Interesting Reading…

[Andrewcook]

Hi I was very surprised of the One One Rating in Two Takeaway places in Stalham  and One in Potter Heigham so that is certainly a wake up call to tidy there act . Yet Burger Bar in Stalham and Potter Heigham have got good Rating as it's in the open for the Public to notice there Food & Hygiene is up to Standard. 

 

[chrisdobson45]

[chrisdobson45]

[DAVIDH]

Yes, Chris, the images do support the finding that the place has been given a 1 star rating. In the screenprint from Facebook, the owner is denying this, saying he has a four star rating, and will be on to the appropriate authorities. I suppose we will know soon enough which is correct.

[Chelsea14Ian]

I stand to be corrected, but a big difference from  1 to 4 stars.

[FairTmiddlin]

Food safety has come a long way in the last 7 to 8 years, with all staff involved with the service of food. Having to keep a handbook of their training in food safety, allergy information to clients. This puts a large onus on the owner or manager of establishments.

With any new staff having being tested to level 1 which includes. Hazards and contamination, allergic reactions, good and poor safety standards, microorganism, bacteria and your responsibilities as a food handler including what you are legally required to do to keep food safe at all times.

By the poor rating on this portion of his inspection, possibly this is the down mark to a 1. If most of them are new, since the opening from covid, possibly this training is ongoing.

[MauriceMynah]

I speak as I find.  I have been both using and recommending the  Apple Tree chinese takeaway since April this year. Their food is good and good value for money. It's probably the best I've had. I shall continue to use and recommend them irrespective of what the EDP or anyone else says. I shall reconsider should I hear reliable reports of food poisoning. 

[Ray]

I'll stick with the inspectors, food poisoning is a pretty harsh test of hygiene 🤮

[Chelsea14Ian]

Very true.The scores on the doors is not perfect, however  it's lead to better practices in the trade.I have long said that scores must be on display. Better training should  be encouraged, and harsher penalties for those that keep offering unsafe food.

[Meantime]

It's all very confusing because this forum doesn't do naming and shaming, yet two contributors to this thread have named (the EDP) and shamed (for printing incorrect information and not fact checking) based upon assertions made by a couple of posters on a totally different platform Facebook. Now what if the EDP have got it right and published correct information from the body responsible for the inspections. Will there be an apology from this forum?

At the moment I really don't know whether to believe the posters on this thread, the EDP or Facebook because none have provided concrete proof yet.

So at present all we have is the speculation that this forum seems so keen to divorce itself from most of the time!

If I felt inclined to eat at The Norada, I think I would ask them to show me proof of their rating and then decide from there.

[Chelsea14Ian]

Do as I did.Just look up scores or the doors  Norfolk. I checked North Norfolk. Also available South  Norfolk  and indeed any part of the country. 

[Meantime]

2 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

Do as I did.Just look up scores or the doors  Norfolk. I checked North Norfolk. Also available South  Norfolk  and indeed any part of the country. 

Which is generally what I do, however although businesses are routinely checked the frequency will often increase dependent upon risk. It is also possible to ask for an earlier inspection if you have received a bad review and made the improvements required. If you like a wake up call, then improvements made and a reinspection carried out and a much better grade achieved.

Now this is entirely speculation, but I would not be surprised to see that Norada has made improvements and been inspected again and achieved a better result which has yet to have been published on the council website and thus updates have not made it through to scores on the doors yet. 

An important point to note is that a rating of 5 will be published as soon as it is uploaded by the local authority. A rating of 0 - 4 will be published 3-5 weeks after inspection to allow for an appeal to be submitted by the business owner. 

Therefore it is perfectly feasible that the owner of Norada is holding the results of a second inspection in which he was awarded a rating of 4, which has yet to be published on the council website. Which of course would make the comments on Facebook correct, but also make the EDP correct based upon what is currently published on North Norfolk Councils website and Scores on the Doors.

[YnysMon]

33 minutes ago, Meantime said:

It's all very confusing because this forum doesn't do naming and shaming, yet two contributors to this thread have named (the EDP) and shamed (for printing incorrect information and not fact checking) based upon assertions made by a couple of posters on a totally different platform Facebook.

Anyone can check the Food Standards Agency's website. It clearly confirms what EDP reported is correct. I would have thought that the Agency would take care to publish the correct rating on their website, otherwise they would most likely be sued.

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, YnysMon said:

Anyone can check the Food Standards Agency's website. It clearly confirms what EDP reported is correct. I would have thought that the Agency would take care to publish the correct rating on their website, otherwise they would most likely be sued.

As I mentioned above a rating of 0-4 will not be published for 3-5 weeks to allow the owner of the business to appeal the result. Therefore it is entirely feasible that a second inspection has happened and although better, as it is not a rating of 5 it has not been published yet. 

[YnysMon]

That's a good point. The truth is that ratings do fluctuate as businesses get repeat inspections. I recall one Fish and Chip Shop changing overnight from a 1 to a 5. However, the current published rating for the establishment under discussion is 1, so technically the EDP are correct.

[Ray]

If the official current rating is 1 then that is the best information available to us.

The rest (positive and negative) is indeed just speculation.

As members of the public our most sensible course is to believe the experts until they publish an update.

[Chelsea14Ian]

Yes it's true you have the right to be re tested often at a later date, userly about six weeks later.In that time officers can and do offer advice where improvements  can be made.This perhaps highlights  where confusion  happens. Ray is correct. The current  rating is the correct one available.The purpose of the rating system.Is to improve  standards  and in my opinion by and large that's what it does,however  as I've said improvements  to the assessment can also be improved. We the customer can view the scores then make a decision on whether to eat in a place or not.

[CambridgeCabby]

I agree with Meantime that a business can request a follow up visit after improvements have been made so as to improve their rating , however as it currently stands the official council rating for the business is a 1 and according to their site it was last updated on August 9th 

I will keep an eye on the site and if the rating does indeed change I would be more than happy to post their new rating on here when it is achieved 

[Chelsea14Ian]

I agree this is the up to date information available. Also agree if any business makes noticeable improvements that should  be supported. 

[Meantime]

9 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

however as it currently stands the official council rating for the business is a 1 and according to their site it was last updated on August 9th 

I will keep an eye on the site and if the rating does indeed change I would be more than happy to post their new rating on here when it is achieved 

The last update was Aug 9th, however just suppose a second inspection was completed on the 1st Aug, and it was less than a 5, it will be 3 - 5 weeks before it is published. So in reality the owner of Norada could have a rating of 4 by now.

What I don't fully understand though is why any ratings need to be "published" on here, updated or not. Surely the official sites exist for anyone to go and check at their leisure, without repeating information here.

Just suppose Norada does now have a rating of 4, as yet unpublished on North Norfolk Council's website, and people in 3 or 4 months time searching Norada stumble across this thread highlighting a rating of 1.

The potential for future and ongoing damage to a business could be perpetuated by threads such as this.

[Meantime]

Published ratings

After an inspection, the rating will be uploaded by the local authority so that it is published on the Food hygiene ratings website. Ratings of '5 - very good' will be published as soon as the information is uploaded by your local authority.  Ratings of 0 – 4 will be published 3 – 5 weeks after the date of inspection to allow for an appeal to be submitted (see section on safeguards below).

The above is taken from www.food.gov.uk

 

[Mouldy]

3 hours ago, Ray said:

I'll stick with the inspectors, food poisoning is a pretty harsh test of hygiene 🤮

In total agreement with that!  Having had Campylobacter a few years ago, I can say without any fear of contradiction that it is something I never want again.  I couldn’t knowingly eat in premises where food hygiene is so poor as to warrant such a low rating.  I could do with shedding a few pounds, I know, but losing just short of 1.5 stone in a week wasn’t pleasant.

[annv]

Hi I often wonder if a low score is down to bad paper work and not dirty work surfaces, while dirty floors are not recommended you dont prepare food on the floor, in my army days the food we ate in the conditions it was prepared would be a jail sentence yet no body ever had problems, certainly looking at some of the take away's depicted on TV the inspector calls i would have shut them  there and then yet all the inspectors do is tell them its not good enough, perhaps  Ian could inform us as to what can give you a bad score but not food infection as is often implied or expected .personal hygiene as in not touching the under neath of tables and chairs then touching your food is much more important than the food ratings in stopping tummy problems. John

[Ray]

I don't personally know anyone who goes online to check the Food Standards official rating before going out to eat. Publishing the results by the EDP and here is a public service in my opinion If a business has allowed their premises to deserve a rating of one then they only have themselves to blame.

4 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

In total agreement with that!  Having had Campylobacter a few years ago, I can say without any fear of contradiction that it is something I never want again.  I couldn’t knowingly eat in premises where food hygiene is so poor as to warrant such a low rating.  I could do with shedding a few pounds, I know, but losing just short of 1.5 stone in a week wasn’t pleasant.

Had a very similar experience, hospitalised for a week and genuinely thought I was going to die during the first morning. 

 

 

 

[CambridgeCabby]

Removed by OP