Help me challenge how food safety enforcement powers were authorised and handled within a local authority.

I raised concerns about how food safety enforcement powers were authorised within a local authority.

• The Council’s own investigation later acknowledged issues described as a “service failure”

• I experienced treatment which I contend amounted to whistleblowing detriment, victimisation, and discrimination

• I am now pursuing an Employment Tribunal case to have these matters examined independently

• I am seeking support to fund legal representation for an eight-day Tribunal hearing in August 2026

Why I Am Raising Funds

I am seeking £20,000 to fund specialist legal representation for my eight-day Employment Tribunal hearing against Tamworth Borough Council in August 2026.

After raising concerns about food safety standards and how enforcement powers had been authorised, including whether those authorisations were supported by appropriate qualifications and competency, I experienced treatment which I contend amounted to whistleblowing detriment, victimisation, and discrimination.

This case concerns not only my individual circumstances but also how regulatory concerns are handled in local government, how whistleblowers are protected, and whether professional standards in public health enforcement are applied consistently and fairly.

I am currently representing myself. Raising these funds will allow me to secure specialist legal representation so the case can be presented properly before the Tribunal.

My Story

I started working for Tamworth Borough Council in January 2024 as a Public Health Officer with recognised qualifications in food safety enforcement.

I have worked in food safety enforcement and have carried out inspections across multiple local authorities.

During my employment, I became aware that an officer appeared to have been granted full statutory food safety enforcement powers in 2022 without holding the qualifications or competency normally required under the Food Law Code of Practice issued by the Food Standards Agency. Those powers appeared to remain in place for approximately two years before being revised in 2024.

These are significant statutory powers under the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013. They include entering premises, issuing legal notices, seizing food, and, in emergency situations, closing businesses. They are not administrative functions they directly affect businesses and public health.

What I Raised and What Happened

I raised concerns about these authorisations during my employment and through the Council’s grievance procedure in 2024. However, my concerns were treated as an informal grievance rather than being recognised as potential whistleblowing under the Council’s policies, which contributed to my concerns about how the issues were handled.

I understand that these concerns were brought to the attention of senior management and HR shortly after my resignation, which added to my concerns about how the issues were handled from that point onwards.

My concerns included whether authorisations had been prepared and granted through a consistent and robust process, and whether they were aligned with Food Standards Agency guidance, which requires that officers are appropriately qualified and competent for the activities they are authorised to undertake.

There were also concerns about whether there was a clear understanding of the correct professional training route I was undertaking. Despite checks that appeared to have been carried out, I remained concerned that there may have been a lack of understanding about the difference between the practical training logbook route and the competency development portfolio (CDP), which appeared to affect expectations and how my progress was assessed.

I later saw internal emails which made me concerned that not completing the CDP was being relied upon by management and HR in decisions about my position. This was particularly concerning to me because I was not undertaking the CDP route, but the practical training logbook route.

I was also concerned that this issue arose after I had raised concerns about whether other officers were appropriately qualified and authorised, which added to my concerns about how my situation was handled.

The Council’s own investigation report acknowledged that there had been issues with enforcement authorisations, describing them as an “administrative error” and a “service failure”. However, the position set out in the Council’s formal legal defence does not reflect that same acknowledgement and instead disputes the key issues I have raised. This difference between the internal findings and the legal position is one of the matters that will be examined by the Employment Tribunal.

I also had concerns about the level of support provided, including supervision and HR involvement, and whether expectations and conduct-related matters were applied fairly and consistently.

I became concerned that my treatment in relation to training, expectations, and authorisation differed from that of other officers, which contributed to my concerns about fairness and potential discrimination.

After raising these concerns, I experienced treatment which I contend caused me disadvantage. I resigned on 2 September 2024.

The Employment Tribunal has allowed me to bring claims of whistleblowing detriment, victimisation, and discrimination. Whether those claims are legally established will be determined independently by the Tribunal.

Why This Matters Beyond My Case

This is not solely an employment dispute. It raises broader questions about:

• How statutory enforcement powers are granted in local government

• Whether professional qualification and competency standards are applied consistently

• What happens when officers raise legitimate concerns in the public interest

• Whether individuals can speak up without fear of reprisal

These issues affect public confidence in enforcement systems and the willingness of professionals to raise concerns when they identify potential risks.

What the Council Says

Tamworth Borough Council disputes my claim entirely and will present its own evidence and account of events.

This page reflects my perspective only. The Employment Tribunal will hear evidence from both sides and make its determination independently.

I am not asking anyone to decide who is right or wrong that is a matter for the Tribunal.

Where the Case Stands

My claim (Case Number 6021283/2024) is listed for a full eight-day Employment Tribunal hearing in August 2026 before a full tribunal panel.

The case is currently in the disclosure stage, where both parties are required to exchange relevant documents. There is an ongoing disagreement about the scope of disclosure, including whether certain documents relating to qualifications and authorisations of comparable roles should be provided, and this may need to be determined by the Tribunal. Judicial mediation has been proposed, and both parties have indicated a willingness to take part. A Dispute Resolution Appointment (DRA) is scheduled for 10 June 2026, where the parties may explore whether the case can be resolved without proceeding to a full hearing. These steps form part of the Tribunal process to ensure that all relevant evidence is considered and that the case is resolved fairly and properly.

Before the final hearing:

Disclosure of relevant documents is expected to be completed in accordance with Tribunal directions

Witness statements will be prepared and exchanged once disclosure is finalised

Evidence will be assembled and tested so the Tribunal can determine the facts

The Tribunal will determine whether proper procedures were followed, whether professional standards were maintained, and whether my treatment was lawful.

Why I Need Specialist Representation

An eight-day hearing against a legally represented respondent requires:

• Detailed analysis of extensive documentation

• Careful preparation and cross-examination of witnesses

• Structured legal submissions on whistleblowing, victimisation, and discrimination

Specialist representation is important to ensure these issues are examined properly and fairly.

How Your Contribution Will Be Used

The £20,000 target will contribute towards:

• Barrister preparation and advice

• Reviewing documentation

• Cross-examination preparation

• Representation during the hearing

• Legal submissions

Transparency commitment:

If the case settles before the final hearing, any surplus funds will be donated to whistleblowing support charities. If costs exceed the amount raised, I will review available options at that time.

What I Hope This Achieves

I seek a fair opportunity to have these issues examined independently.

More broadly, I hope this contributes to:

• Stronger protection for whistleblowers in local government

• Greater transparency in how regulatory powers is granted

• Improved accountability when concerns about professional standards are raised

• Confidence among public sector professionals that they can speak up

Whatever the outcome, having these matters examined through proper legal process matters.

How You Can Help

• Donate - any amount helps

• Share - sharing this page makes a real difference

• Raise awareness whistleblowers should not feel alone

Thank You

This has been a difficult period, but I believe in proper process and independent scrutiny.

Your support, financially or through sharing, helps ensure these matters are examined fairly.

I will provide updates as the case progresses within appropriate legal boundaries.

Thank you for your support

Paul Heaven