Jump to content
JennyMorgan

Five Star Rating

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Bound2Please said:

You can loose one star for just not having fridge/freezer temp logs up to date (3 times daily thet should be logged) think about that one.................... do you log your fridge#/freezer temps into a log daily???? as home no thought so

Exactly, it`s just one point i was trying to make above, as does Peters (JM) . I sometimes dispair at the fact that people still can`t see a 1 star as a pass, even though it`s not a 5 star. It comes back to what i sadi above, if it`s not fit to eat, because of por hygene, IT WILL NOT PASS AND IT WILL BE CLOSED SOWN UNTILL RECTIFIED, With 1 star, THE FOOD IS SAFE, SAFE TO EAT. And yes, i`l still eat at the Waveney too, just like the happy Buddah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, marshman said:

 

This is an incredibly silly thread the way I see it! How can anyone eat in a place that sells food and is not rated at least 3 or more? With the greatest of respect, you get what you deserve!!!

 

If you think this thread is silly DON`T BOTHER READING IT AND CONTRIBUTING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

I sometimes dispair at the fact that people still can`t see a 1 star as a pass,

Speedtriple, A star would indicate they might be doing something right!! It is not a star, IT IS a rating of HYGIENE. A rating of 1 means MAJORI IMPROVEMENT NECCESSARY. I repeat IT IS NOT a PASS or FAIL system. It is a rating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Speedtriple is of the view that an outlet is either fit for business or it is not. Personally I agree. The idea of a system that says "hey this place is not good but you can come on in if you want" seems ridiculous. And especially so if, and I may be wrong here, there is no law saying the rating must be displayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Premises with evidence of rat or mouse droppings on the floor do not get shut down immediately, but get improvement notices. Is this right or wrong, personally I think it's wrong. They should be closed until cleansed and re-graded. Those sort of places are more likely to get a 0 or 1 rating. Do you really want to eat there? A place with a rating of 5 will not have such evidence on the floor. I see the scheme as an incentive scheme to encourage businesses to strive to do better. The incentive is, or should be, the higher the score, the more likely they are to gain extra custom.

Do you buy an item of eBay from a seller with a feedback of 98.8% or do you buy the same item from a seller with 99.9 or 100%? I know which I would chose. Would you even pay a few pence more for the item from the person with 99.9%? Again I know which I would choose. 

Which ever, what ever, the scheme is about allowing the consumer to make informed choices. Ignore the system if you want, that is your choice, but I for one am glad the scheme is there for people who want to make informed choices.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 This morning I biked through Oulton Broad on my way to the boatshed that we have 'Spray' in at the moment. Just out of curiosity, as I passed all the village centre eateries, I noted that all them were proudly displaying their 4 and 5 ratings on their doors. All except one, the Waveney. I don't doubt that the Waveney could make the grade but I suspect/guess that it requires considerable investment. 

I agree that if an establishment is that bad then it will be closed down immediately. However proprietors are given advice and encouraged to achieve a 5, nothing wrong with that, is there? Except in extreme circumstances proprietors are given the opportunity to improve their standards rather than loose their livelihoods. That seems entirely fair to me. 

On the other hand we, the customers, are also given the opportunity to avoid eateries with low standards or less than very good facilities, that too seems entirely fair to me. Proprietors are given the opportunity to improve whilst we are given the information allowing us to make an informed decision, what is so wrong with that? 

The rating system is obviously there to encourage higher standards, shouldn't that be applauded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I read this one as suggesting that KFC itself does not see a 3 as good enough:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/kfc_on_mile_cross_lane_in_norwich_closes_amid_hygiene_concerns_1_4558062

KFC like most fast food chains operates with company owned and managed restaurants, and independently owned franchised restaurants. KFC have their own team of inspectors that can turn up at any restaurant unannounced and do a full check to see that the restaurant is in compliance with the company bible. The main emphasis is on food hygiene, but it will also encompass staff appearance, friendliness, product knowledge etc. After each visit the restaurant is given a score out of 100. I forget where the break points are, but below a certain score and the restaurant is closed immediately until a deep clean and staff training have been carried out. Next band up and major improvement is needed and another unannounced visit is carried out very quickly and so on. Individual members of staff can also be singled out for extra praise or awards during these visits. The above procedure is carried out regardless of whether the company owns the restaurant, or it is franchised, to ensure consistent quality across the brand.

Reading the above article it suggests an issue with a number of KFC outlets in Norwich. It is not unusual for a franchisee to purchase a number of franchises in an area often running three or four restaurants. To me the article suggests an endemic problem with the way the franchisee runs his businesses and a lack of confidence in the management and its compliance with the brands procedures. One of the reasons why the food standards agency focus's on confidence in management as one of their criteria. A good management will always lead by example and identify quickly where things are going wrong.

The above process used by KFC and most of the branded fast food outlets is the reason why they generally are more likely than most to score a 5, with the odd few examples falling short. Also goes to show how the hygiene rating has nothing to do with food quality or taste, just hygiene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we had the pubs it was pass or fail there and then on the visit of the health inspector..... Just more evidence of the mummy state all this star rating....... Did people get more food poisoning before these star ratings I think not....... Every thing these days is to clean and sterile, making us far more susceptible to bugs n viruses!. When I was  a lad the oldens used to say that youd eat a stone of dirt before yer die......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kfurbank said:

Premises with evidence of rat or mouse droppings on the floor do not get shut down immediately, but get improvement notices. Is this right or wrong, personally I think it's wrong. They should be closed until cleansed and re-graded. Those sort of places are more likely to get a 0 or 1 rating. Do you really want to eat there? A place with a rating of 5 will not have such evidence on the floor. I see the scheme as an incentive scheme to encourage businesses to strive to do better. The incentive is, or should be, the higher the score, the more likely they are to gain extra custom.

Do you buy an item of eBay from a seller with a feedback of 98.8% or do you buy the same item from a seller with 99.9 or 100%? I know which I would chose. Would you even pay a few pence more for the item from the person with 99.9%? Again I know which I would choose. 

Which ever, what ever, the scheme is about allowing the consumer to make informed choices. Ignore the system if you want, that is your choice, but I for one am glad the scheme is there for people who want to make informed choices.

 

I think it is wrong. If it is a health issue of any sort the premises should be closed down until passed fit for purpose. Am I correct in my understanding that ratings do not have to be displayed? If so that seems to blow a hole in the idea of "open" information.

Incidentally Ebay 98% - yes would certainly deal with such a trader. The difference between that and 99% is probably an individual or two who have suffered an upset and that may even be due to the postal system rather than the trader.

I agree though, it is my choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Poppy said:

Disgraceful?  I shall continue in my disgraceful behavior. I urge others to join me !

But they don't have to display the one star status do they? If so how do you know for sure that an establishment meets your standards and will not your course only serve to encourage non display. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Soundings said:

But they don't have to display the one star status do they? If so how do you know for sure that an establishment meets your standards and will not your course only serve to encourage non display. 

I shall continue to look on appropriate web sites - as I do now.   This one, for example http://ratings.food.gov.uk/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am far more in favour of a ratings system.  Let us not forget nothing actually has changed here, it is the process has become more transparent – to us - the people who are the paying punters looking for a meal.

In the past, you still had the local inspector making visits to premises – carrying out checks, and advising the business where they could improve on things, and then making a repeat visit to see if they indeed had.  In severe cases the business would be forced to close until it met the standards. 

As someone using the business to eat at, you’d have no idea whatsoever what was going on actually now you do because you can make a choice based upon how the business in question is following the hygiene standards. 

I like it too there ratings, not just ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ because it shows commitment to the (frankly common sense) standards the business is willing to show.  It is not all about costs and staff time either and if some businesses choose to make a big deal of the fact they have the highest ratings for hygiene – then good on them.  It might attract a few more people through the doors.

You may have a terrible kitchen at home full of nastiest and not handle food in the correct manner or store it – no judgement there, but people are not customers when they come to you, and you have little duty of care over their health. When you go out and pay for a meal all that changes. 

Let us say you went to a place that had the highest food hygiene rating, but food might taste terrible and the service may be appalling and the prices way too high – the point is at least the you know the behind the scenes preparation, cooking and storage areas are as good as they can be so far as hygiene, that the management and staff know what to do and adhere to the standards to keep them at that high level. 

Conversely, the place down the road might be cheaper, have better tasting food and a warmer welcome and better service but the fact the salad is stored on the fridge shelf under the raw chicken or the same knife is used to cut the bread as the meat you’d never know but the rating of only 2 may point towards something being amiss in the kitchen.

Just as we all have a choice where to eat, so the restaurants have a choice on how much they follow food hygiene standards.  If they do enough to get a rating of 3 and feel that is good enough so be it – but I don’t think it at all bad that we now can, if we want to, check up on a food hygiene rating prior to visit – even if they choose not to to show it on their door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all being to molly coddled these days...... Sorry to any molly's reading this.

The PC brigade again, lets just go back to common sense, like when we was all younger.... Who had a burger from greasy dudahs at the side of a road (with no star ratings) on way home from the pub (with no star rating).............. was you ill no of course you wasnt....

PS how many ate the hogroast at the spring meet?. was you ill from it i wasnt........ and not a star rating in site

Time this subject was laid to rest...

Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

I am far more in favour of a ratings system.  Let us not forget nothing actually has changed here, it is the process has become more transparent – to us - the people who are the paying punters looking for a meal.

In the past, you still had the local inspector making visits to premises – carrying out checks, and advising the business where they could improve on things, and then making a repeat visit to see if they indeed had.  In severe cases the business would be forced to close until it met the standards. 

As someone using the business to eat at, you’d have no idea whatsoever what was going on actually now you do because you can make a choice based upon how the business in question is following the hygiene standards. 

I like it too there ratings, not just ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ because it shows commitment to the (frankly common sense) standards the business is willing to show.  It is not all about costs and staff time either and if some businesses choose to make a big deal of the fact they have the highest ratings for hygiene – then good on them.  It might attract a few more people through the doors.

 

 

 

You may have a terrible kitchen at home full of nastiest and not handle food in the correct manner or store it – no judgement there, but people are not customers when they come to you, and you have little duty of care over their health. When you go out and pay for a meal all that changes. 

 

Let us say you went to a place that had the highest food hygiene rating, but food might taste terrible and the service may be appalling and the prices way too high – the point is at least the you know the behind the scenes preparation, cooking and storage areas are as good as they can be so far as hygiene, that the management and staff know what to do and adhere to the standards to keep them at that high level. 

 

Conversely, the place down the road might be cheaper, have better tasting food and a warmer welcome and better service but the fact the salad is stored on the fridge shelf under the raw chicken or the same knife is used to cut the bread as the meat you’d never know but the rating of only 2 may point towards something being amiss in the kitchen.

 

Just as we all have a choice where to eat, so the restaurants have a choice on how much they follow food hygiene standards.  If they do enough to get a rating of 3 and feel that is good enough so be it – but I don’t think it at all bad that we now can, if we want to, check up on a food hygiene rating prior to visit – even if they choose not to to show it on their door.

 

All been said before, Robin. The facts do not change and nothing you have suggests that either. As you say it is down to individuals but ratings do not have to be displayed (as said before) so unless you look it up on the web site you may not know what the rating is and that might be hard to do if you are just popping into a shop for a quick sandwich or hamburger or if yo are not pc literate. Where I disagree fundamentally is your view that restaurants should be able to decide their own hygiene levels when they don't even have to display openly the rules of the inspection. Thank goodness airlines do not have to decide on their own safety levels!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soundings said:

Where I disagree fundamentally is your view that restaurants should be able to decide their own hygiene levels when they don't even have to display openly the rules of the inspection. 

Soundings, I am not sure what your point is?

You seem to be some how against the rating system - is it you see this transparency as a threat to the business of a pub, take way or restaurant I wonder.

These ratings are being used in two ways: both as a point of pride for the establishment as to their hygiene standards and as a way to attract customers who care about how things are kept 'back of house' who may choose to eat there than somewhere else based upon their rating.

Lets take Horning.  Three pubs, two of them with ratings of 5 and one with a rating of 2. Why does the pub with a rating of 2, only been able to move up from 1 last year? Because they have chosen not to implement all of the changes necessary to improve their beyond this.

In effect therefore they are deicing their own hygiene levels - it could be where the food is stored, it might be how it is handled, or a combination of several things but fundamental is the fact the Inspector will not have just popped over, made an assessment walked away and a week later submitted some paperwork and have been given a rating of 2 .

The Inspector would have commented on how things are being dealt with, where improvements could be made - likely at time of the inspection - but that is wholly the responsibility of the establishment to action, in part or whole.

Unlike the two other pubs who have their ratings on the door, the pub with the rating of 2 decides not to show this on their doors - another choice they are making. They will have been given their sticker to display, but they decided not to display such.

If the pub with the rating of 2 looses business because of some people who care about these things, I cannot feel sympathy. This is an important point.  If you wish not to worry about such things, or if a place you go to eat in has no ratings displayed and you go in that is fine - that is your choice.  

Though not actually the same thing, I also feel now if you are in the business of serving people you should expect that a great number of those customers will be holding in their hands a device that they will be using to check in, share their experience and so on with their Facebook friends, and several will be rating you on the likes of Trip Advisor. Monitoring these is now part of the business plan (I believe) and part of that is also ensuring hygiene as this as become a new competitive area.  After all, most people who have come to eat are paying good money and want good service, a friendly inviting atmosphere and well prepared food that is stored, cooked and handled in a safe way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will use the rating system and will continue to do so. I assume that if they do not display it must be bad. I may miss out on a few good places......my choice not yours. Before the rating system came into place it was word of mouth or desperation. I remember many a time of old where the tummy gave its own rating after a visit due to desperation. 

Pays your money takes your chance. It is my choice where to eat or if I use the rating system.....no one else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have missed the point, Robin, then so be it. It is getting boring now:-). Suffice to say - it is your choice. Do what you like and I shall do likewise. I do not like the rating system and health/safety issues should imho be dealt with on a fit for purpose basis - you are either open or shut. Snap-shot ratings prove very little after the event (like an MOT really, although even this is a fit for purpose assessment) and I am sure there are 5 star establishments that have been below par even after the assessment has been awarded. Things can and do go wrong - that is life unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the old case of one mans meat is another man's poison.       Locally here to Beccles we have something called Streetlife. If you read through all of the posts regarding the Waveney Hotel at Oulton Broad,   it started off with a post saying how downhill it had gone and throughout there was a mixture of folk thinking it was wonderful and some thinking quite the opposite.    You cant please everybody all of the time.    I do believe at some time a few years back the Waveney had a rating of 1 but now I believe it is 5.    It is a bit like the Broads no day is ever the same.   Some days service is top notch and another day for no reason at all it fails to please?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.