Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Most local councils including Southwark Council submit their food safety ratings into a system called Scores on the Doors.


Food inspectors visit premises at least every 6-36 months depending on risk and stars out of 5 are recorded in the system. More stars equal cleaner and safer practices.


You can get FREE Android and Apple apps to have access to this while on the move and help you decide whether you think a premises inspected hygiene is good enough for you and your family. I've found it eye opening. The more people use these scores the more businesses will take note and ensure they are clean. Some might even want to get reinspected.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/19788-food-safety-get-the-app/
Share on other sites

I've never really understood this. Does/has anyone ever use this to decide on where to eat? Or avoided somewhere because of a low score. Surely the only criteria when deciding on where to eat is the food (and associates like cost and atmosphere).


For instance, Gourmet Burger Kitchen gets 5 stars. Frankly , you'd have to pay me to eat their shoddy burgers. Meanwhile the East Dulwich Deli only gets 1 star. No doubt unpasteurised French cheese is frowned upon by inspectors. Yet I will continue to eat their lovely products with a smile on my face.

Hi david_carnell and Jeremy,

I sympathise with you but why can't all East Dulwich businesses achieve a better food safety/hygiene rating and still remain great places but with less risk of poisoning you?


The point is get the APP and then make informed choices.

Ask your favourite establishments why they scored badly if they did.

Nanny state, nanny state James.


We are all qualified to judge food quality and don't need the council to do the job for us. I am in full agreement (unusually!) with D-C and Jeremy. Stop the surveys, cut the website and reduce the cost of the council. Our taste buds, eyes and noses will usually provideall the guidance needed.


I can recall staying at a very comfortable and friendly farmhouse B&B - which had just been told it must either set up a separate kitchen and breakfast room or close down by similarly concerned council staff. The council alleged that by eating my breakfast in a farmhouse kitchen where there was a dog basket, a dog roaming around and the tea towels drying on top of the Aga guests were "at risk". Absolute cobblers - it's my choice where I eat, not the councils.


They closed down - a great loss to walkers and climbers, as well as a financial loss to the farmer and his wife.

I've never felt sick after eating something from the ED Deli but definitely suffered after meals at establishments with higher ratings. Why would that be? Perhaps because it depends on exactly what the failing is and where in the process the trouble occurs. The star ratings are too simplistic for that.


I'm all for inspectors checking kitchens for contaminated/illegal meat but let it stop there.


Oh, and a few dogs hairs never did anyone any harm.

Hi Marmora Man,

The example you've given is where you could see and judge food hygiene and what's inside fridges.

But your example is rare.

Vast majority of food establishments you can;t see if the practices are safe, kitchen clean, fridge sane. The Scores on the Doors is not perfect but it does encourage better practices if used with a modicum of common sense.

I'm torn here. Agree with MM that some of the regulations are ludicrous. Had a friend who run a pub in west norwood, and used to put out lovely hot snacks for people to enjoy (free) with their beer. She was threatened with closure because she was doing this out of her kitchen upstairs, not a commercial kitchen. Stupid!


However, however much I enjoyed the food somewhere, I think I'd be put off if I found out it was being prepared in some dirty minging kitchen, especially if I was paying a hefty price for it.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Most local councils including Southwark Council

> submit their food safety ratings into a system

> called Scores on the Doors.


James, I think this whole post is very misleading to say the least.


The Scores on the Doors system is not a definitive measure of judging food safety by any means. Its as bad as the recycling fiasco we have already. There have been many criticisms of this scheme (and others across the country,surprise surprise, all have different criteria to the other), including the complexity of the star ratings. What's the difference exactly for places that have 2 stars to those that have 3 stars? Why not a simple pass or fail? If there's got to be a system of measurement for standards, some consistency and fairness is needed.


The sort of people that need an app for this and who rely on these so-called scores fill me with despair. Can't people think for themselves anymore? Of course I'm not suggesting that places shouldn't be expected to have standards of cleanliness but if those across the industry don't have faith in this system, how can we be expected to?


I think there's anecdotal evidence of places getting marked down for something as ridiculous as not 'upgrading' their kitchen equipment which hasn't got a bearing on cleanliness.


Pretty sure there was a thread on here that showed how useless the 'results' actually were.


> Food inspectors visit premises at least every 6-36

> months depending on risk and stars out of 5 are

> recorded in the system. More stars equal cleaner

> and safer practices.

>

> You can get FREE Android and Apple apps to have

> access to this while on the move and help you

> decide whether you think a premises inspected

> hygiene is good enough for you and your family.

> I've found it eye opening. The more people use

> these scores the more businesses will take note

> and ensure they are clean. Some might even want to

> get reinspected.

Food posioning is absolutely brutal, and I'm keen to avoid


But given how much I eat in all of the badly rated restaurants, you would think there would be correlation between rating and illness, no?


That there isn't (for me or anyone in my group) suggests the ratings are not helpful.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Food posioning is absolutely brutal, and I'm keen

> to avoid

>

> But given how much I eat in all of the badly rated

> restaurants, you would think there would be

> correlation between rating and illness, no?

>

> That there isn't (for me or anyone in my group)

> suggests the ratings are not helpful.


I'd go as far to suggest that the ratings are worse than simply 'not helpful'; they're downright misleading and thus have the potential to be very damaging to both customers and businesses alike.


(And thanks Otto)

But James, a single number is absolutely meaningless. An establishment may be spotless but if the owner doesn't have a properly documented record of his practices he is going to get a bad rating. No paperwork is not the same as dangerous food. A dirty kitchen floor isn't dangerous (for the consumer) until food comes into contact with it. No contact and there's no stomach upset but you'll still get a bad rating if the inspector sees grime underfoot. A spotless kitchen may pass the test on the day of inspection but if the owner has a variable attitude to food sourcing the ingredients could be a killer in a 'perfect' establishment.

James,


Can the food standards agency prove the improvement in Public Health? I "believe" there is no correlation.


The logical extension of your argument is for every household to be inspected and for dinner party guests to check the scores on the doors before eating with friends.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi peterstorm1985,

> The logical conclusion your suggesting is no

> inspections.

> The Food Safety Agency believes it has evidence

> such inspections have improved public health.


The logical conclusion is that inspections should continue to highlight those establishments that are inherently dangerous - using condemned meat, cockroach infestation etc, but not for Southwark to expect us to all get excited that a fast food outlet selling deep fried artery clogging muck has a higher food safety rating than a shop or restaurant selling food that might actually have a few vitamins.

If you want a system that is actually of use then it needs to have more detail.

This is exactly the sort of nanny state project that has caused the financial mess our country is in. Of dubious benefit, of marginal importance, doubtless at considerable cost.


It really hacks me off when my hard-earned money is spent on stuff like this. We've got a huge public debt to pay off James, let's cut rubbish like this out.



I've had many hairs of the dog over the years and felt much better afterwards.


I did a search on the now defunct Dos Amigos. I was interested in seeing their rating but nothing there. It's not too long ago someone reported here seeing a rat wandering around inside.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...