Food

Derby Trading Standards: Four Brothers food hygiene case In this feature misleading advertising consumer protection environmental health The Great Derby Rate Off In April 2016, Derby Trading Standards prosecuted a restaurateur for misleading advertising of a food hygiene rating in a rare prosecution. Louise Parfitt reports P rosecuting a restaurant over misleading claims about food hygiene ratings alone is rare, so much so that when Derby City Council took a restaurant to court earlier this year, the Food Standards Agency said it believed it was rst stand-alone case for food hygiene false advertising. It all came about in September 2015 when an eagle-eyed member of Derby City Councils environmental health team received a local advertising booklet through her door and spotted an advert for a business with which the team was very familiar. The advert, for Moza restaurant, boasted that it had a ve-star food hygiene rating when, in fact, at its latest inspection in July 2015, it had been rated at zero. Moza, owned by Four Brothers (Derby) Ltd, had fallen from a rating of three in April 2014 to a rating of one in February 2015. The business had been warned previously about false advertising of its food hygiene rating earlier in 2015 and, in July, environmental health ofcers had removed a sticker on the premises that showed an incorrect rating. Dominic Johnson, fair trading ofcer at Derby City Council, says: The ofcer who spotted the advert reported it to trading standards. We spoke to the publishers and asked how long the advert was booked to run. It came to light that the previous two issues of the booklet had carried the same advert, so there were three instances of false advertising. We then spoke to the manager of the business, Azid Ullah, who said he couldnt speak for the person who put the adverts in. Trading standards contacted the business director, Rushan Ahmed, to invite him for an interview under caution. Further efforts were made to contact him, but it was not possible to arrange an interview, so the decision was made in January 2016 to prosecute. It took some time to work out how to bring the case to court, without a consumer complaint it could not be prosecuted as fraud. In the end, the case was brought under the Schedule 1 banned practice provisions of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, with the food hygiene rating scheme deemed to be an approval or endorsement by a public or private body. It was decided in light of the earlier warning and the absence of a defence or explanation that director Rushan Ahmed would also be prosecuted. It was a big learning curve for Derby and for the legal team involved. Johnson says: We originally thought environmental health would prosecute but it cant; it can only issue the food hygiene ratings. Bringing the case to the courts fell to us. He stresses the importance of working closely with the environmental health team: They provided statements and we used evidence of their visits to show that the business knew its rating wasnt what it was claiming. Both the company and its director pleaded guilty to engaging in an unfair commercial practice, as dened by Schedule 1, paragraph four of the Regulations 2008. Four Brothers (Derby) Ltd was given a 2,000 ne, ordered to pay 1,051 in costs and a 120 victim surcharge; Rushan Ahmed was given a 200 ne, ordered to pay 1,051 costs and a 20 victim surcharge. Johnson says that if Ahmed had been a bit more forthcoming, or if hed had a genuine defence, there may have been different outcome it may not have got as far as a court case. But, he says: Ahmed was so evasive, he just didnt engage with us. His responses were always late, and then there was radio silence. We are not sure whether the advert was down to incompetence or a deliberate attempt to mislead. We were left feeling that there was nothing more we could do, so that is why we made the decision three months later to prosecute. The business did stop advertising immediately and trading standards and environmental health ofcers kept a close eye on the local press. The business also improved its hygiene practices and, in February 2016, it received a three-star food hygiene rating. For trading standards ofcers who nd themselves in a similar position, Johnson offers the following advice: Ensure you get environmental health ofcers on board their evidence was vital. And seek legal advice early; because these cases are rare, it took a while to nd the correct prosecution route. OFFENCES Three charges were both laid against both Four Brothers (Derby) Ltd and Rushan Ahmed as director of the company for engaging in an unfair commercial practice as defined by schedule one, paragraph four of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 namely publication of an advert in the July, August and September 2015 issues of C&C Oakwood magazine, showing a food hygiene rating higher than that held, contrary to Regulation 12 of the Regulations. FALSE RATING ADDS UP TO A FINE FOR CHESTER TAKEAWAY In June 2016, the owner of a takeaway business in Chester was fined a total of 1,000 for falsely displaying a food hygiene rating of five on both its menus and a window sticker, when its rating was only three. Fatih Goztepe pleaded guilty to five offences of false advertising concerning the Royal Kebab Pizza House. Vanessa Griffiths, regulatory services manager of Griffiths agrees that it was important to get the backing of all involved when the case went to court. She says: This prosecution was the direct result of joint working between environmental health officers and trading standards officers. Across the team, officers act as each others eyes and ears in a variety of inspection and enforcement scenarios. Cheshire West and Chester Council, says the decision to We regularly undertake joint inspections and prosecute was taken because a displayed rating can enforcement operations to ensure a coordinated and significantly influence a consumers decision to use a effective approach, as well as seeking to minimise the particular restaurant. burden on business. The prosecution was brought under Regulation 9 of She continues: A key challenge has been the the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations team-building that was necessary to make this kind of 2008, Griffiths said, adding that the magistrates had not work the rule rather than the exception, but this joint seen a case of this nature before, and so had very little working has over a number of years helped to to help them assess the appropriate sentence. In the strengthen understanding of specialist areas across end, Goztepe was fined 200 for each offence, ordered disciplines, leading to a higher level of joint working and to pay full costs of 2,000 and a 100 victim surcharge. information sharing. Credits Louise Partt is a writer for TS Today. Images: Kzenon / COLOA Studio / Shutterstock To share this page, in the toolbar click on You might also like: Faster food action June 2016