether officers were always carrying out their duties in line with the relevant legislation and official guidance. In general the details retained following premises inspections, food sampling and formal enforcement actions were not sufficient to permit effective monitoring. Adequate and retrievable records are also important so that subsequent officers can be aware of premises’ histories of compliance and to enable appropriate enforcement decisions to be made in a staged approach.

Frequency of Inspections – Inspections of general and Approved Premises had not been carried out at the minimum risk-based frequencies required by Food Safety Act Code of Practice No. 9: Food Hygiene Inspections. The minimum frequencies determined by the Code of Practice risk rating scheme are devised to ensure that enforcement authorities are regularly monitoring food safety in businesses and to enable timely interventions to be made when necessary.