Appealing a Food Hygiene Rating
The formal processes available to food businesses to challenge their food hygiene rating, including right to reply, re-inspection requests, and safeguard reviews.
Receiving a lower-than-expected food hygiene rating can be frustrating for food business operators who feel the rating does not reflect their current standards. The Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS), operated by local authorities in partnership with the Food Standards Agency, provides several formal mechanisms for businesses to challenge or improve their rating. Understanding these options — and their limitations — is important for any food business that believes its rating is unfair or wants to demonstrate improvements made since the last inspection. It is important to note that the FHRS is not an appeals system in the traditional legal sense. There is no formal right of appeal against a food hygiene rating to a court or tribunal. Instead, the scheme provides three main options: the right to reply (allowing the business to publish a response alongside its rating on the food.gov.uk website), the right to request a re-inspection (a new visit to reassess the rating), and the safeguard review (a process to challenge the rating where the business believes the scoring was inconsistent with the published scoring descriptors). Each of these has specific procedures, timescales, and limitations. The FHRS rating is based on the EHO's assessment at the time of inspection across three elements: hygienic food handling (how food is prepared, cooked, stored, and handled), structural compliance (the condition and layout of the building, equipment, and facilities), and confidence in management (how the business manages and documents food safety, including staff training, food safety management systems, and track record). Each element is scored, and the scores are combined using the published FHRS scoring matrix to determine the overall rating from 0 to 5. Understanding how the scoring works is essential for both challenging a rating and improving it.
Key Points
- There is no formal legal right of appeal against a food hygiene rating — the scheme provides alternative mechanisms
- Right to reply allows publication of a written response alongside the rating on food.gov.uk at no cost
- Re-inspection requests allow a new full assessment after improvements are made, typically for a fee of £150-£200
- Safeguard reviews challenge whether the EHO's scoring was consistent with published scoring descriptors
- Safeguard review requests must typically be submitted within 21 days of notification of the rating
Right to Reply
The right to reply allows a food business operator to submit a written response that is published alongside their food hygiene rating on the food.gov.uk website. This can include an explanation of why the business received a particular rating, details of improvements that have been made since the inspection, and any other information the operator wants customers to see. The right to reply does not change the rating itself — it simply adds the business's perspective to the public record. To use the right to reply, the operator must submit their response to the local authority, which reviews it to ensure it does not contain offensive or defamatory material before forwarding it to the FSA for publication. There is no time limit for submitting a right to reply, but it is most useful shortly after the inspection when the rating is first published. The response appears directly on the business's FHRS listing on food.gov.uk and can be updated at any time by submitting a new response.
Requesting a Re-inspection
If a food business has made significant improvements since its last inspection and believes it would now receive a higher rating, it can request a re-inspection. Most local authorities charge a fee for re-inspections (typically £150-£200, though this varies). The business should only request a re-inspection once it has addressed all the issues identified in the previous inspection report, as the re-inspection will assess the business against all the same criteria and could result in a lower rating if standards have deteriorated. The re-inspection will be conducted as a full inspection — it is not a simplified or partial assessment. The new rating replaces the old one. Some local authorities have a minimum waiting period before a re-inspection can be requested (often three months from the date of the last inspection). The operator should contact their local authority to find out the specific procedure, fee, and timescale.
Safeguard Review Process
The safeguard review is the closest thing to a formal appeal within the FHRS. It allows a food business operator to challenge their rating where they believe the EHO's scoring does not accurately reflect the conditions at the time of inspection, based on the published scoring descriptors. The safeguard review does not reassess the physical conditions — it reviews whether the scores awarded were consistent with the scoring guidance. To request a safeguard review, the operator must submit a request to the local authority within 21 days of being notified of the rating (though some authorities may accept later requests). The review is conducted by a senior officer who was not involved in the original inspection, and they assess whether the scores are justified based on the inspection report and the scoring descriptors. The review can result in the rating being maintained, increased, or decreased. If the operator is dissatisfied with the outcome of the safeguard review, they can escalate the complaint through the local authority's complaints procedure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I appeal my food hygiene rating to a court?
No. The Food Hygiene Rating Scheme does not provide a formal legal right of appeal to a court or tribunal. The available mechanisms are the right to reply, requesting a re-inspection, and the safeguard review process. If you believe the local authority has acted unreasonably in its administration of the scheme, you could potentially seek judicial review, but this is an expensive and rarely successful route that challenges the process rather than the rating itself.
How long does it take to get a new food hygiene rating after requesting a re-inspection?
Timescales vary by local authority and their workload. Most authorities aim to conduct re-inspections within three months of the request, but it can take longer in busy periods. Some authorities have a minimum waiting period of three months from the previous inspection before they will accept a re-inspection request. Contact your local authority to find out their specific timescale and any waiting period that applies.
What if my rating goes down after a re-inspection?
A re-inspection is a full inspection and the EHO will assess all elements of the FHRS criteria. It is possible for the rating to go down if standards have deteriorated or if the EHO identifies issues that were not identified during the previous inspection. For this reason, businesses should only request a re-inspection once they are confident that all issues have been addressed and that standards are consistently maintained. There is no mechanism to retain your previous rating if the re-inspection results in a lower one.
What is the difference between a safeguard review and a re-inspection?
A safeguard review is a paper-based exercise that examines whether the scores awarded during the original inspection were consistent with the published scoring descriptors — it does not involve a new visit to the premises. A re-inspection is a completely new visit where the EHO reassesses all elements of the FHRS criteria based on the current conditions. A safeguard review challenges the original scoring, while a re-inspection produces a new rating based on current conditions. You can pursue both options simultaneously.
Is the right to reply worth using?
The right to reply can be valuable because it allows you to tell your side of the story to customers who check your rating on food.gov.uk. It is most effective when used to explain that specific improvements have been made since the inspection, rather than to criticise the EHO or the rating process. A well-written, professional right to reply that acknowledges the issues and explains the corrective actions taken can help maintain customer confidence. It is free to submit and there is no downside to using it while you wait for a re-inspection.
Ready to simplify your compliance?
Start your free 14-day trial and see how Paddl makes food safety management effortless.