Recipient

Byron Hamburgers Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 30 Sep 2019•Latest report 30 Sep 2019

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Byron Hamburgers Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Owen Carey · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 22 April 2017, Owen Carey ate food at Byron restaurant at the O2 centre despite making serving staff aware of his dairy allergy. The chicken contained buttermilk, causing a severe food-induced anaphylactic reaction from which he died. Concerns included the adequacy of allergen training, the prominence and effectiveness of allergen notices and information on menus, and the absence of a national register for severe food anaphylactic reactions.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Byron Hamburgers Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of statutory requirements for the appearance of restaurant allergen notices

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The effectiveness of the current placement and appearance of allergen notices on restaurant menus to trigger an allergen discussion between a customer and serving staff: I was told, and accept, that it was more important to trigger a discussion between a customer and member of serving staff about allergens than to have a menu which included complete allergen information on its face. However, the prompt for this discussion on the Byron O2 menu at the time was: (i) on the side of the menu which appeared to focus solely on a ‘special’, namely a Kim Cheese burger, (ii) at the very bottom and distant from all the main food options, (iii) in very small font and (iv) on a royal blue background in black ink. I was told that this placement and appearance was not outwith the ‘general approach of the restaurant industry as a whole and that the current Food Information Regulations did not, unlike with prepacked food, specify the location and / or font size and / or prominence of such an allergen notice. It concerns me that such little prominence appears to be given industry wide to a notice which is intended to trigger what could potentially be a lifesaving discussion between a customer and member of serving staff. It further concerns me that there are no statutory requirements regarding the appearance of such an allergy notice. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Byron Hamburgers Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of complete allergen information on the face of restaurant menus

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The lack of key allergen information on the face of restaurant menus and therefore their potential to be falsely reassuring: In my findings I concluded that Owen and his brother would have been falsely reassured with the menu description of Owen's order because on its face the Byron O2 menu in place at the time did not readily identify that the chicken would have been marinated in buttermilk or at all. I was shown a more up to date menu from Byron O2 and note that where buttermilk is now used to marinate chicken it is identified. However, the prompt for this change was one of ‘food fashion’ I was told rather than a move to make the menu more allergen friendly. Although I accept that triggering a discussion between a customer and member of serving staff about allergens is of key importance (as indicated above), the absence of any simple allergen words or symbols on the face of a restaurant menu is of concern, particularly when one takes into account (i) what I was told about the latest figures demonstrating how a significant proportion of customers may be naturally shy/ reluctant about sharing their allergies with serving staff and (ii) that restaurants, like Byron O2, tend to attract younger diners dining alone (i.e. school age children without their parents). It also concerns me that at the time there were symbols on the menu depicting the use of peanuts, but not other allergen, which in my view could also have potentially falsely reassured diners that allergens were being identified on the face of the menu when in fact they were not. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Byron Hamburgers Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a national register of severe food anaphylactic reactions

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) The lack of a national register recording severe food anaphylactic reactions: I was told in evidence that despite faster ambulance response times, a greater awareness of allergies and a greater distribution of epi-pens that the death rate for severe food anaphylaxis remains static and that this is attributed in part to the fact that little is known about these deaths because thus far there has been a failure to collect together any learning from these tragedies. It concerns me that there is therefore no national register recording the circumstances of these deaths which could then be analysed and learnt from by allergy specialists. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Byron Hamburgers Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate allergen training for serving staff

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The adequacy and effectiveness of allergen training at Byron O2: My findings included that there must have been a human error by a member of Byron O2 serving staff at the point of ordering. The training provided to serving staff regarding allergens at Byron O2 was limited to a combination of staff members simply attesting to the fact that they had read the company's training on allergen information and no more, coupled with an “on the job” induction in respect of which no records or details existed. It was accepted in evidence that Byron O2 had a high turnover of serving staff. This, I was told and accept, is common for the restaurant industry overall, who often rely, for example on seasonal workers. I was not confident that the current approach to allergen training about which I heard evidence was effective and / or would engage the less diligent employee, which any organisation will have, and which are potentially in a greater proportion where there is high staff turnover. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Byron Hamburgers Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient prominence of allergen notices on restaurant menus

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The effectiveness of the current placement and appearance of allergen notices on restaurant menus to trigger an allergen discussion between a customer and serving staff: I was told, and accept, that it was more important to trigger a discussion between a customer and member of serving staff about allergens than to have a menu which included complete allergen information on its face. However, the prompt for this discussion on the Byron O2 menu at the time was: (i) on the side of the menu which appeared to focus solely on a ‘special’, namely a Kim Cheese burger, (ii) at the very bottom and distant from all the main food options, (iii) in very small font and (iv) on a royal blue background in black ink. I was told that this placement and appearance was not outwith the ‘general approach of the restaurant industry as a whole and that the current Food Information Regulations did not, unlike with prepacked food, specify the location and / or font size and / or prominence of such an allergen notice. It concerns me that such little prominence appears to be given industry wide to a notice which is intended to trigger what could potentially be a lifesaving discussion between a customer and member of serving staff. It further concerns me that there are no statutory requirements regarding the appearance of such an allergy notice. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026