Food hygiene concerns in SE23

Reading a new report out highlighted in the Newshopper and saw a couple of establishments with worrying scores. Plenty more also on the list but these two really stood out.

Screenshot_20170926-1515151080×1920 429 KB

Screenshot_20170926-1516261080×1920 416 KB

I’m not sure these food hygiene ratings are always fair, or easy to interpret for the general public. I’ve heard that low scores can often be given out on a small technicality, and rectified quickly, but the published scores may be slow to be updated.

I would consider the phrase “major improvements necessary” to be quite alarming to be honest. People at least have the right to know what it was that was needing addressing.
This can be done for asking for a copy of the report for your own reference.

I would hope that all issues have been rectified in the time since the reports.
I agree though that an addendum should be added to address any follow up, in the name of fairness and transparency.

On the items marked as needed ‘major improvments’ at Our Lady, I have a feeling that any one of those could be down to a missing piece of paperwork. I‘ve heard stories from traders (maybe in this forum, maybe another) about that very circumstance leading to a low score.

It would be interesting to hear from our traders on this, as I may be misremembering or misreporting anecdote.

Agreed. The Horniman one is shocking only in that I know how much care they take and that the food prep area is only 9 months or so old. They are also only preparing sandwiches and giving out food, juice. Very odd.

Yep I believe scores can be low if paperwork is not in order, even if places and food are clean and without concern otherwise. You can argue lack of one can lead to the other but it’s gives a misleading score to places that are effectively without issue for the buying public to worry about.

This happened to two well established businesses in FH. If the average punter is unaware it makes the places look unattractive to eat in, which is wrong.

I think it should be a legal requirement for websites that publish ratings to publish the paperwork too, otherwise it can be extremely damaging to businesses with simple things like @RachaelDunlop mentioned such as paperwork and actually nothing to do with hygiene!

I suggest before people go on about/bring attention to these ratings they should ask the individuals if they wouldn’t mind showing their paperwork before so they can get actual facts straight!!

I posted this as a response to a similar thread on another forum

"I feel this thread could be very damaging to local businesses when the only information you get on the FSA is the rating. not what is actually said in the report. I only saw this post this morning but made a point to bring my Food Hygiene Rating report home tonight to share it with you all. I’m hoping that this will make everyone understand that being given a rating of 1 doesn’t actually mean your food hygiene is poor. There is quite a lot of criteria to meet.
I had my one and only inspection carried out in August last year.
On one page I have this information
General Food Regulations 2004 Article 18 product tracability system in place
Yes box ticked
Provision and Maintenance of facilities
20 boxes to tick
4 non applicable
13 yes box ticked
3 no box ticked, I’ll explain these after
Food Hygiene
3 non applicable
5 other yes box tick

Written report read

Routine inspection carried out on new business

I was pleased to note the following
Good standard of cleaning and sanitiser available
Sweets covered and clean containers
Good practice

Action required
Written food safety management procedures and record
Hot water provision
Provision of light in WC

I got a rating of 2 not 5 due to the 3 Actions Required, but in a year no one has checked to see if I have put them in place.

Written procedures etc.
I open and close the shop, my staff start after ! open and finish before I close hence why I didn’t write them down.

Hot water provision
When I first opened I didn’t have hot running water, but I do now. Before I boiled a kettle to wash floors etc.

Provision of light in WC
My lightbulb went that day, but as I was the only person working in the shop that day and I would be the only one using the toilet it wasn’t a priority on my list. I’d just put a bulb in the following morning.

I hope this information is of help, and if anyone wants to look at my inspection report I’m more than happy to show it."

This was my first inspection when I received 2/5

My second inspection I received 3/5 I was marked down on safety issues as I had a load of stuff in my shop (right at the back of my shop so not blocking the main shop counter & booths which is where customers use) as I was just about to close and go create a free Santa’s Grotto that evening for the local kids at Twist Studios, so the stuff was dropped off to me that day.

My last inspection (January this year I got 5/5

I really would urge people to ask businesses about their ratings if they are concerned rather than decide not to use them JUST because of the rating on a website, as it often is not about hygiene at all.

Sorry for the essay guys, but it does bug me when things are printed without ALL the facts & people make assumptions!

So, I get the impression that this post is unwanted.

Oh well, will go back to keeping my nose out of things and ignoring such ratings.

No, you posted something of local interest and in good faith and sparked a debate that educated us all on how these ratings work (thanks @Pauline for the detailed breakdown, that really makes it clear how the system works). The vast majority of people would be alarmed by those ratings, your original post was both valid and interesting.

Not at all. It is something I have seen people sweating buckets over as it is just plain wrong. Your highlighting it may well get people to understand how it works.

Not at all @anon64893700 from my point of view. The point I’m trying to make is that websites such as FSA should also make “Actions Requred” available for the public to see if they are showing the ratings.

Then they would know if a business got say 1 or 2/5 for paperwork or a lightbulb just gone in a toilet which is not for public use or if indeed they are unhygienic in food preparation sold to the public.

A lot of people on first sight of reading a rating may boycott a business without this info!

Go on, request it! Would be fascinating to see exactly what the poor rating was for.

I have heard similar stories to the one @pauline mentions but the point here is that I heard these by asking the business concerned. My take with these ratings is that a persistently low score, i.e. with no improvement, warrants further investigation. A score of zero really is a serious problem IMO.

Reports requested

How about a 1?
I agree that persistent low scores are a concern, but at the same time if comments above are correct, maybe these should also be taken with a pinch of salt?

but the point here is that I heard these by asking the business concerned.

Which is why I have requested them from those who did the review.

A zero rating means that ‘urgent improvement is required’ and by implication, hygiene is bad and likely to have a history of problems:

A rating of 1 does not necessarily share these issues, hence the pinch of salt.

Sorry I wasn’t sure how thin the line was between seriously needed and majorly needed. Thanks for the clarification.

I’m not surprised by the Golden Tiger score - my husband got noodles from their once (when a little drunk), took one bite and had to spit them out they were so horrible!