Food Hygiene Rating

[Labrador]

 I see in the latest food hygiene ratings, both Thurne Lion and Ludham Dog have a rating

of 1 (major improvement necessary).

[vanessan]

[LondonRascal]

The Dog Inn was last assessed in October 2015 - the Lion Inn back in September 2015.  Therefore much could have changed since then. 

I think what will be interesting to see are local businesses like the Ferry Inn at Horning, (1 star rating) which was last checked in March 2015 and therefore could be up for a new inspection this March.

IF a business was inspected and showed a poor outcome on hygiene standards and (in the case of the Ferry Inn in Horning) talked about both on Facebook Groups and this forum for such, and when next inspected did not make big improvements in my opinion there can be no excuse whatever.

 

[Labrador]

With all respect Robin, these places have all got established management/tenants, the fact that they have let things let things slide enough to achieve a rating requiring major improvement, is not very impressive in my view. Although some of the rating requirements don't directly relate to the storage and handling of food, a lot do. To achieve a rating this low means the food could present a health hazard.

It really is time food establishments were made to display their rating prominently.

[Poppy]

40 minutes ago, Labrador said:

With all respect Robin, these places have all got established management/tenants, the fact that they have let things let things slide enough to achieve a rating requiring major improvement, is not very impressive in my view. Although some of the rating requirements don't directly relate to the storage and handling of food, a lot do. To achieve a rating this low means the food could present a health hazard.

It really is time food establishments were made to display their rating prominently.

Agreed. When such an establishment fails to do so I always wonder why ! 

[LondonRascal]

I agree - but having raised this point in the past and been 'pounced upon' by people thinking that to increase awareness and not want to eat in such places is like kicking them when they are down, I am trying to be a little more kind and holding back until updated 2016 ratings are provided.

There really is no need for establishments in a major tourist area that the Broads is to allow their standards to slip, when places like the New Inn and Swan can do so well with their ratings.

[Poppy]

Such establishments need 'a kicking' IMHO. If the boss is 'your mate' or it's a favorite watering hole that's absolutely NO excuse!

[marshman]

Well there is an excuse - they just don't care too much!!!

[kfurbank]

Robin,

It should be remembered that any business given a poor rating can ask for another inspection at any time to prove they have made changes and are now up to scratch. A business with a poor rating for a number of months has either had another inspection and still proven to be poor, or doesn't give a monkeys.

 

[Labrador]

My local had a rating of 4 when our last incumbents came in and they work hard getting it up to 5, which they have. They didn't really have to, as 4 is respectable, but they wanted to show that the food not only tasted good but was as safe health wise as they could achieve.

 

[Broadsword]

You are absolutely right Kfurbank, and any self respecting manager/tenant would do so.  The inspectors are thoroughly fair in my experience, pointing out the problems, updating on changes to legislation, advising on the clear improvements needed etc.

We inherited a rating of 2 which we were very concerned about - and my excellent colleagues have seen that turned around to our current 5.  It was immediately increased to 3 on the basis of greater confidence in the management (aka SWMBO) and then on fulfilment of the required improvements we were awarded 5.

2 is serious enough - 1 is a small step away from closure and should be taken extremely seriously. They really do all relate closely in the end to the handling and provision of food - including risk of contamination from pests, build up of grime in extractors etc. that all can affect food hygiene.

[Broadsword]

The FSA website: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/hygiene-rating-schemes/ratings-find-out-more-en

'The Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) helps you choose where to eat out or shop for food by telling you how seriously the business takes their food hygiene standards.

The scheme is run by local authorities in England, Northern Ireland and Wales and applies to restaurants, pubs, cafes, takeaways, hotels, supermarkets and other food shops.

Each business is given their hygiene rating when it is inspected by a food safety officer from the business’s local authority. The food safety officer inspecting the business checks how well the business is meeting the law by looking at:

• how hygienically the food is handled – how it is prepared, cooked, re-heated, cooled and stored
• the condition of the structure of the buildings – the cleanliness, layout, lighting, ventilation and other facilities
• how the business manages and records what it does to make sure food is safe

At the end of the inspection, the business is given one of the six ratings from 0-5. The top rating of ‘5’ means that the business was found to have ‘very good’ hygiene standards. Any business should be able to reach this top rating.

______________

The emphasis above is mine... no excuses... A rating of 4 is not bad, but even then, businesses will know what they should do to improve. The evaluation is based on several criteria - many good food establishments fall down on poor record keeping (temp charts etc.)

[webntweb]

Just looked at Wilmslow Road in Manchester, of which a large proportion of the eateries are on what is known as "Curry Mile". 40 establishments had a rating of 1 and three had a rating of 0.

An improvement. When the ratings were first done a few years ago the vast majority had a 0.

Roy

 

[Chelsea14Ian]

To have a rating of one is very poor and in my experience  you have to have very poor standards indeed not to gain a higher mark.My company checks on all our units to maintain good standards and are also checked by local councils,therefore double checked

[NorfolkNog]

Just spotted on Twitter that the Ship at Reedham has just been awarded a maximum score of 5

Well done to them. Their steak pie is excellent too

[Labrador]

Hotel Wroxham was given a food hygiene rating of 1 on 10th of February 2016.

[Chelsea14Ian]

As I said before to have a rating of only 1 ials very poor.You must have a rethink and improve  in all areas.We have only eaten  in there a few times,so years ago.Mainly just having a drink there.If they don't improve  won't eat there anymore

[Boaters]

Shocked to see some well known eateries around the rivers are so low .I for one would not eat there until they reach a better score.Had a good meal at the Maltsters .Note they have 3 stars which is acceptable .I am told that it is not all dirty or unfit food but can include bad records or stock control ,but would welcome some possible reasons for them being so low as I don't understand can they not sort it out and be re tested ASAP ? Curious ?

[bigbream]

The star ratings are so deceiving most mcdonalds outlets have a rating of 5 probably for the cleanliness , records kept up to date etc etc but IMHO the food is the biggest load of c**p you can eat. I have eaten in a lot of pubs on the broads that don't exactly look pleasing to the eye and had fantastic meals.

[JawsOrca]

2 hours ago, bigbream said:

The star ratings are so deceiving most mcdonalds outlets have a rating of 5 probably for the cleanliness , records kept up to date etc etc but IMHO the food is the biggest load of c**p you can eat. I have eaten in a lot of pubs on the broads that don't exactly look pleasing to the eye and had fantastic meals.

Surely it's what you can't see that's the worrying thing. I suspect Mc'ds have huge standards in place for hygiene and freshness. A small (potentially underused) pub may potentially cut corners..

I for one expect 5 stars and even question a 4 star.. Sorry but it's the profession of the business to work to the best if they can't do that then I won't go there. I do feel though that they should be inspected more than once a year so they can be regraded if improved quickly.. potentially a bit unfair.

[Springsong]

In my day  there of course was no ratings. The local council sent their inspector round to check one out. The chap we had on our area in Broadland DC was a very obnoxious little man who failed us on several things including fridges and the ice machine. He then recommended we use this particular  company to advise us and facilitate every thing. We thought this odd and checked this company out, can you guess who one of the directors was. I think he had his collar felt as a result.

[Poppy]

Isn't it strange how some seem to take it as a personal affront when ever their favorite watering hole or eating place is with good reason found wanting and seem to seek a defense for the indefensible?  I've noticed this in all sorts of areas, not just on this forum.

[NorfolkNog]

 

 

[kfurbank]

On ‎26‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 9:09 AM, Boaters said:

Shocked to see some well known eateries around the rivers are so low .I for one would not eat there until they reach a better score.Had a good meal at the Maltsters .Note they have 3 stars which is acceptable .I am told that it is not all dirty or unfit food but can include bad records or stock control ,but would welcome some possible reasons for them being so low as I don't understand can they not sort it out and be re tested ASAP ? Curious ?

Roy,

As I said earlier in this thread, any business with a poor rating can request a revisit before the next planned visit to hopefully be re-graded higher. There is a pre-requisite to requesting an earlier revisit. They must have attempted to make the improvements suggested on the last visit. To me any business with a poor rating for more than a couple of months just doesn't care about the scheme or your safety. It should be remembered that the hygiene ratings are about safety, not quality or taste.

Companies such as McDonalds use their own internal food inspection teams who can turn up unannounced at any of their managed or franchised outlets. They have the power to close poor performing outlets, or place them in special measures. This is why they often score so highly when the local authorities visit.

You will often see a business with a food rating of 5 have the sticker in the door, or just to the side of the door. It is noticeably absent at businesses who score much lower. Whilst a score of 5 is a badge of honour for many businesses who are proud to display it, the scheme would work a lot better if all businesses were legally obliged to display their current rating prominently within 10 feet of their main entrances in my opinion.

More on how retests work can be found here,

https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/enforcement/fhrssafeguards.pdf

[Poppy]

5 minutes ago, Jonzo said:

Couldn't agree more.

If you're scoring below 3 then you're probably not in the right profession, and having it on display is a good way of making them sort themselves out.

I've long felt that businesses should be legally required to prominently display their food hygiene rating.