Hygiene ratings - slight deviation and confusion

How does the hygiene rating work? My confusion came about because (1) i’ve gone to a recommended restaurant and left without eating when I saw the rating at 3. (2) a recent recommendation here I thought to check out online and it had a rating of 2. Now, Anthony Bourdain might say eat it, it will be delicious (when talking about Vietnam usually) but in London I’m not so keen.

I’ve lived a long time in Toronto - there was a pass, conditional pass and fail there. anything under a pass your doors were closed. All of these ratings were online and my local go-to blog listed them and why they didn’t pass. I looked up several restaurants here and some weren’t on the database at all. Yesterday I went for a meal where there was no rating posted anywhere. I prayed.

So basically, can anyone explain this system to me? Thank you!

I presume you’re referring to the “Scores on the Doors” online database - formally known as the National Food Hygiene Ratings Scheme.

You’ll see ratings from 0 - 5, as a summary of inspections findings by the local council’s Environmental Health Officers. I don’t know the specific details as to what an EHO actually checks when s/he visits premises but I assume it will mainly be checking the actual premises for any structural matters, together with checks on how food is stored and prepared. I suspect we’ve all seen TV programmes titled along the lines of “Britain’s Horror Restaurants” ( almost invariably including a seedy looking fried chicken takeaway place). The website has further explanation, and a slightly wider description of the issues at particular places - rating them from, for example, “very bad” to “very good”, in terms of their compliance with food safety & hygiene, structural matter and “confidence in management”

As far as I know, restaurants are not obliged to display their ratings, so if you just walk up to a place you have no way of knowing if that’s because the owner simply hasnt bothered or if s/he’s not displaying because it’s a low score. I think that’s part of the scheme that needs amending - although I do understand that there can be delays between a place undertaking necessary improvements and the inspector revisiting. That happened to a well known place near me where there had been some construction work that had adversely affected the rating - it was fixed within days but the low score was not amended for weeks (it was a matter that hit the local press).

Now, personally, I prefer not to look at the scores before going to a new place - I’m visiting because something has tickled the foody in me and I really want to try it. If I visit somewhere and have concerns, then I will check the scores and it would then help me decide whether to go back. For example, I used to visit a couple of Sichuan places in Manchester fairly regularly - both well respected, with one appearing in the Good Food Guide (and had been reviewed by Jay Rayner). I’d enjoyed the food and had no concerns about them. However, on a subsequent visit , the toilets (which I’d used on previous visits) were in very poor condition - I’d suggest it had been days since they had received attention. I always reckon poor attention to toilet areas is likely to indicate poor hygiene practice in areas the customers don’t see. Checked the scores for both place to find them being a 1 - “major improvement necessary”. I’ve not been back.

It is hard to discuss this matter without bringing politics into it. The number of environmental health officers have been cut over the recent years of austerity. It means that they cannot inspect premises as often as might be wished. That can mean poor practice going unchallenged for much too long. I know local councils face very difficult choices - do they keep teachers, child protection social workers, or EHOs - and I’m glad I don’t have to make the calls. But I do think food inspection is important - there are few things as important as the safety of the food we put in our mouths.

1 Like

you hit it on the head. and the toilets comment is perfect. there are a couple of foodies i know who make this the number one priority. when they walk into a new place, they head to the toilets. if they aren’t clean they won’t eat there, no matter what the food is touted to be.

very bad news here in london and i do like to eat at new places. i have had the belly aches to prove it.

You’ll be fine eating at a 3 - “generally satisfactory”. And I wouldnt scorn a 2 - it’s a minor improvements needed - if all other things are equal (near home, food sounds good, partner really likes it, foody pal recommends it, can’t be arsed going anywhere else).

The inspectors actually rate on three areas, and this gets mashed down to the single 1-5 number given out to the public.

The three areas are:

  • Food hygiene and safety
  • Structural Compliance
  • Confidence in management

You can read more about what these mean exactly at scoresonthedoors.co.uk, and also that site allows you to look up the 1-5 ratings for most restaurants around the country. It also shows the underlying ratings the inspectors give on each of the three areas, so you can see for example that a place may have good food hygiene but with lower confidence management.

For what it’s worth. I happily take non-foodie friends to 3*+, happily eat myself at 2*+ and eat at 1* if I have a good feeling about a place. Zero stars would make me pause I think!

Help cover Hungry Onion's costs when you shop at Amazon!

Bessarabsky Market, Kyiv. Ukraine
Credit: Juan Antonio Segal, Flickr