More Problems At The Ferry Inn

[Guest]

My gut feeling not to eat here is proved correct.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/owner-of-ferry-inn-at-horning-ian-chinn-faces-ban-from-running-food-business-after-snap-inspection-found-hygiene-breaches-1-5012367

And my gut is probably feeling better because I didn't!

[kfurbank]

I wonder how long before the usual apologists come along and defend eating in a 1 or 2 hygiene rating establishment. It has been said on previous threads if things are that bad, why isn't action taken. Well it looks like it finally is, and not before time.

[jeffbroadslover]

I think it may be prudent to not pass any speculative comments until after the result of the appeal is known.

Jeff

[JennyMorgan]

You might be right, Jeff, but I doubt that there is smoke without fire in this case.

[LizG]

Not wishing to support the pub but you must read the article not just the headline.....

[NorfolkNog]

Indeed, lets see what happens. As far as I am aware Councils will bend over backwards to work with operators and try to help with the improvements needed before enforcement action is taken. I think given that the Council have gone this far would seem to indicate the seriousness of their concerns and no doubt they will have the evidence to back it up. As Liz says the operator has presented mitigating circumstances, interesting to see what happens.

[dnks34]

37 minutes ago, jeffbroadslover said:

I think it may be prudent to not pass any speculative comments until after the result of the appeal is known.

Jeff

An appeal wont make them decide his kitchen was clean after all. 

But it could change how hes been dealt with. 

[grendel]

reading that by october he had changed staff and achieved a 4 star rating, doesnt sound so bad to me, it seemed fine when we were there in february.

[ZimbiIV]

Anyone worried about this, one question do you eat kebabs?

Why?

paul

[MauriceMynah]

3 minutes ago, grendel said:

reading that by october he had changed staff and achieved a 4 star rating, doesnt sound so bad to me, it seemed fine when we were there in february.

Oh come along Grendel, one mustn't let irrelevant facts like that derail a good story

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Yet again, we have a comment about 1 & 2 star eateries being unsafe to eat in. Sorry Keith, but that is absolute crap. If an eatery was unsafe to eat in because of cleanliness and food hygene issues etc etc, it just WOULD`NT get a license to operate, let alone a star rating, even if it is only a 1 star.  Personally, i think it`s disgraceful to insinuate that any eatery with only 1 or 2 stars is dangerous to eat in, and could, because of idle gossip and speculation, be very detrimental to any number of perfectly good and acceptable establishments. I also think the forum mods should look very closely at comments like this because of the possiblity of people using the forum to post up possible unwarranted, and dare i say it, "slanderous" comments driving away a businesses custom. Basically, if you don`t want to eat in a place because it`s only 1 or 2 star rating, please reframe from saying, or hinting, or insinuating that it`s unsafe, when in fact, it may be a lot more hygenic than a Michelin star establishment.

[JawsOrca]

[marshman]

I have to agree with PW on this and in any case why did it have to take Court action to get him to clean up in the interests of his customers ? He had had a poor rating for sometime remember?

You will also recall that the incident with the bouncy castle - he only narrowly escaped a custodial sentence with that one and in addition, Mr Chinn continues to be at odds with the BA over the stern on mooring issue. You will all recall how this was banned after an unsuccessful trial because of the dangers and incidents of damage and yet, over the Easter weekend there was more stern on mooring in contravention of the ban.

As Pete says, no smoke without fire or perhaps he is just unlucky!!.

 

 

[CambridgeCabby]

As a former publican and restaurateur I find the current "scores on the doors" very misleading and often very subjective.

at one of my former premises the kitchen flooring (Lino) was scored and torn , as I was awaiting planning consent for an extension to allow separate prep area and a larger kitchen , to fall within the laws at the time I removed ALL the flooring had the concrete underfloor sealed and painted in a commercial non slip floor "paint",

was duly re tested and was served with a prohibation notice preventing me from serving hot food as the surface was not in accordance with what they allowed (a finish which is now used in many commercial kitchens) but only in that inspectors view , I appealed and was told I would be inspected by another official but it would be at least six weeks until it was possible.

long story short , we had to recover the floor in "approved flooring" for the four weeks before building work commenced at a cost of £2500 in 1984, so as to be able to continue serving hot food.

 

if and I mean if a kitchen is infested , filthy or dangerous fair enough close it .

but when a business , especially one which has risen from the ashes , is making obvious leaps and bounds in the right direction why do the authorities keep hitting them.

 

nowhere does it state the kitchens at the Ferry were dirty, food below standard or than anyone had been ill , a couple of breaches of food hygiene regulations were not up to 100% .

 

i like the food there , what they do they do well, and after seeing it boarded up for so long it's a pleasure to see it back again 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, marshman said:

You will also recall that the incident with the bouncy castle - he only narrowly escaped a custodial sentence

He was given a custodial sentence - but it was suspended. He has been fined for hygiene failures. The appeal is about the level of fine. To put this right only after the warnings does not show the business in a good light. They appear to take action on requirements only when forced to do so. All of which costs us taxpayers money hence i will not be spending any of mine here.

My opinion - not a recommendation to others to do the same. That is your choice.

[Chelsea14Ian]

I look forward to eating there,but not any time soon.

[grendel]

the problem is that the pub is still labouring under a rating of 2 from april 2016, whereas the council officer herself admitted (in the words of the newspaper)

"She said when inspectors revisited in October last year it was greatly improved and another unannounced visit this week showed it would now achieve a “four star rating”."

This is what we experienced when we visited in February (not having a lot of alternative options due to the hours we were putting in).

I would happily return.

Unlike the title of the article, its the old problems being raised once more, it does seem silly to punish someone who has - the council has admitted, made improvements, for an offence committed, so long after the problem no longer exists.

I can fully understand why he has appealed.

I am not condoning the original actions that led to the problem, but the time taken to react by the authorities, and the validity of their continued action, considering the problem has now been resolved.

surely the raising of standards is the desired result.

[ExUserGone]

How many of your own kitchens have a rating of 1 or over? I'll bet mine wouldn't get as high as that and I still eat out of it every day without worrying, the dog sometimes turns his nose up though.

[kfurbank]

12 hours ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

Yet again, we have a comment about 1 & 2 star eateries being unsafe to eat in. Sorry Keith, but that is absolute crap. If an eatery was unsafe to eat in because of cleanliness and food hygene issues etc etc, it just WOULD`NT get a license to operate, let alone a star rating, even if it is only a 1 star.  Personally, i think it`s disgraceful to insinuate that any eatery with only 1 or 2 stars is dangerous to eat in, and could, because of idle gossip and speculation, be very detrimental to any number of perfectly good and acceptable establishments. I also think the forum mods should look very closely at comments like this because of the possiblity of people using the forum to post up possible unwarranted, and dare i say it, "slanderous" comments driving away a businesses custom. Basically, if you don`t want to eat in a place because it`s only 1 or 2 star rating, please reframe from saying, or hinting, or insinuating that it`s unsafe, when in fact, it may be a lot more hygenic than a Michelin star establishment.

Speedtriple, please do not mis quote, or put your own interpretation on my posts.

The following is taken from the Food Standards Agency Website. I have highlighted a section for your benefit.

The rating given shows how well the business is doing overall but also takes account of the element or elements most in need of improving (see ‘How is a hygiene rating worked out?’ above) and also the level of risk to people’s health that these issues pose. This is because some businesses will do well in some areas and less well in others but each of the three elements checked is essential for making sure that food hygiene standards meet requirements and the food served or sold to you is safe to eat.

To get the top rating of ‘5’, businesses must do well in all three elements.

Those with ratings of ‘0’ are very likely to be performing poorly in all three elements and are likely to have a history of serious problems. There may, for example, be a lack of sufficient cleaning and disinfection, and there may not be a good enough system of management in place to check and record what the business does to make sure the food is safe.

[grendel]

the Rating is (like an MOT) only an indication of the state of the kitchens on a certain day at a certain time that the inspector called.

As I have indicated above, the council admit that its current standard would meet a 4 star rating, OK not the top 5 star rating, but equally not the 2 star rating they were given last april - over a year ago now.

while some may not like the current licensee, the fact is that the Broads needs these businesses to cater for the holidaymakers.

[JennyMorgan]

I suspect that a great deal of this one boils down to trust, is the the business concerned sufficiently trusted to provide consistent standards?  I also suspect that the various departs in county hall or wherever talk to each other. It wasn't so long ago that the health and  safety people were concerned with the safety of the play area. Different authority but then there is the mooring issue. 

The Broads do need businesses that cater for the holiday maker, agreed, but that need shouldn't excuse businesses from providing consistently high standards and compliance with authority..

[Poppy]

" He said the business provided work for the local community "   The locals appere to be unaware of this......

[BrundallNavy]

1 hour ago, Poppy said:

" He said the business provided work for the local community "   The locals appere to be unaware of this......

I think he meant Horningski in Poland.  

[Labrador]

7 hours ago, grendel said:

the Rating is (like an MOT) only an indication of the state of the kitchens on a certain day at a certain time that the inspector called.

 

The difference between an MOT and the hygiene rating is that you know when your MOT is due,so if you are a responsible motorist you keep your vehicle to standard, if not you put it through and then rectify the failure faults. With the hygiene rating you do not know when they when they are coming, so to achieve 3 or4 rating implies an in place regime.

[Labrador]

Just reread, I meant 4 5 rating, wrote it after I had been inspecting the hygiene of the beer glasses at my local.