Section 1 of 7: What Is Natasha’s Law
What is Natasha’s Law and how does it affect food businesses?
Carter and Carter Solicitors has handled allergy compensation claims across England and Wales since 2007. Natasha’s Law, in force from 1 October 2021, requires businesses selling prepacked for direct sale (PPDS) food to display full ingredient lists with all 14 major allergens emphasised. The law applies across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is criminal law, not guidance.
The law is named after Natasha Ednan-Laperouse. She was 15 when she died in 2016 after eating a Pret a Manger baguette containing sesame seeds baked into the dough. The packaging carried no ingredient list. She trusted what she could not see on the label. That gap in the law, allowing freshly made prepacked food to be sold without ingredient declarations, is what her parents fought to close. They succeeded.
Natasha’s Law covers food packaged at the same place it is sold, packaged before the customer chooses it. A café that makes 50 sandwiches at 6am, wraps them and refrigerates them for the lunchtime crowd. A deli salad box prepared in the morning and put out for sale. A bakery item wrapped and displayed. Every one of those is what the law calls “prepacked for direct sale”, or PPDS. Every one needs the full ingredient list with allergens emphasised.
Restaurant food made-to-order is different. A burger cooked when ordered, served on a plate or wrapped after the customer has chosen it, is not PPDS. Those meals do not need Natasha’s Law labels. But restaurants still have legal duties under the Food Information Regulations 2014. Different law, same fundamental obligation: provide accurate allergen information. Whether on a label, on a menu, or explained by staff, the duty exists.
Carter and Carter Solicitors has handled hundreds of allergy claims since 2007 and the patterns of failure are well established. Staff who have never seen the full ingredient list. Kitchens where “probably fine” passes for assurance. Managers who promise something is nut-free when they genuinely do not know. Understanding what the law requires is not academic. It is how a breach is proved when someone ends up in A&E. Anyone who has had an allergic reaction caused by poor labelling or wrong allergen information should read the complete nut allergy compensation claims guide for the full set of rights and options.
Natasha’s Law, what you need to know:
- Natasha’s Law took effect on 1 October 2021 across the United Kingdom.
- The Food Information Regulations 2014 require all 14 major allergens to be emphasised.
- Carter and Carter Solicitors charges 10% on nut allergy claims that do not proceed to a final court hearing.
- Trading Standards prosecute Natasha’s Law breaches with unlimited fines and possible imprisonment.
- An allergic reaction caused by a breach creates a separate civil compensation claim.
Natasha’s Law at a glance
| Effective date: | 1 October 2021 |
| What it covers: | Prepacked for Direct Sale (PPDS) food, packaged at the same premises where it is sold |
| Who must comply: | Restaurants (grab-and-go), cafés, delis, bakeries, sandwich shops, supermarkets, schools, hospitals |
| Labelling requirements: | Full ingredient list plus 14 major allergens emphasised (bold, italics, or different colour) |
| The 14 allergens: | Celery, cereals with gluten, crustaceans, eggs, fish, lupin, milk, molluscs, mustard, tree nuts, peanuts, sesame, soya, sulphites |
| Broader legal framework: | Food Information Regulations 2014 (FIR 2014), covering all food including made-to-order |
| Penalties: | Criminal offence. Unlimited fines and potential imprisonment. |
| When breached: | A breach causing an allergic reaction creates a separate civil compensation claim |
Geography: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Made-to-order food is exempt from Natasha’s Law but covered by FIR 2014.
Still comparing solicitors?
See exactly why clients choose this deliberately small firm over larger competitors, including the track record on claims other firms reject and what Carter and Carter does not charge that mega-firms do.
Section 2 of 7: The Legal Framework
What does Natasha’s Law actually require of food businesses?
Natasha’s Law requires every PPDS food item to carry the food’s name, a full ingredient list, and all 14 major allergens emphasised within that list. The Food Standards Agency confirms that emphasis means bold text, italics, capitals, or a different colour, anything that makes the allergen visually distinct from the surrounding ingredients. A label reading “Ingredients: wheat flour, water, sesame seeds” is non-compliant. The compliant version is “Ingredients: wheat flour, water, sesame seeds“.
The 14 allergens that must be flagged are celery, cereals containing gluten, crustaceans, eggs, fish, lupin, milk, molluscs, mustard, tree nuts, peanuts, sesame, soya and sulphur dioxide above 10mg per kg. Trading Standards enforce the law as a criminal offence with unlimited fines and possible imprisonment for serious breaches. Where a breach causes an allergic reaction, a separate civil compensation claim arises under the law of negligence. The dedicated guide on nut allergy legal rights covers the breach-causation-loss chain in full.
Before October 2021, businesses could wrap a sandwich, display it for sale, and provide zero information about what was in it. Customers could ask, and staff had to tell them if asked, but nothing on the packaging itself. Natasha Ednan-Laperouse had no reason to ask. The baguette packaging was blank. She trusted that absence of information. Her parents fought to close that gap. The law that emerged carries her name.
What actually counts as PPDS food. Timing and location are the test. Made on the premises. Packaged on the premises. Sold on the premises. And packaged before anyone has ordered or chosen it. That is PPDS. A café that makes 50 sandwiches at 6am, wraps them and refrigerates them for the lunchtime crowd: PPDS. A deli that prepares salad boxes in the morning and puts them out for sale: PPDS. A burger under a hot lamp, already wrapped, waiting to be grabbed: PPDS. Even free samples are covered if they are prepacked before being handed out. Supermarkets and grocery stores with in-store bakeries or delis face identical obligations. If they bake, package and sell on the same premises, full ingredient labelling is mandatory under Natasha’s Law.
What does not count. Made-to-order food. Someone orders a sandwich, a member of staff makes it fresh, wraps it, hands it over. Not PPDS, because the packaging happened after the order. Loose food on display, croissants on a tray, pastries picked with tongs. Not PPDS. Food packaged by one business and sold by another, that is different regulations entirely. The distinction matters because Natasha’s Law only governs PPDS. Everything else still needs allergen information, just under different rules: the Food Information Regulations 2014.
The change Natasha’s Law made
This visual shows exactly what changed on 1 October 2021, and why it matters.
|
BEFORE OCT 2021
Artisan Baguette
Fresh Today
[No ingredient information required]
❌ THE PROBLEM:
No way to know what is inside. Natasha could not see sesame seeds baked into the dough. The label listed some ingredients but omitted sesame. She trusted the label was complete.
|
AFTER OCT 2021
Artisan Baguette
Fresh Today
INGREDIENTS:
WHEAT flour, water, SESAME SEEDS, salt, yeast, GLUTEN
✓ NOW REQUIRED:
Full ingredient list with all 14 major allergens emphasised. No hidden dangers. No ambiguity. If it is in the food, it must be on the label.
|
🔴 CRITICAL: Natasha’s Law requirements (PPDS food only)
The labelling rule businesses get wrong most often. A label needs the food’s name and a full ingredients list. But here is where compliance fails: any of the 14 major allergens must be emphasised within that list. Not mentioned at the end. Not in a separate allergen box. Emphasised within the ingredients themselves: bold, italics, different colour, something that makes them stand out.
“Ingredients: wheat flour, water, sesame seeds” will not pass. The compliant version is “Ingredients: wheat flour, water, sesame seeds“. That emphasis is mandatory, not optional.
The 14 allergens that must be flagged: Celery. Cereals with gluten (wheat, rye, barley, oats). Crustaceans (prawns, crabs, lobster). Eggs. Fish. Lupin. Milk. Molluscs (mussels, oysters, squid). Mustard. Tree nuts (almonds, hazelnuts, walnuts, cashews, pecans, pistachios, macadamia). Peanuts (listed separately from tree nuts). Sesame. Soya. Sulphur dioxide and sulphites above 10mg per kg or litre.
🟡 STRONG: Food Information Regulations 2014 (all food)
Natasha’s Law closed one gap. It sits within a broader legal framework. The Food Information Regulations 2014 (FIR 2014) governs all food allergen information, PPDS and non-PPDS alike. Legislation continues to evolve. Owen’s Law will extend these protections further when it comes into force, closing remaining gaps in allergen information requirements. FIR 2014 is what covers the typical restaurant meal: the burger made to order, the salad assembled fresh when someone requests it.
Under FIR 2014, businesses must provide accurate allergen information before purchase. It can be written (menu, allergen matrix, chalkboard). It can be verbal (staff trained to provide it when asked). It can be signposted (“Ask staff about allergens”). But it must be accurate and it must be provided.
The 14 allergens stay the same. Whether labelling PPDS food under Natasha’s Law or providing verbal information under FIR 2014, these are the allergens that must be declared. There is no hierarchy. All 14 matter equally. A fatal reaction to celery is just as possible as a fatal reaction to peanuts.
What happens when a business gets it wrong. Trading Standards enforce Natasha’s Law. It is criminal law. Unlimited fines are possible. Serious breaches can mean imprisonment. Mandatory corrective orders apply. But the work that fills the diary at Carter and Carter Solicitors is civil liability. Someone suffers an allergic reaction because the labelling was inadequate or the staff got it wrong. They are not thinking about a Trading Standards prosecution. They are thinking about the hospital bill, the lost earnings, the ongoing anxiety about eating out. That is a compensation claim.
Carter and Carter Solicitors has handled hundreds of these claims since 2007. The evidence that proves a breach is well known to the firm. The excuses that do not work are well known. The settlement ranges these claims fall within are well known. Understanding Natasha’s Law is not academic. It is knowing what restaurants and food businesses must do, so when they do not do it properly and someone ends up needing an EpiPen or worse, the firm can prove exactly where they failed.
Section 3 of 7: PPDS Food, what needs labels
What food needs Natasha’s Law labels in a restaurant or café?
Natasha’s Law labels are required on prepacked for direct sale (PPDS) food: any food packaged at the same premises where it is sold and packaged before the customer chooses it. The Food Standards Agency confirms that includes wrapped sandwiches made before opening, deli salad boxes prepared in the morning, bakery items wrapped and displayed, hotel breakfast boxes assembled in the kitchen, and even prepacked free samples. The timing test is decisive: packaging before the order means PPDS, packaging after the order does not.
Restaurants assume that because their main trade is made-to-order, Natasha’s Law does not apply to them. That assumption is wrong wherever a prepacked offering is for sale. A grab-and-go counter, a chiller of pre-made wraps, a tray of wrapped pastries: every one of those triggers full PPDS labelling obligations regardless of what else is on the menu. Restaurant allergy claims frequently begin with a prepacked item that should have carried a label and did not.
Concrete examples of what counts. A café that prepares sandwiches at opening, wraps them, refrigerates them and lets customers pick them throughout the day: PPDS. A deli that makes pasta salad boxes in the morning, labels them and displays them for lunch: PPDS. A restaurant offering grab-and-go breakfast boxes (muffin, fruit, yoghurt) all packaged together before the breakfast rush: PPDS. A hotel buffet with individually wrapped pastries prepared by the kitchen earlier: PPDS. Coffee shop and café grab-and-go offerings follow exactly the same requirements. Wrapped sandwiches, prepacked salads and bakery items in display cases all need full PPDS labelling.
Timing is the test. Package it before the customer orders or chooses it: Natasha’s Law applies. Package it after they order: different rules apply (but the duty to provide accurate allergen information under FIR 2014 still applies). This distinction causes endless confusion. Restaurant owners assume that because their main trade is made-to-order, they are exempt. They are not, if they have prepacked offerings for sale. Those offerings need full compliance.
What the label must show. The food’s name. The full ingredients list. And the critical element: any of the 14 major allergens emphasised within that list. Bold works. Italics work. Different colour works. What does not work is listing ingredients without emphasis. “Contains: flour, butter, eggs, milk” is not enough. The compliant version is “Contains: wheat flour, butter, eggs, milk“. That emphasis is mandatory.
After handling hundreds of nut allergy claims since 2007, Carter and Carter Solicitors has seen every variation of non-compliance. Labels that list ingredients but do not emphasise allergens. Labels that mention “may contain nuts” but do not list the actual nuts in the ingredients. Labels that are illegible or too small to read. None of these comply. When someone has an allergic reaction and the firm investigates, inadequate PPDS labelling is often the first breach found.
Labels that list ingredients but do not emphasise allergens. Labels that mention “may contain” but do not list actual allergens. Labels too small to read. None comply. When someone has a reaction, inadequate PPDS labelling is often the first breach found.
Had an allergic reaction due to poor labelling?
Expert legal advice from solicitors who have handled hundreds of allergy claims since 2007.
Section 4 of 7: Staff training requirements
What allergen training must staff have under Natasha’s Law?
The Food Standards Agency requires food businesses to ensure that every member of staff who handles food has appropriate allergen awareness training. The training must cover all 14 major allergens, the cross-contamination risks specific to the kitchen, where the allergen matrix or ingredient specifications are kept, and the procedure for handling allergen queries from customers. For nut allergy claims specifically, FSA-recommended training is the benchmark courts use to assess whether a business met its duty of care.
For someone seeking compensation, the practical implication is that training records are obtainable through legal disclosure during a claim. A business that cannot produce documented training records, or whose records show training was given once on induction and never refreshed, has an evidenced breach trail before the reaction even happened. Carter and Carter Solicitors routinely requests training rotas, refresher logs and supplier briefing records as part of every nut allergy evidence pack.
Having the information is not enough. Staff need to know it exists, where to find it, and how to communicate it accurately. This is where the majority of restaurant allergy failures happen. Not because the business did not have allergen information, but because the staff could not or did not communicate it properly.
What does adequate training look like? Staff should know all 14 allergens. They should know where the allergen matrix or ingredient specifications are kept. They should know never to guess. If uncertain, check with the kitchen or manager. They should understand cross-contamination risks. They should know that “may contain” warnings must be based on genuine risk assessment, not used as a blanket disclaimer.
The pattern that recurs in claims. A customer asks the server “Does this contain nuts?” The server says “I’ll check” but actually just looks at the menu description or asks a colleague who also does not know. The server returns and says “No nuts.” The customer eats it. The customer ends up in A&E. On investigation, the sauce contains cashew paste, clearly listed in the kitchen’s ingredient specs, but front-of-house had never been told. Training failure. Communication failure. Breach.
When Carter and Carter Solicitors handles these claims, the firm requests training records, staff rotas and communication logs between kitchen and service staff. The aim is to see what training happened, when it happened, whether it was documented. “We trained our staff” is not a defence if it cannot be proved or if the training was years ago. This documentation becomes critical in proving breach, or defending against claims.
🟢 BEST PRACTICE: What good training looks like
Regular refreshers, not just Day One induction. Updates when menus change. Updates when suppliers change. Training that covers what happens when someone has a reaction, so staff understand the stakes. Staff who know “probably fine” can put someone in intensive care tend to be more careful.
What staff should know: All 14 allergens by heart. Where the allergen matrix is kept. Never guess: check with the kitchen. Cross-contamination risks. That “may contain” must be based on real risk assessment, not a blanket disclaimer. How to handle allergen queries confidently and accurately.
Section 5 of 7: Cross-contamination prevention
How must food businesses prevent allergen cross-contamination?
Food businesses prevent cross-contamination through dedicated equipment, separated preparation areas, documented cleaning procedures between uses, and trained awareness of which kitchen processes carry contamination risk. Natasha’s Law and the Food Information Regulations 2014 do not prescribe specific procedures, but the general duty of care in negligence does. A business that tells a customer a dish is safe for their allergy is implicitly promising it has taken reasonable steps to prevent contamination. Reasonable steps are the minimum the courts will accept.
When the implied promise is broken and a reaction follows, the claim turns on whether the business had reasonable procedures or just said it did. The defence “we offered what they asked for” fails because the offer itself carried a duty of care that was breached. Carter and Carter Solicitors obtains cleaning records, equipment logs and training documentation through legal disclosure, often finding written policies that are not followed during busy service. The dedicated restaurant allergy claims guide covers this evidence pattern in detail.
Perfect labelling and well-trained staff still cannot prevent cross-contamination if the kitchen procedures are wrong. Nuts from one dish contaminating another. Same oil used for allergen-free and allergen-containing foods. Same prep surfaces without proper cleaning between uses. This is specialist knowledge. Most restaurant owners do not understand the level of precaution needed.
Reasonable steps include separate preparation areas, dedicated equipment, proper cleaning between uses, staff awareness of contamination risks and procedures for handling allergen-free requests. None of this is mandated by statute. All of it is required by the duty of care.
If a business cannot prevent cross-contamination reliably, it should not promise allergen-free food. Better to say “We handle nuts in our kitchen and cannot guarantee no cross-contamination” than to promise safety and get it wrong. Many restaurants do not like hearing this. They want to accommodate everyone. But legal duties trump commercial preferences. Honesty about limitations beats false assurance every time.
When investigating claims, Carter and Carter Solicitors examines kitchen layouts, equipment logs, cleaning procedures and staff statements about normal practices. The firm has won claims where the restaurant insisted it had procedures but nobody actually followed them during busy service. Having a policy written down somewhere does not equal compliance if the kitchen ignores it.
If a business cannot prevent cross-contamination reliably, it should not promise allergen-free food. Honesty about limitations beats false assurance. Legal duties trump commercial preferences.
Section 6 of 7: Civil claims and penalties
How much compensation can I claim for a Natasha’s Law breach?
The Judicial College Guidelines 17th Edition (April 2024) places mild nut allergy reactions at £1,500 to £2,750 and severe reactions involving anaphylaxis at £2,750 to £3,500 in general damages. Severe reactions requiring intensive care or causing lasting psychological injury (food avoidance anxiety, social impact) can exceed this range. For Natasha’s Law breach claims specifically, the JCG figures provide the framework, but special damages (lost earnings, prescription costs, replacement EpiPens, travel to medical appointments) sit on top.
For someone considering a claim, the practical implication is that compensation reflects both the physical reaction and the long-term impact on daily life. Carter and Carter Solicitors handles every claim on a No Win No Fee basis with a published 10% fee on claims that do not proceed to a final court hearing. The dedicated guide on nut allergy compensation amounts sets out the four-tier breakdown in full.
Two routes lead to consequences for allergen failures: criminal prosecution by Trading Standards or local authorities, and civil compensation claims from injured customers. Carter and Carter Solicitors handles the latter. When someone ends up in A&E because a restaurant breached its allergen duties, the firm pursues compensation on a No Win No Fee basis.
Criminal penalties for non-compliance are serious. Unlimited fines for businesses. Imprisonment possible for individuals responsible. Mandatory corrective action. Food business operators can be prosecuted for failing to comply with Natasha’s Law or FIR 2014. But prosecutions take time and do not compensate victims. Civil claims do.
Carter and Carter Solicitors proves breach by showing the restaurant failed its legal duty. Understanding legal rights and what businesses owe is essential. Natasha’s Law and FIR 2014 create specific duties that courts recognise and enforce. Inadequate PPDS labelling. Wrong allergen information given by staff. No proper training. Cross-contamination from poor procedures. Any of these establishes breach. Then causation: that breach caused the allergic reaction. Then loss: medical treatment, lost earnings, pain and suffering, ongoing psychological impact. Many people develop severe anxiety about eating out after reactions.
The claims process typically takes 2 to 6 months. Carter and Carter Solicitors sends the Letter of Claim within 48 hours of instruction. Evidence gathering follows immediately: medical records, receipts, witness statements, the client’s account of what happened. The defendant restaurant must produce its allergen matrix, training records and supplier specifications through legal disclosure. Medical experts are instructed only when necessary. Around 99% of claims are resolved without proceeding to a final court hearing.
Since 2007, Carter and Carter Solicitors has handled hundreds of these claims. The firm knows the defences businesses run. “The customer must have been mistaken.” “Our staff always check.” “We have procedures in place.” The firm knows how to counter them with evidence. Anyone who has had an allergic reaction because a restaurant breached its allergen duties can start a claim online and get a straight answer on whether there is a case.
Section 7 of 7: Practical steps after a reaction
What should I do after an allergic reaction caused by poor labelling?
After an allergic reaction caused by poor labelling, the priority order is medical attention first, evidence preservation second, contemporaneous notes third, witness contact details fourth, and early instruction of solicitors fifth. Carter and Carter Solicitors sends a Letter of Claim within 48 hours of instruction, formally putting the business on notice and requiring preservation of CCTV footage (typically auto-deleted after 14 to 31 days), training records, supplier specifications and allergen matrices before they are routinely overwritten or destroyed.
Acting in days or weeks rather than months produces consistently stronger claims because evidence freshness is decisive. Memories fade. Staff move on. Restaurant ownership changes. Food batches get replaced. The legal time limit is three years under the Limitation Act 1980, but the practical evidence window is far shorter. The dedicated evidence guide covers the preservation steps in full.
For someone reading this in A&E, or at home shortly afterwards, the practical steps are below. They are not legal theory. They are what matters in the next few days.
- Seek medical attention if you have not already. Even if the reaction seems mild now. Even if you used your EpiPen and felt better. See your GP. Get it documented. Tell them what you ate, where you ate it, what the label said or did not say. Medical records become evidence later. You need this on file.
- Preserve everything physical. The packaging if you still have it. Receipt. Booking confirmation if you ordered online or by phone. Photograph everything: the food, the label, your reaction if visible. Screenshot any relevant social media posts you made at the time. Do not throw anything away yet. Strong claims have been weakened because crucial evidence went in the bin.
- Document what happened while it is fresh. Where you bought the food. What time. What you asked the staff. What they told you. What the packaging said. When symptoms started. How severe they got. Who witnessed it. Memories fade fast (yours and witnesses’). Get it written down now.
- Identify witnesses if possible. Anyone who was with you. Staff who served you. Other customers who saw what happened. Get names, phone numbers, email addresses. The firm will need to speak to them. People move on, phone numbers change. Get contact details now while they are traceable.
- Pause any direct contact with the business. Do not go back to the restaurant demanding answers yet. Do not contact their head office making threats. Do not post detailed complaints online naming them. These can all complicate claims later. Your job right now is preservation, not confrontation. Let the firm handle the formal process.
- Contact Carter and Carter Solicitors quickly to protect what is left. CCTV typically auto-deletes after 14 to 31 days. Staff move on. Food batches get replaced. Supplier information becomes harder to trace. The moment Carter and Carter Solicitors is instructed, a Letter of Claim goes to the business demanding preservation of CCTV, training records, supplier specifications, allergen matrices and everything else relevant. Claims have been won on evidence that would have vanished if people had waited.
After handling hundreds of allergy claims since 2007, Carter and Carter Solicitors knows which evidence wins and which does not. Restaurant CCTV showing what was ordered and what staff said? Critical. Original packaging proving inadequate labelling? Critical. Medical records documenting the reaction timeline? Critical. A written account three months later trying to remember details? Not as strong. Speed matters.
The process is straightforward. A free consultation with Chris Carter or David Healey: no call handlers, no junior solicitors, no automated assessment forms. They review what happened, give an honest answer on whether there is a claim, and explain exactly how they would prove it. If there is no claim, they explain why and save the time. If there is, they handle everything personally on No Win No Fee terms. That has been the promise since 2007, backed by 250 five-star Google reviews.
Do not let evidence disappear. Do not let time limits catch up. For more on how Natasha’s Law is working in practice, the 4 years of Natasha’s Law compliance review analyses where businesses still fail.
Start your allergy claim online or call 0800 652 0586 to speak to Chris Carter or David Healey today. Direct access to senior solicitors who have been handling these claims since 2007.
Do not let evidence disappear. Do not let time limits catch up. CCTV typically auto-deletes after 14 to 31 days. Carter and Carter Solicitors sends a Letter of Claim within 48 hours of instruction.
People also ask about Natasha’s Law
What is Natasha’s Law and when did it come into force?
What’s the difference between PPDS food and made-to-order food?
Can I claim compensation if a restaurant gave me wrong allergen information?
What are the penalties for businesses that don’t comply with Natasha’s Law?
Frequently asked questions about Natasha’s Law and allergy claims
I had a reaction but the restaurant insists their labelling was correct. Do I still have a claim?
How much will this cost me if I lose?
What if I can’t prove what I was told or what the packaging said?
How long will this take? I need to move on.
Why do clients choose Carter and Carter Solicitors for nut allergy claims?
What other guides cover the rest of an allergy claim?
Understanding what Natasha’s Law requires is just the start. These guides cover everything else needed for an allergy claim:
Nut Allergy Claims Hub
Complete overview of nut allergy claims, legal rights, and how Carter and Carter helps victims of allergic reactions.
Why work with Carter and Carter
Why clients choose Carter and Carter for legal expertise, including specialist knowledge of FSA regulations and food safety law.
Nut allergy legal rights explained
What the law requires of businesses, when they breach their duty, and how to prove negligence.
Nut allergy evidence guide
What evidence is needed, how to preserve it, and what the firm can obtain through legal disclosure.
Nut allergy compensation amounts
Typical compensation ranges based on reaction severity, plus special damages for quantifiable losses.
Restaurant allergy claims
Specific guidance for allergic reactions in restaurants, cafés, and food service establishments.
Who handles nut allergy claims at Carter and Carter Solicitors?
Every allergy claim at Carter and Carter Solicitors is handled personally by Chris Carter or David Healey, never passed to junior staff. With over 50 years of combined experience in personal injury claims, clients get direct access to senior-level expertise from day one.
Chris CarterManaging Solicitor | Qualified 1993 With over 30 years specialising exclusively in personal injury claims, Chris Carter founded Carter and Carter Solicitors on a simple principle: clients deserve direct access to experienced solicitors, not call centres. Every allergy claim Chris Carter handles benefits from three decades of negotiating with insurers and fighting for fair compensation. Direct line: 01663 761891 |
David HealeySenior Solicitor | Qualified 2005 With over 20 years specialising in personal injury claims, David Healey brings a combination of legal expertise and empathy to every allergy claim. Known for clear communication and a tenacious approach, David Healey ensures every client gets direct access to senior-level expertise, not junior handlers. Direct line: 01663 761892 |
“I can’t thank this firm enough for their support, especially Dave who handled my case with care and professionalism. After being served prawns at a restaurant despite clearly stating my allergy, I suffered a reaction leading to use of my epi pen. I reached out to four other solicitors, but all turned me away because […]
Jasmine Richards Marsh ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐