Food Hygiene Rating for Bexhill Caring Community Day Centre

Restaurant/Cafe/Canteen

Bexhill Caring Community Shop
25 Sackville Road
Bexhill, East Sussex
TN39 3JD

Bexhill Caring Community Day Centre was awarded a Food Hygiene Rating of 5 (Very Good) by Rother District Council on 20th October 2021.

Food Hygiene and Safety: Good
Structural Compliance: Good
Confidence in Management: Good

Information last updated 10th August 2022.

Bexhill Caring Community Day Centre has qualified for the Scores On The Doors Elite Award - three consecutive top 5 scores.

Outstanding hygiene since 16th January 2015

5 (Very Good) 20th October 2021

5 (Very Good) 4th December 2019

5 (Very Good) 28th November 2018

5 (Very Good) 6th December 2017

5 (Very Good) 25th January 2017

5 (Very Good) 10th February 2016

5 (Very Good) 16th January 2015

Adverts by Google

Useful links

All 172 hygiene ratings from Bexhill

Council contact details

Tell a Friend

Is this your business?

Elite Award

Distinctive promotional material to publicise your achievement, including bespoke certificate, window sticker and web graphics.

Order now

Improve your Food Hygiene Rating

Tips and Guides

Training

Service Suppliers

More Details

SFBB+ The Food Safety Compliance App

The FSA’s ‘Safer Food, Better Business’ pack in an App. Compliant, safe & always available on your smartphone. FREE FOR FIRST 3 MONTHS.

Find out more

Enlist your business

Add a picture, phone number, website.

Capture visitors for Order, Book and Delivery.

Find out the date your next inspection is due

Enlist

The food hygiene and safety procedures (including food handling practices and procedures, and temperature control), and, are assessed using the scoring system below:

Very Good	High standard of compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice; conforms to accepted good practices in the trade.
Good	High standard of compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice, minor contraventions of food hygiene regulations. Some minor non-compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice.
Generally satisfactory	Some non-compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice. The premises are in the top 50 per cent of premises and standards are being maintained or improved
Improvement necessary	Some major non-compliance with statutory obligations – more effort required to prevent fall in standards.
Major improvement necessary	General failure to satisfy statutory obligations – standards generally low.
Urgent improvement necessary	Almost total non-compliance with statutory obligations.

The structure of the establishment (including cleanliness, layout, condition of structure, lighting, ventilation, facilities etc.).

The meanings of the scores are as follows:

Very Good	High standard of compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice; conforms to accepted good practices in the trade.
Good	High standard of compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice, minor contraventions of food hygiene regulations. Some minor non-compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice.
Generally satisfactory	Some non-compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice. The premises are in the top 50 per cent of premises and standards are being maintained or improved.
Improvement necessary	Some major non-compliance with statutory obligations – more effort required to prevent fall in standards.
Major improvement necessary	General failure to satisfy statutory obligations – standards generally low.
Urgent improvement necessary	Almost total non-compliance with statutory obligations.

The actual performance of management is scored in on the basis of the results achieved and observed. A management that achieves good food hygiene performance, well understood by the workforce, should have achieved a good score.

Confidence in management is not meant to reconsider this aspect. It is to elicit a judgement on the likelihood of satisfactory compliance being maintained in the future.

Factors that will influence the inspector's judgement include:

the "track record" of the company, its willingness to act on previous advice and enforcement, and the complaint history;
the attitude of the present management towards hygiene and food safety; and
hygiene and food safety technical knowledge available to the company (internal or external), including hazard analysis/HACCP and the control of critical points;
satisfactory HACCP based procedures.

The meanings of the scores are as follows

Very good	Good record of compliance. Access to technical advice within organisation. Will have satisfactory documented HACCP based food safety management system which may be subject to external audit process. Audit by Food Authority confirms compliance with documented management system with few/minor non-conformities not identified in the system as critical control points.
Good	Good = Reasonable record of compliance. Technical advice available in-house or access to and use of technical advice from trade associations. Have satisfactory documented procedures and systems. Able to demonstrate effective control of hazards. Will have satisfactory documented food safety management system. Audit by Food Authority confirms general compliance with documented system.
Generally satisfactory	Satisfactory record of compliance. Access to and use of technical advice either in-house or from trade associations. May have satisfactory documented food safety management system.
Major improvement necessary	Varying record of compliance. Poor appreciation of hazards and control measures. No food safety management system.
Urgent improvement required	Poor track record of compliance. Little or no technical knowledge Little or no appreciation of hazards or quality control. No food safety management system.

20th October 2021	5 (Very Good)
4th December 2019	5 (Very Good)
28th November 2018	5 (Very Good)
6th December 2017	5 (Very Good)
25th January 2017	5 (Very Good)
10th February 2016	5 (Very Good)
16th January 2015	5 (Very Good)