Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Audit of Display and Business Survey 2021
Awareness and ease of use of safeguards
This chapter details businesses’ level of awareness of the inspection report letter and its content, and of the options available if businesses wish to challenge their rating.
Once businesses have been inspected by the local authority, they are sent a letter to notify them of their rating and suggest improvements if their rating is less than the top rating of 5 (very good). If a business is dissatisfied with their rating, they can exercise their right to reply, appeal, or apply for a re-rating.
This chapter details businesses’ level of awareness of the inspection report letter and its content, and of the options available if businesses wish to challenge their rating. It also covers what proportion of businesses report using the safeguards and barriers to take-up.
Recollection of inspection report letter
Over three-quarters of businesses in each country recalled receiving their inspection letter (Northern Ireland 87%, Wales 82%, England 77%). As shown in Figure 7.1, recall of the letter has varied over time but for all three countries there has been a fall in recollection since 2018. Recall of an inspection letter was significantly lower in 2021 compared to 2019 for businesses in Wales (82% vs 92%) and Northern Ireland (87% vs 94%).
Figure 7.1 Proportion of food businesses that recall receiving an inspection report letter
C1. Do you recall if your business received an inspection report letter from the local authority? Base: FBOs who have a food hygiene rating. England (2021: 469, 2019: 473, 2018: 431, 2017: 442, 2016: 417, 2015: 430); Northern Ireland (486, 490, 463, 467, 446, 440); Wales (479, 494, 468, 475, 481, 474). ↓ Denotes a significant decrease from 2019.
The Covid-19 pandemic has undoubtably played a part in this. During the pandemic, the FSA adjusted their expectations of Local Authorities in recognition of the challenges they faced in delivering their statutory food functions whilst having to prioritise protecting communities. Consequently, Local Authorities were asked to focus resource on the most high-risk establishments while deferring planned interventions, particularly for low risk premises.
The proportion of businesses recalling an inspection report letter varied somewhat across the different outlet types in England and Northern Ireland. Businesses in retail in England were less likely than average to recall an inspection letter (67% of those who have a food hygiene rating), whilst takeaway businesses in Northern Ireland were more likely than average to recall such a letter (94%). In Wales there was less outlet type variation in recall levels. The proportion that recalled an inspection report letter was the same regardless of the food hygiene rating that the business held.
Figure 7.2 Proportion of each outlet type that could recall receiving an inspection report letter
C1. Do you recall if your business received an inspection report letter from the local authority? Base: FBOs who have a food hygiene rating. England (Retail: 117, Accommodation and bars: 90, Catering: 200, Takeaway: 62); Northern Ireland (135, 76, 208, 67); Wales (121, 114, 184, 60). ↑ Denotes significantly higher than total. ↓ Denotes significantly lower than total.
Businesses who had received a letter and who had a food hygiene rating of less than 5 were asked whether they could remember if the letter told them what improvements they would need to make at their premises to achieve the highest food hygiene rating.
A relatively high proportion of these businesses recalled that the letter included improvement instructions (England 89%, Wales 85%, Northern Ireland 83%). This level of recall was at a similar level to previous years for all three countries, with the exception of a dip in awareness in England in 2017.
Base sample sizes are too low to explore how recall levels vary by different types of businesses within each of the countries. For all three countries combined there were no differences in the proportion who recalled being sent some instructions on improvements by outlet type, but those with a lower food hygiene rating were slightly more likely to recall the instructions (93% of those with a rating of 0-3 vs 85% of those with a rating of 4).
Figure 7.3 Recollection of letter instructing how to achieve a maximum rating
C2. Do you recall if your letter told you what improvements you would need to make to achieve the highest Food Hygiene Rating of 5 at your premises? Base: FBOs who received a letter and have a food hygiene rating of <5. England (2021: 96, 2019: 151, 2018: 187, 2017: 140, 2016: 107, 2015: 117); Northern Ireland (83, 165, 197,163, 138, 12383, 490, 463, 467, 446, 440); Wales (127, 224, 225, 237, 184, 204).
Use of safeguards
Businesses were asked if they knew they could request a re-rating, they could appeal the rating or that alternatively they had a right to reply if they were unhappy with the rating.
Generally, most food businesses were aware of the three options available to them, with the ability to request a re-rating just topping the list in terms of being the most well-known option in all countries. Across all three options, businesses in England consistently had the lowest awareness levels, with three-quarters reporting that they were aware that they could appeal the rating or that they had a right to reply to the rating.
In England and Northern Ireland, businesses in retail reported the lowest awareness levels, though this trend was not replicated in Wales, where there was little outlet type variation.
Figure 7.4 Proportion aware of the right to a re-rating, appeal and the right to reply by business outlet type
C3_1. Following an inspection, are you aware that if you are unhappy with your rating you can request...A re-rating? / An appeal? / A 'right to reply'? Base: FBOs who have a food hygiene rating. England (Total:469, Accommodation and bars: 90, Catering: 200, Retail: 117, Takeaway: 62); Northern Ireland (486, 76, 208, 135, 67); Wales (479, 114, 184, 121, 60). ↓ Denotes significantly lower than total.
Applying for a re-rating or exercising right to reply
All food businesses aware of the re-rating and right to reply options were asked if they had taken-up either of these options. Despite high awareness of both, few businesses reported that they had requested either a re-rating or exercised their right to reply.
As shown in Table 7.1 and Table 7.2, only around 1 in 20 reported that they had used these safeguards. That said, there were a couple of notable exceptions with 16% of takeaway businesses in England exercising their right to reply, and 10% of accommodation businesses and bars, pubs and nightclubs in Northern Ireland requesting a re-rating.
Table 7.1 Proportion of food businesses who have applied for a re-rating by outlet type
| Business type | England | Northern Ireland | Wales |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 5% | 4% | 5% |
| Accommodation and bars | 7% | 10%* | 8% |
| Restaurants and catering | 5% | 2% | 7% |
| Retail | 1% | 3% | 3% |
| Takeaway | 7% | 6% | 4% |
C4. Has your establishment applied for a re-rating inspection from the local authority since your last inspection? Base: FBOs who have a food hygiene rating and aware of ability to apply for a re-rating. England (Total:377, Accommodation and bars: 83, Catering: 176, Retail: 73, Takeaway: 45); Northern Ireland (427, 66, 183, 116, 62); Wales (436,105, 165, 111, 55). * Denotes a significant increase since 2019. It should be noted that these are self-reported figures and may differ from actual rates of use.
Table 7.2 Proportion of food businesses who have exercised right to reply by outlet type
| Business type | England | Northern Ireland | Wales |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 7% | 7% | 7% |
| Accommodation and bars | 6% | 10% | 7% |
| Restaurants and catering | 5% | 8% | 6% |
| Retail | 4% | 2%** | 6% |
| Takeaway | 16%* | 9% | 11% |
C7. Has your establishment exercised its 'right to reply' by sending comments to the local authority about the most recent rating you have been given? Base: FBOs who have a food hygiene rating and aware that can exercise right to reply. England (Total:348, Accommodation and bars: 77, Catering: 151, Retail: 76, Takeaway: 44); Northern Ireland (424, 69, 184, 113, 58); Wales (425, 104, 161, 106, 54). * Denotes a significant increase since 2019. ** Denotes a significant decrease since 2019. It should be noted that these are self-reported figures and may differ from actual rates of use.
Although findings for 2019 are not directly comparable, they did show a similar situation where few businesses had taken any subsequent action about their rating. Asked whether they had exercised their right to a re-rating inspection, 6% of establishments in England and Wales said they had done so in 2019, whilst the equivalent figure was 5% for Northern Ireland. Equally when asked whether they had exercised their right to reply, 6% of businesses in England said they had done so and 10% in Northern Ireland and Wales. These figures were stable compared to 2018.
Experience of applying for a re-rating
Those who were not satisfied with their food hygiene rating were asked why they did not apply for a re-rating. Sample sizes by each country were low for this question (England 28, Northern Ireland 25, Wales 38), but the combined results in Figure 7.5 shows that the most common reasons were not having made all the changes, the process coinciding with the start of lockdown, the fees were too high and other competing priorities.
The base sample size for this question has also been low in previous years, but the top reasons given by businesses were similar, in that they were waiting for improvements to be made, the fees were too high or that they had not had the time. Naturally the impact of the COVID-pandemic was not mentioned in 2019.
Figure 7.5 Reason for not applying for a re-rating (results for all countries combined)
C5. Why did you not apply for a re-rating? Base: All FBOs not satisfied with the food hygiene rating but did not apply for re-rating. All countries: 91.
Of those who said they applied for a re-rating, around a quarter (28%) reported being awarded a higher food hygiene rating. This was particularly pronounced in Wales (12 out of the 24 businesses in Wales answering this question claimed they were awarded a higher rating)(footnote). By way of comparison, in 2019 around half of the businesses who put in a request for a re-rating were awarded a higher rating (34 out of 71).
Figure 7.6 Result of request a re-rating (results for all countries combined)
C6. And what was the result of this request for a re-rating? Base: All FBOs who applied for a for re-rating. All countries: 60.
Exercising right to reply
Food businesses who were not satisfied with their food hygiene rating but did not exercise their right to reply were asked why this was the case. In each country a wide range of reasons were given, but the most common ones were the impact of COVID-19, the fact that they applied for a re-rating instead and because they did not think it was necessary.
Again, base sample sizes were too low to allow for meaningful sub-group analysis by country (England 25, Northern Ireland 27, Wales 28), but there is some indication that businesses in Wales and Northern Ireland were more likely to say that the cost of a right to reply was too high . It should be noted that there is no fee charged for a right to reply.
It is difficult to draw any firm conclusions from comparisons to 2019, but top reasons in 2019 were slightly different in that more businesses said they didn’t want to spend the time going through the process, that they were not aware it was an option or simply felt that the rating was fair enough. As in 2021, however, quite a lot of businesses said they did not think it was necessary.
Figure 7.7 Reason for not exercising right to reply (results for all countries combined)
C8. Why did you not exercise your 'right to reply'? Base: All FBOs who were not satisfied with the food hygiene rating but did not exercise their right to reply. All countries: 80.