London Borough of Hackney

The newly appointed environmental health manager had developed risk based food law enforcement priorities for 2010/2011 together with action plans to address identified shortfalls in the Service. This review and findings were consistent with the Agency’s audit findings.

The authority had developed a food service plan for 2009/2010 that was generally in line with the service planning guidance in the Framework Agreement. However, the plan did not include a comparison of the staff resources required to deliver the food law enforcement service against the staff resources available to the authority. The absence of staffing resource information made it difficult for the Service to substantiate and quantify any resource shortfalls.

A significant number of key service activities did not have procedures, for example for formal enforcement activities and food hygiene general premises inspection and this was likely to be a contributory factor where instances of inconsistency had been identified.

The authority had developed and implemented a documented procedure for officer authorisation, which detailed the measures in place to assess and link officer competency to the level of authorisation conferred. The authorisations required updating to incorporate some more up to date legal references. All officers had received recent training in the evaluation of food safety management systems. Although sufficient training records were not available to confirm that all officers had received the required 10 hours of relevant Continuing Professional Development, it was recognised that the environmental health manager was in the process of developing a training plan.

The authority’s limited procedures and the associated documentation for general premises inspections and approved establishments did not provide adequate guidance for officers. Due to the absence of adequate records, it was not possible to confirm whether appropriate inspections, interventions and effective follow-up actions were being carried out, or whether premises risk ratings were accurate. The key reason for the lack of essential information was because officers did not use inspection forms to record food business information and their inspection assessments. In practice, officers were using their own notebooks and recording minimal details on the shared files and electronic databases.

Consequently, there was no single source or completed record of businesses’ compliance histories. Full business compliance histories are essential to inform subsequent interventions and a graduated approach to enforcement, and to enable effective monitoring. The Environmental Health Manager had already identified this issue and it was a key item in her action plan.

The authority was focusing on higher risk premises in its intervention programme, although the audit confirmed that some higher risk premises were not being inspected at the required frequencies. Although the overall number of unrated premises had recently been reduced, there were still a significant number of premises that were due their first inspection.

Due to the lack of records, auditors were unable to determine the extent of assessments made during approved establishments inspections. As a result it was not possible to establish the basis for officer’s decisions regarding business compliance standards. In a number of cases examined, businesses were being allowed to trade under conditional approval that greatly exceeded the permitted statutory period of six months and where officers had identified significant issues with their food safety management systems. The need for an urgent review of all approved establishments had been discussed with the environmental health manager.

It could not be confirmed from all the food samples and food and food premises complaint records examined that appropriate and timely investigations were being carried out. It did not appear that complainants were informed of the outcomes in all cases where appropriate. In some cases where unsatisfactory food sample test results had been received, it was not clear that appropriate follow-up action was taken where there was a potential risk to public health.

The authority had developed a generic enforcement policy which was generally in accordance with centrally issued guidance. It was noted that the Environmental Health Manager had been planning to produce additional enforcement guidance specific to food together with documented procedures for the enforcement options.

Although it was clear that officers were prepared to take the full range of formal enforcement actions to secure compliance at the highest risk premises, the records of actions were inconsistent and incomplete. Auditors were unable to confirm, in most cases, that follow-up actions and appropriately graduated approaches to enforcement had been taken, and what the outcomes were in terms of securing compliance.

The environmental health manager had identified the importance and need for internal monitoring, but in practice little was being undertaken. Many of the concerns raised by this audit would have been identified by an effective internal monitoring system.