London Borough of Merton

The authority had produced The Consumer and Business Protection Service Delivery Plan for 2008/009 which was broadly in line with the Service Planning Guidance in the Framework Agreement and was subject to regular reviews. However, future service plans should be further developed to include:

• the authority’s food premises profile and corresponding intervention programme, including approved establishments
• an estimate of staffing resources required for food law enforcement service delivery

There was no effective control system for the authority’s documented food service policies and procedures. A significant number of these had no issue dates and there was no evidence available to confirm when these had been originally produced or whether they were subsequently reviewed.

The authority had produced a documented procedure for the authorisation of officers, however, this did not include the means by which officers’ competence was assessed prior to authorisation. The document confirming the authorisation of officers within the Consumer and Business Protection Division had out of date legislative references and did not include specific authorisations for all formal enforcement options. The authority, therefore, needed to review their officer authorisations and confirm with their legal department that all officers were appropriately authorised.

There was no documented procedure in place for ensuring that the food premises database was accurate and up to date, although audit checks, specific to approved establishments, confirmed that the database contained accurate records of these establishments.

The authority had a number of establishments that had been appropriately approved, although audit checks identified several other establishments that are likely to require approval. The authority, therefore, should regularly review the activities undertaken by food businesses in their area, with a particular emphasis on cold store operations, in order to ensure that all relevant establishments are approved in line with legislative requirements and official guidance.

All premises currently approved by the authority had been approved or re-approved since January 2006 and file records contained the approval documentation and appropriate correspondence with food business operators. In addition, it was confirmed that officers were generally carrying out comprehensive inspections of approved establishments, although these had not always been carried out at the frequencies detailed within the Food Law Code of Practice. Detailed records of inspection findings were maintained and reports of inspection or letters were provided to food business operators in all cases.

The authority had developed a procedure for the investigation of food complaints. However, audit checks indicated that recent complaints and referrals received in relation to approved establishments had not always been fully investigated.

The authority had a documented sampling policy and procedure and in addition, a sampling programme had been developed as part of agreed sampling within the south west London region. However, the authority had not undertaken any recent sampling within approved establishments and it was agreed that future sampling programmes would include targeted sampling from approved establishments.

The authority had developed a detailed documented enforcement policy in accordance with official guidance. However, the authority should ensure that documented procedural guidance is available for all formal enforcement options relating to approved establishments.

The authority had included some aspects of internal monitoring within the food service documented procedures. It was clear that quantitative performance monitoring against inspection targets was undertaken both within the team and at senior management level and that discussions were undertaken between officers and at team meetings to promote consistent enforcement. The auditors were advised that some qualitative monitoring was undertaken; this needed to be expanded to cover all areas of food law enforcement activity including that relating to approved establishments

The authority was in a period of transition from the use of paper based records to a 'paperless office', so a dual system of recording information on inspections, enforcement activity and business operations was in place at the time of the audit. It was noted that the quality of documents scanned into the electronic document management system was sometimes poor and presented problems with legibility. Some documents could not be retrieved from either system and it was not always clear where documents had been stored.

A documented procedure detailing approaches to qualitative and quantitative internal monitoring had been developed. While records of specific monitoring activities in relation to approved establishments were not clearly evident, auditors were advised that food law enforcement activities were subject to internal monitoring and some records were being maintained. More detailed records to show the scope and outcome of internal monitoring undertaken and the specific food law enforcement activities and premises subject to internal monitoring would be of benefit.