Food Standards Agency did not explain what it could and could not investigate

What happened

Mrs K worked for a local council. She was concerned about the qualifications of some of her colleagues who inspected food outlets. When she left the council, Mrs K reported her concerns to the FSA. The FSA carried out an audit of the council, but did not tell Mrs K what it had done. She complained, and the FSA apologised and told her that it would investigate her concerns again. The FSA looked again at the council, but did not tell Mrs K that its remit in doing that was very limited. This meant it could not consider much of what Mrs K raised, and it could not achieve much of what shewanted, including disciplinary action against the staff involved.

Mrs K was unhappy with the outcome of the FSA's investigation.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. The FSA should have told Mrs K about its audit of the council. Its apology and the decision to investigate Mrs K's concerns had resolved that fault. 

The FSA's investigation of the council was appropriate and we did not uphold that element of Mrs K's complaint. However, the FSA had not told Mrs K what its investigation would look at and what it could achieve. We found this was a fault.

We found failings, but these did not cause Mrs K's claimed injustice.

Putting it right

The FSA apologised to Mrs K for failing to manage her expectations, and for the inconvenience this had caused her.