The FHRS Calculator has been developed to determine what a food hygiene rating will be following an inspection. It requires the list of contraventions found and a professional understanding of the likelihood of food safety being compromised by the contravention. Please read the guidance notes at the bottom of this page to learn how to use the calculator.
This tool is currently in beta. It may be used by individual businesses to test their rating or by EHOs to improve consistency. It may not be reproduced or be used in any commercial capacity without a licence from the creator.
Here are all contraventions that have been added so far. You may remove a single contravention, clear all contraventions to start again, or when you have finished adding contraventions - Calculate the FHRS Score.
Choose a contravention to add towards the food hygiene rating calculation. For each offence, you must select the likelihood food safety was compromised, whether the offence had occurred on the previous inspection and whether suitable steps have been put in place to manage the contravention within a reasonable timescale. For more information on these options, please read the how to use instructions.
This tool essentially requires four decisions to be made for each contravention found. These steps are explained in detail so that the tool can be understood and used correctly. Once you have completed these steps a few times, it becomes easy to continue to add contraventions without referring to these guidance notes in future.
Please note this is a professional tool and requires a detailed knowledge of food hygiene legislation. If you do not have this knowledge and wish to explore using this tool, for example to challenge your food hygiene rating, please contact us for assistance.
The food hygiene rating scheme only considers hygiene contraventions, i.e. under Regulation EC No 852/2004, Regulation EC No 178/2002, and the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013.
If there are multiple examples of the food business contravening the same offence, the contravention is only added once. This is fully explained in the next steps.
What contravention of law has occurred is normally easy to establish, but it is important in certain circumstances to ensure the correct contravention is chosen. For example, a hand wash basin that has no hot water is a contravention of Regulation EC No 852/2004, Annex II, Chapter 1, Paragraph 4, as it is a structural defect. However, the poor hygiene practice of staff not washing their hands is a contravention of Regulation EC No 852/2004, Annex II, Chapter 8, Paragraph 1.
It may be that staff are not washing their hands correctly as there is no hot water, so both contraventions are inputted. Or, it may be that there is hot water to another sink which they are using to maintain a high degree of personal cleanliness, in which case only the structural contravention exists.
You need to therefore chose the correct contravention(s) and assess each one individually for the score to be correctly determined.
A determination is needed on the likelihood that food safety has been compromised by the contravention. There are three choices: low, high, and compromised. There are clear boundaries as to which option you would choose.
Food safety has been compromised when there is clear evidence that unsafe food (food that is injurious to health) exists and is for sale. For example, food past its use by date, rank meat, food not being cooked to a safe temperature, high risk food out of temperature control requirements, physical contamination of foods, ready-to-eat foods being prepared on a chopping board that has just been used for raw meat – these are all evidence that food safety has been compromised.
A high likelihood is a contravention that is likely to cause food safety to be compromised, but there is no solid evidence that this has been the case. For example, flaking paint on the ceiling in the kitchen where open foods are handled means there is a high likelihood physical contamination of foods may occur, but you have not found a piece of food with paint particles contaminating it. If you had, food safety will have been compromised. Another example would be where poor food safety knowledge exists among supervisor capacity staff. As a result, there is a high likelihood that something will go wrong and food safety will be compromised, but you can’t substantiate that it has actually gone wrong at the time of inspection.
A low likelihood would be for example, food debris on the floor, chipped paint on a wall away from any open foods, a damaged floor tile. In EHO terms, these would be considered minor contraventions. They are a contravention of food law but there is a low likelihood that it has resulted in unsafe food (food that is injurious to health).
This is a simple question to answer. On the previous inspection, did this contravention occur? The continuation of contraventions over multiple inspections impacts on the confidence in management to correct contraventions and comply with food hygiene law in the future.
To be clear, if this is the first inspection the business has had, then the contravention could not have happened at a previous inspection.
This step evaluates whether a food business operator is managing contraventions that occur. Food businesses are working environments and things can and will go wrong; how these issues are managed is an important factor in developing an accurate confidence in management score.
For example, a chef may damage a wall tile. Has this been identified and a suitable timeframe for repair been put in place? The ventilation extraction system is greasy, is it scheduled for a clean in a few days, or do they intend to leave it for a year or have they not bothered to action it at all?
A suitable timeframe shouldn’t have too much room for subjectivity. It is important to note that it may not be possible and therefore reasonable to have a contractor in the next day to repair a problem, for example, flaking paint in the store room. A competent decorator may not be available for a month, but given the risk to food safety, it is not unreasonable for this to wait a month. Conversely, evidence of pest activity in the building is a much higher priority and a competent pest contractor should be on site within 24 hours. If there is no intention to act upon the contravention in a short timeframe then it is not being appropriately managed.
The question of the likelihood the contravention causes a food safety risk is considered in Step 2 and is not reconsidered here; what we are assessing here is whether the food business operator is taking action and the contravention will be removed within a reasonable timeframe.
Hopefully that has all made sense. Head back to the top of the page to begin using the tool and give it a try! If after attempting to use the tool the instructions are still not clear, please contact us to let us know so we can improve the tool / instructions in the future.