FHRS Display Audit 2022 - Awareness and ease of use of safeguards

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 appeal, right to reply or apply for a re-rating inspection.   ^{(footnote 1)}

Recollection of inspection report letter 

Over three-quarters of businesses in each country recalled receiving their inspection letter (Northern Ireland 86%, Wales 82%, England 78%). As shown in Figure 7.1 recall of the letter has varied over time but remained broadly consistent between 2021 and 2022 in each of the three countries.

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 (2022: 465, 2021: 469, 2019: 473, 2018: 431, 2017: 442, 2016: 417, 2015: 430); Northern Ireland (487, 486, 490, 463, 467, 446, 440); Wales (478, 479, 494, 468, 475, 481, 474). 

Of businesses that received a letter and had an FHRS rating of less than 5, most could recall if their letter told them what improvements they would need to make to achieve the highest food hygiene rating of 5 at their premises (England 80%; Northern Ireland 89%; Wales 84%), as shown in Figure 7.2 below. While there appeared to be a decline between 2021 and 2022 within England (from 89% to 80%), this difference was not statistically significant, owing to the relatively small sample size.

Figure 7.2 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 (2022: 82, 2021: 96, 2019: 151, 2018: 187, 2017: 140, 2016: 107, 2015: 117); Northern Ireland (77, 83, 165, 197,163, 138, 12383, 490, 463, 467, 446, 440); Wales (131, 127, 224, 225, 237, 184, 204). 

Use of safeguards

Businesses were asked if they knew they could appeal, had a ‘right to reply’ or request a re-rating inspection if they were unhappy with their FHRS rating. In line with 2021, overall self-reported awareness was high, with at least three in four aware of each option in England (76% for appeal, 77% for ‘right to reply' and 79% for re-rating) and closer to nine in ten aware in Northern Ireland (87% for appeal, 87% for ‘right to reply’ and 87% for re-rating) and Wales (89% for appeal, 89% for ‘right to reply’ and 91% for re-rating) (see Figure 7.3). 

In Northern Ireland, retail businesses were less likely than average to be aware that they could request a re-rating (82%, compared to 87%). In Wales, retail businesses were less likely than average to be aware they could request an appeal (83%, compared to 89%) as well as the ‘right to reply’ (84% compared to 89%). 

Figure 7.3 Proportion aware of the right to a re-rating, appeal and the right to reply by country

C3_1-3. 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 in 2022: England (465); Northern Ireland (487); Wales (478). 2021: England (468); Northern Ireland (485); Wales (479).

Applying for a re-rating or exercising right to reply

All food businesses that reported being aware of the ‘re-rating’ and ‘right to reply’ options were asked if they had taken up either of these options. Despite high levels of awareness, few businesses reported that they had requested either a re-rating or exercised their right to reply. As shown in Table 7.1 only around 1 in 20 in each country reported that they had applied for a re-rating. Around 1 in 10 reported exercising their right to reply, suggestive of a slight increase since 2021, although this change was not statistically significant .   ^{(footnote 2)}

Table 7.1 Proportion of food businesses that report applying for a re-rating

Applied for re-rating	England	Northern Ireland	Wales
2022	4%	3%	6%
2021	5%	4%	5%

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. 2022: England (370); Northern Ireland (432); Wales (434). 2021: England (377); Northern Ireland (427); Wales (436).

Table 7.2 Proportion of food businesses that report exercising their right to reply

Exercised right to reply	England	Northern Ireland	Wales
2022	9%	10%	10%
2021	7%	7%	7%

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. 2022: England (345); Northern Ireland (424) Wales (423). 2021: England (348); Northern Ireland (424); Wales (425).

Experience of applying for a re-rating

Those that reported they were not satisfied with their food hygiene rating and did not apply for a ‘re-rating’ were asked why they did not apply for a re-rating. Sample sizes by each country were low for this question (England n= 21; Northern Ireland n= 18; Wales n= 38), but the combined results displayed in Figure 7.4 show that the most common reasons were that the fees were too high (26%), the business had not yet made all of the changes suggested (20%) or a lack of time (18%).

There were some differences in reasons given between 2021 and 2022, which may largely be due to the decreasing influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on food businesses. In 2021, the impact of the pandemic was mentioned by one in five (19%) but this was not mentioned in 2022 at all. There were also fewer businesses in 2022 saying they had other priorities than applying for re-rating (down to 1% from 16% in 2021). Instead, there were more businesses citing other common reasons for not applying in 2022 – feeling fees are too high ^{(footnote 3)}, having a general lack of time or feeling the rating systems is unfair.

Figure 7.4 Reason for not applying for a re-rating (results for all countries combined) 

The fees are too high (2022 26%, 2021 17%), Haven't made all changes suggested (2022 20%, 2021 25%), Lack of time (2022 18%, 2021 10%), I don't think the rating system is fair (2022 11%, 2021 6%), I did not think we would get a higher rating (2022 6%, 2021 4%), Rating not low enough to apply (2022 5%), The re-rating is carried out by the same authority that issues the rating (2022 5%, 2021 4%), Waiting for reinspection / reinspection competed and waiting for results (2022 5%), The scheme is not relevant to our business (2022 4%, 2021 6%), Other priorities (2022 1%, 2021 16%), Other (2022 5%, 2021 8%), Don't know (2022 3%, 2021 7%)

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: 2022: 77 ; 2021: 91. ↑ /↓ Denotes a significant change from 2021.

As presented in Figure 7.5, more than half of those that applied for a re-rating reported being awarded a higher rating. This is a significant increase when compared to results in 2021 (56%, compared to 28%). The number of businesses still waiting for a new inspection or to hear back from their local authority remained similar to previous years (36% in 2021 and 37% in 2022). 

Figure 7.5 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: 2022: 53; 2021: 60. ↑ /↓ Denotes a significant increase from 2021.

Exercising right to reply 

Businesses that reported they were not satisfied with their food hygiene rating and chose not to exercise their ‘right to reply’ were asked why. Sample sizes by each country were low for this question (England n= 19; Northern Ireland n= 11; Wales n= 28), but the combined results displayed in Figure 7.6 show that making the changes required (27%) and other competing priorities (19%) were the primary reasons. There were also a fair proportion of businesses that accepted the rating (14%) or did not want to spend the time using their right to reply (13%). A further one in ten (10%) applied for a re-rating instead.

In 2021, the profile of reasons given was quite different as 12% of businesses cited the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was not mentioned at all in 2022. There were also fewer businesses in 2022 that gave a ‘don’t know’ response and corresponding increases in many of the other response options. 

Figure 7.6 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: 2022: 58; 2021: 80.  ↑ /↓ Denotes a significant change from 2021.