SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Shops & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors Adult Learning Lewisham


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »
FSA Hygiene Ratings: Honor Oak Park and Forest Hill winners and losers
Author Message
napoleonskid


Posts: 16
Joined: Jun 2011
Post: #1
27-07-2013 07:56 PM

Due to the rain, I spent some time today on the FSA site, checking restaurant ratings around HOP and FH.

Good to see that quite a few local businesses in HOP scored 5 (Babur, Tapatisserie, La Querce, Wilson F&C). My FH favourites St David's, CC, TSe's also got a 5, good news!

However very disappointed to see the middle class' heaven Parkes and Hill's getting a mere 3 and the Honor Oak Pub scoring just 1 (this might explain the sudden closure of the place). For a £3 sourdough, I d expect a smile and a better hygiene.
Another fail was the Teapot, who only got a 3, but at least they do give me a smile.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hoona


Posts: 201
Joined: Mar 2011
Post: #2
28-07-2013 09:33 AM

Yes another sad 'fail' is The Butchery which scored 1.

Find all posts by this user Reply
rshdunlop


Posts: 1,111
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #3
28-07-2013 10:30 AM

These hygiene ratings should not be taken as gospel when an establishment is failed. That usually means there is something they need to rectify, and it can be something as simple as paperwork. They are given a score of 1 because that is the system. They could be a 5 on every other criterion. They will be reassessed when the problem is fixed. I'd be more worried about a 3 than a 1.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #4
28-07-2013 06:44 PM

Having spoken to the owner of one of these businesses they were amazed with the rating system and how it was/was not being implemented. One inspector arrived, did their inspection, they heard nothing, called Lewisham to find the inspector had left the council. Back to square one. it seems a little "chaotic" to say the least.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Anotherjohn


Posts: 347
Joined: May 2005
Post: #5
29-07-2013 07:35 AM

This thread is potentially damaging as there is little or no understanding of how these ratings are arrived at or what they really mean.

I suggest that this thread should be removed because some people may only read the first few posts and make all sorts of assumptions about why The Butchery only has a score of 1.

I know that others have come on to try to justify the scoring process in order to protect some of our valued and respected businesses, but they shouldn't have to as there is no useful purpose for this thread.

Find all posts by this user Reply
napoleonskid


Posts: 16
Joined: Jun 2011
Post: #6
29-07-2013 08:45 AM

AnotherJohn, the information posted on this thread is all taken from the FSA, a legitimate source of information and therefore there is nothing misleading to justify the removal of the post.

What is misleading is to say that there is little understanding of how the ratings scheme works. The FSA site gives enough information (visit FAQ too) for someone to make an informed decision on whether they want to continue shopping from a business which has scored 0 - 2. You can even request a revisit if you feel that your business has been given an unfair rating, however 0 rating indicates a business with a history of problems.

Having said that, I am prepared to give new businesses who have clearly made a good effort a second chance. I trust that businesses like the Butchery have taken the necessary steps to ensure a 5 rating in the next inspection.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Cheeky


Posts: 215
Joined: May 2009
Post: #7
29-07-2013 08:49 AM

I don't quite see how anyone can suggest there is no useful purpose to this thread, I would have thought that hygiene in local food outlets is a top priority for everyone reading this forum.

Perhaps those establishments much lauded by folks on here that did not score 5 should explain to their customers if concerned why they recieved such low marks. I don't see people screaming in defence of a chinese takeaway that scored 3 or singing the praises of a greasy spoon that scored 5 (Both of which i've noticed whilst walking around the area). If it's got a low score, it's got a low score for a reason.

It seems pretty clear on the FSA Website how the marks are arrived at:

'A food safety officer inspects a business to check that it meets the requirements of food hygiene law. The officer is from the local authority where the business is located.

At the inspection, the officer will check:

-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 what it does to make sure food is safe and so that the officer can be confident standards will be maintained in the future

Each of these three elements is essential for making sure that food hygiene standards meet requirements and the food served or sold to you is safe to eat.

The hygiene standards found at the time of inspection are then rated on a scale. At the bottom of the scale is 0; this means urgent improvement is required. At the top of the scale is 5; this means the hygiene standards are very good.

If the top rating is not given, the officer will explain to the person who owns or manages the business what improvements need to be made and what action they can take to improve their hygiene rating.'

This post was last modified: 29-07-2013 08:56 AM by Cheeky.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hoona


Posts: 201
Joined: Mar 2011
Post: #8
29-07-2013 12:36 PM

On a positive note, Tapatisserie, Babur, le querce, the Honor Oak Supermarket and The Oak Cafe all scored 5 so well done to them

Find all posts by this user Reply
Anotherjohn


Posts: 347
Joined: May 2005
Post: #9
29-07-2013 01:34 PM

I reckon Cheeky needs to be lifted back into the pram!

I'm not bothered about who lauds what and I have no allegiance to any of the businesses mentioned in this thread.

I used The Butchery, and not the chinese takeaway or greasy spoon, as an example because it received a score of 1, which, to many people reading this thread, might well cause them to believe that it operates in a seriously unhygienic way. But, guess what, it might be as a result of the condition of the structure of the buildings and the layout, lighting, ventilation and other facilities - all of which probably wouldn't matter a hoot to anyone. So, seeing as Cheeky knows everything about this subject, why don't they enlighten us with information about what percentage of the score is affected by all of the criterion upon which it's based because, unlike them, I don't have the time to trawl the internet for quotes to try to make other posters look stupid.

I still think that there is a very good possibility that, at first glance, the FSA's scoring may be a misleading and unfair reflection on an establishment even if Cheeky does think I'm thick!

Find all posts by this user Reply
lacb


Posts: 623
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #10
29-07-2013 02:03 PM

I don't think the thread needs removing either but I am going to try and inject some balance into this.

I know that there are instances where businesses can get downgraded on technicalities (I even posted about one particularly barmy example not too long ago). New rules are appearing all the time and even well run kitchens can get caught out. I think that if a business gets a zero mark then that *is* cause for immediate concern and if they don't improve from that level then they will get shut down anyway.

If a business consistently scores a low mark over a number of years then that is a sign that they are not addressing the issues that are reported and is probably not an indicator of a well run establishment. A score of 1, especially with a new business, is not necessarily a bad sign by itself so long as improvements are made.

Also, just because a business has a 5 rating does not necessarily say a jot about the quality of the food.

A pinch of salt required here IMO.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Cheeky


Posts: 215
Joined: May 2009
Post: #11
29-07-2013 02:03 PM

Blimey

Find all posts by this user Reply
Anotherjohn


Posts: 347
Joined: May 2005
Post: #12
29-07-2013 02:39 PM

Thank you lacb.

I know I got a bit uptight about all of this and I don't feel good about flying off the handle with Cheeky, however, all of what you've written there goes to show that the FSA's scores aren't what they might seem - and this is my whole reason for feeling that it's potentially unfair.

Of course open discussion can sort it all out in the end - but what has it achieved?

In my opinion nothing - because none of us really knows exactly how the scores have been arrived at by the inspector.

Maybe there are lots of you out there who DO know how it all works, in which case I'm over-reacting, but otherwise we're left to surmise and someone's livelihood could be jeopardised - at least in the short-term until they're scored again.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Find all posts by this user Reply
lacb


Posts: 623
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #13
29-07-2013 04:24 PM

I agree with your last post Anotherjohn. It does strike me as a bit odd that the FSA encourages the display of the hygiene signs. Ok, so given the hoops the jump through, I do accept that getting a 5 rating is an achievement but putting up any sign is really like one that reads:

'Our food probably won't kill you'

Would you want to shop/eat there if it actually said that?

I suppose the better message to take from all this is that by taking part in the inspection process, and no food preparation site outside the home has a choice in that, there is a commitment to adhere to some standards.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Bcm


Posts: 187
Joined: May 2010
Post: #14
31-07-2013 10:27 PM

Personally I'm not worried by somewhere that doesn't get a 5/5, lacb.

I was quite reassured by the 3/5 rating on the door of the Ghurka's Flavour. Having previously lived on Brick Lane I could tell you some stories that would make you never want to eat out again.

Another local establishment deserving credit for their 5/5 score is Wilson's fish and chips on brockley rise. I've never eaten from there; something I aim to fix soon!

Find all posts by this user Reply
lacb


Posts: 623
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #15
01-08-2013 06:42 AM

Quote:
Personally I'm not worried by somewhere that doesn't get a 5/5, lacb.


Neither am I. I tried to be clear about this as this was surely the subject of the thread. So sorry that I didn't succeed.

Find all posts by this user Reply
P1971


Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #16
01-08-2013 08:08 PM

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.

Find all posts by this user Reply
P1971


Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #17
01-08-2013 08:55 PM

Napoleonkid wish you done a bit more research before you posted this post. You could have damaged businesses through your post with no reason or research. and Forest Hill is FH not FC which you keep using.

Find all posts by this user Reply
daveherne


Posts: 212
Joined: Jul 2012
Post: #18
01-08-2013 10:49 PM

P1971. that just shows why we have to be careful what we read into government inspections hey, blimey.

Find all posts by this user Reply
P1971


Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #19
01-08-2013 11:50 PM

Dave I have a touch of ADHD when it comes to my sweets won't let anyone near them.

Find all posts by this user Reply
P1971


Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #20
02-08-2013 12:01 AM

Dave I am so perticular with cleanliness when it comes to my sweets, but it all depends on the day!

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields