Food hygiene ratings - Scores on the doors

[dbboy]

Does anyone know why ALL food shops (supermarkets, butchers, fishmongers, bakers, fruit and greengrocers, takeaways and restaurants) are not compelled to clearly display their food hygiene rating (scores on the doors).

http://www.scoresonthedoors.org.uk/

I found out the other week the ratings of some of the shops on Forest Hill Road who only achieve a 2 rating, very, very poor.

[B&G]

Because there's no legislative requirement. Hence why 4 and 5 stars businesses will display and others tend not to.

You can search for them online if you want to know more about each rating, though the majority are 3 star and up. Worth bearing in mind, too, that somewhere with a 2 star rating may decide to up their game and improve, but may not get revisited for another year or more.

For example, the Co-op got checked recently and demoted from a 5 star to a 2 star following complaints about mice. They're planning a refurb in the next 12 months to address the issues but will likely have to live with a crappy rating until their next inspection, even if the standards improve.

[JoeLeg]

Ok, I've said it before and I'll say it again - the 'Scores On The Doors' system is ridiculous and frankly misleading to the public.

I've got a 5-star rating, which got re-confirmed last autumn by the local EHO's. They said it will be at least 18 months before they visit again unless they receive complaints. A lot can happen in 18 months. Things can go downhill in 18 days! Why aren't the scores required to be displayed? Likewise you can get drop a star or two because of cracks in the ceiling, as happened to a place I worked in a few years ago, even though the inspector agreed they weren't a food hazard. You can lose them for lack of paperwork, even if everything is fresh and clean.

The system is ridiculous. It needs changing - customers should be told WHY a rating is low; and they should be told WHEN the last inspection was and the next one is due.

For example, The Dorchester had just one star for a long time, and didn't care. They were cleared to serve food so they ignored it.

The public is entitled to as much information as possible about where they might choose to buy their food. The current system is not fit for purpose.

[fruityloops]

can't say I've ever not gone somewhere because of one of these scores... If the food tastes good, then that's what counts.

[Michael Palaeologus]

It makes for uncomfortable reading for some well known ED eateries

BUT

Very positive for others. I for one will now be a regular at the Blossom Montessori Nursery caf?.

[kibris]

So its all fake , the best 5 star is what other people say about the venue so word of mouth

[rabbitears]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The public is entitled to as much information as

> possible about where they might choose to buy

> their food.

Surely if the public was actually that worried they could pull their finger out and read the reports from the website?

[JoeLeg]

rabbitears Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Surely if the public was actually that worried

> they could pull their finger out and read the

> reports from the website?

I've not dug around deeply on the website but I've never seen links to the full reports? There's a basic overview, it's nothing detailed. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong bit?

I'm not sure that they're currently allowed to release the whole report - that is to say, I honestly don't know if it's considered confidential; gong to find out though.

But I think the whole system needs changing. It isn't clear enough for the public.

[dbboy]

B&G Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Because there's no legislative requirement. Hence

> why 4 and 5 stars businesses will display and

> others tend not to.

>

> You can search for them online if you want to know

> more about each rating, though the majority are 3

> star and up. Worth bearing in mind, too, that

> somewhere with a 2 star rating may decide to up

> their game and improve, but may not get revisited

> for another year or more.

>

> For example, the Co-op got checked recently and

> demoted from a 5 star to a 2 star following

> complaints about mice. They're planning a refurb

> in the next 12 months to address the issues but

> will likely have to live with a crappy rating

> until their next inspection, even if the standards

> improve.

Being part of a large supermarket chain, Cooperative Food should immediately deal with any rodent issues discovered in the store, surely this should be a priority for the staff, store and area managers.

[DuncanW]

I thought I would resurrect this thread rather than start a new one.

Went to Mirash on Saturday night. When the booking was made a couple of weeks ago, I checked the Southwark Food Safety web-page and they had a rating of 4. Not perfect but fair enough.

So was surprised on arrival that they had a sticker in the window claiming a a rating of five.

Whilst there, sensing a couple of other aspects were a bit off, I checked again on my phone to see that they were inspected in early November and now have a rating of two!

I tried speaking with the manager about this discrepancy and also tried phoning them tonight to discuss. For the sake of brevity, I shall just say that neither converstaion was productive.

So if you're happy eating at an establishment that has a rating of two, but chooses to display a sticker claiming it's a five even though their previous rating was four, then please continue to give them your custom.

If, like me, that sends a shiver down your spine, I would give them a very wide berth.

I have reported to Southwark.

[lavender27]

I had food poisoning from them 20 years ago and haven't eaten in there since. I see nothing has changed.

[Peckhampam]

Seems we have a problem on Lordship Lane. Surma has a 1, and Dulwich Tandoori a 2. By contrast Ganapati and Jafflong both had 5

[bonaome]

Peckhampam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seems we have a problem on Lordship Lane. Surma

> has a 1, and Dulwich Tandoori a 2. By contrast

> Ganapati and Jafflong both had 5

Looked these up recently and rightly or wrongly it has put me off the places with 1 and 2 stars. Most places on the lane seem to be 4 or 5 though. I get the comments above from a while back saying you can lose stars for a crack in the ceiling but without knowing why somewhere has a low rating ...... well, there?s lots of choice amongst the places that have 4s and 5s. Spice Republic has a 5 I think so I am planning to try a take away from there.

[rendelharris]

Isn't the whole system rather daft? A friend who works in a cafe in Bristol told me recently that her establishment had its rating changed from five to two because a non-English-speaking employee couldn't explain to the inspector the hygiene procedure in English, despite the fact that the inspector acknowledged that he was following all the requisite procedures.

Surely there should only be a single benchmark - this establishment is fulfilling the requirements of the food safety regulations, in which case carry on, or it's not, in which case it should be closed down until it does. Is that too simplistic?

[JoeLeg]

bonaome Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Peckhampam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Seems we have a problem on Lordship Lane.

> Surma

> > has a 1, and Dulwich Tandoori a 2. By contrast

> > Ganapati and Jafflong both had 5

>

> Looked these up recently and rightly or wrongly it

> has put me off the places with 1 and 2 stars. Most

> places on the lane seem to be 4 or 5 though. I get

> the comments above from a while back saying you

> can lose stars for a crack in the ceiling but

> without knowing why somewhere has a low rating

> ...... well, there?s lots of choice amongst the

> places that have 4s and 5s. Spice Republic has a 5

> I think so I am planning to try a take away from

> there.

If you genuinely think that the Scores system is an accurate reflection of what might be in the kitchen then you are operating under an understandable misapprehension.

Please believe me when I say it is a very flawed system.

A five star rating is the result of ONE visit, anything up to THREE YEARS PREVIOUSLY.

If you can?t see the flaw in that system then there?s nothing more I can say.

[DuncanW]

I'm sure there are flaws in the system, and the obvious is, as with any inspection regime, it's a snapshot and things can change, obvs. I am also aware though, that restaurants can ask to be reviewed again within three months if they are marked down.

You might work in the restaurant game, but to a basic issue punter like me it does still seem like the best way to make a judgement as to whether a restaurant has good hygiene standards or not.

And restaurants that lie about their ratings are in a different category altogether - that's not a snapshot in time, that's a mindset - and a very worrying one at that.

[Penguin68]

whether a restaurant has good hygiene standards or not

A lot of the inspection is actually about process and documentation - clearly higher standards are likely to be matched with proper processes, but not necessarily. A small establishment may well have just one person (rather than a succession) cleaning so keeping a written record of when things are done may be unnecessary - the person doing it will remember - but for the inspector if it isn't recorded it isn't done. An establishment can be completely hygienic, but if the records aren't there it is treated as not being so. Inspectors don't normally e.g take swabs - unless they are thinking of prosecuting for obvious breaches. So their score is based on a visual inspection and on checking records. The scores are an indicator of how an establishment goes about things, as an indicator of good processes which normally lead to a clean establishment - but they are really a secondary measure of any actual dirt or contamination.

You probably have good hygiene standards in your own home - but when did you last record when you had cleaned, or what date food in your fridge or larder was stored? Of course a home is not a commercial establishment, but it's not always true that a poor score does equal poor hygiene standards. Although of course it can, and probably more frequently does than not.

[JoeLeg]

.

[VerryBerry]

It would be nice to have every restaurant/ food establishment display signs. I've had to revise shopping locally as a beloved bakery on Nunhead lane has taken to indulging dog owners who have no respect for those of us who don't want dog hair in our food. Why, oh why can't fido be left outside whilst you pop in for a frog / ice doughnut? I've no issue with guide dogs but fido is an animal, the shops not your kitchen and it's disgusting. I've had pets and never taken them inside of a shop as I realise ultimately they are animals and not hygienic. I hope more stores are encouraged to be better and realise animals aren't always prohibited, but it's a big indicator as to how you view your cleanliness.

[rendelharris]

VerryBerry Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It would be nice to have every restaurant/ food

> establishment display signs. I've had to revise

> shopping locally as a beloved bakery on Nunhead

> lane has taken to indulging dog owners who have no

> respect for those of us who don't want dog hair in

> our food. Why, oh why can't fido be left outside

> whilst you pop in for a frog / ice doughnut? I've

> no issue with guide dogs but fido is an animal,

> the shops not your kitchen and it's disgusting.

> I've had pets and never taken them inside of a

> shop as I realise ultimately they are animals and

> not hygienic. I hope more stores are encouraged to

> be better and realise animals aren't always

> prohibited, but it's a big indicator as to how

> you view your cleanliness.

Humans have lived intimately with canines domestically for thousands of years, they really don't do us any harm, and dogs being allowed in non-food-prep areas of cafes or pubs does not pose any risk at all to human health. Lighten up.

[NewWave]

VerryBerry Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It would be nice to have every restaurant/ food

> establishment display signs. I've had to revise

> shopping locally as a beloved bakery on Nunhead

> lane has taken to indulging dog owners who have no

> respect for those of us who don't want dog hair in

> our food. Why, oh why can't fido be left outside

> whilst you pop in for a frog / ice doughnut? I've

> no issue with guide dogs but fido is an animal,

> the shops not your kitchen and it's disgusting.

> I've had pets and never taken them inside of a

> shop as I realise ultimately they are animals and

> not hygienic. I hope more stores are encouraged to

> be better and realise animals aren't always

> prohibited, but it's a big indicator as to how

> you view your cleanliness.

Dogs are not dirty..if they are not sat with their bums or paws on the table they pose no health risk in a cafe.

on the other hand today at brunch a small boy at the next table (may I add the tables were very close together)kept putting his feet on the seats, and also chewed some food then took some out of its mouth ( a bread crust or something)

and proceeded to put the piece of food on the wooden table.

One could say the parents are to blame for not reprimanding however I would rather have had a dog sat at my feet than a pair of muddy boots on my seat

[VerryBerry]

I wouldn't like either a dog or a child with dirty feet in either situation. I've had pets but wouldn't dream of bringing them into a food establishment as I respect the rights others who, like me, recognise that ultimately they are still animals. Humans carry illnesses / diseases - hence why we are required to wash our hands and cover our hair when preparing food, not having animals in food establishments is a courtesy we need to respect. If your not using a guide dog then there is no excuse. That two people thought to justify this is shocking. I have flash back to the episode of come dine with me and the cat's whiskers dropping into the food. It's 2018, not the middle ages where we aren't aware of the dangers of poor hygiene.

Yuck

[rendelharris]

VerryBerry Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldn't like either a dog or a child with dirty

> feet in either situation. I've had pets but

> wouldn't dream of bringing them into a food

> establishment as I respect the rights others who,

> like me, recognise that ultimately they are still

> animals. Humans carry illnesses / diseases - hence

> why we are required to wash our hands and cover

> our hair when preparing food, not having animals

> in food establishments is a courtesy we need to

> respect. If your not using a guide dog then there

> is no excuse. That two people thought to justify

> this is shocking. I have flash back to the episode

> of come dine with me and the cat's whiskers

> dropping into the food. It's 2018, not the middle

> ages where we aren't aware of the dangers of poor

> hygiene.

>

> Yuck

Jeez, precious much? If dogs in non-food-prep areas of eating establishments posed a threat to hygiene or to human health they would be banned under food hygiene regulations. They're not, and owners of such establishments are doing nothing wrong in permitting dogs in these areas. If you don't like it, fine, go elsewhere, but stop whining that it's discourteous or somehow transgressing the rights of others for shop owners and dog owners to act perfectly in accordance with the law and all applicable hygiene regulations. If you find that "shocking", get out more.

[JoeLeg]

VerryBerry Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldn't like either a dog or a child with dirty

> feet in either situation. I've had pets but

> wouldn't dream of bringing them into a food

> establishment as I respect the rights others who,

> like me, recognise that ultimately they are still

> animals. Humans carry illnesses / diseases - hence

> why we are required to wash our hands and cover

> our hair when preparing food, not having animals

> in food establishments is a courtesy we need to

> respect. If your not using a guide dog then there

> is no excuse. That two people thought to justify

> this is shocking. I have flash back to the episode

> of come dine with me and the cat's whiskers

> dropping into the food. It's 2018, not the middle

> ages where we aren't aware of the dangers of poor

> hygiene.

>

> Yuck

I?m really glad people like you are in the minority. You?re entitled to your opinion of course, but I?m satisfied that you don?t actually know what you?re talking about. Just out of interest, how many dogs have you seen in a food prep area lately?

[NewWave]

VerryBerry Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldn't like either a dog or a child with dirty

> feet in either situation. I've had pets but

> wouldn't dream of bringing them into a food

> establishment as I respect the rights others who,

> like me, recognise that ultimately they are still

> animals. Humans carry illnesses / diseases - hence

> why we are required to wash our hands and cover

> our hair when preparing food, not having animals

> in food establishments is a courtesy we need to

> respect. If your not using a guide dog then there

> is no excuse. That two people thought to justify

> this is shocking. I have flash back to the episode

> of come dine with me and the cat's whiskers

> dropping into the food. It's 2018, not the middle

> ages where we aren't aware of the dangers of poor

> hygiene.

>

> Yuck

I'm sorry but the description of the cats whiskers 'dropping' into the food made me giggle.

frankly in this day and age its highly likely a false eyelash or nail would drop into the food