Food Standards Agency
Thursday 28 August 2008
Safer food better business banner
AZ-Directory
What's NewRSS
What is RSS?Tuesday 13 September 2005
This note records information on complaints received by the Food Standards Agency in 2003 - 2004
1. The Agency's complaints procedure covers any written or oral expression of dissatisfaction with the service that we provide to our customers. These do not have to be 'formal' complaints. They will generally cover instances where the Agency may have failed administratively or taken inappropriate action. The complaints process does not cover disagreements that our stakeholders may have about the Agency's policies.
2. The Agency's complaints procedure is published on the FSA website. Initially, the relevant FSA Division will try to resolve any complaint against them. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they may lodge a complaint with the Agency's Complaints Co-ordinator. If the Complaints Co-ordinator fails to satisfy them, the complainant can ask for their complaint to be referred to the Chief Executive. If they are still dissatisfied following reply by the Chief Executive, the complainant may ask any MP to refer the issue to the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman).
3. The total number of recorded complaints received by the Agency during the year 2003/04 was 19. It should be noted that 7 of these were from the same member of the public about various issues over the course of the year. Of the 19, 8 were resolved internally by Divisions, 6 were dealt with by the Agency's Complaints Co-ordinator and 5 were referred to the Chief Executive.
4. Categorising the 19 recorded complaints results in the following breakdown:
Category A:
No fault, where complaint turned out to be unfounded.
8 cases in total; all of these were successfully resolved after corresponding with the individual complainants.
Category B:
Minor oversights and processing delays.
9 cases in total; all were resolved after full explanations were given.
Category C:
Complex and novel issues, which caused a delay or other problem.
No cases;
Category D:
Complaints made in respect of race issues.
No cases;
Category E:
Other
2 cases; one case involved mail being sent to the complainant's late father, despite the Agency being advised accordingly. The complaint was resolved internally by the relevant divisions so that the father's contact details were deleted as required. The other case here concerned an abattoir company being named on the Agency's website, without prior notification, in connection with a breach of the SRM rules. The matter was resolved by the Chief Executive apologising on the Agency's behalf.
5. The 19 recorded complaints originated from a range of sources. There were 2 from industry/businesses, 1 from a member of the scientific community, 1 from a consumer association, 4 from MPs and 11 from members of the public [NB: 7 of the 11 were from the same member of the public].
6. There are two particular cases worth mentioning here which are not represented in the recorded complaints figure above. The first case concerned a farmer who made various allegations against a member of the Dairy Hygiene Inspectorate (DHI). The dispute was an ongoing one between the farmer and his son and the DHI, stemming back to 1998. The DHI is part of DEFRA, but the Agency has the policy lead on dairy hygiene and, under a Service Level Agreement, DHI enforce the Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations at milk production facilities on behalf of the Agency. The Agency approach to this matter was to focus on specific areas of the complaint which fell within the remit of the Agency and which were possible to investigate (especially considering the time elapsed). After a lengthy investigation into the complaint against the DHI and a number of follow-on enquiries, no evidence was found to substantiate any of the allegations made.
7. The second case concerns a complaint made by a Scottish company which was not lodged with the Agency, but instead referred directly to the UK Ombudsman. The complaint alleged late notification by the Agency of shellfish poisoning to a local authority. The company alleged to the Ombudsman that they consequently incurred unnecessary costs. The Agency only became aware of the complaint by virtue of a preliminary enquiry made by the ombudsman. The Agency was subsequently advised that the ombudsman had found no basis for further intervention.
Back to topFind out what our other sites have to offer