Hygiene at these nine food outlets is in 'urgent need of improvement' according to the Food Standards Agency

Watford Observer: Revealed: food outlets with zero food hygiene ratings in the Watford area Revealed: food outlets with zero food hygiene ratings in the Watford area

Also read: St Albans food outlets with zero food hygiene ratings

Your favourite restaurant or food shop may look like a temple to taste on the outside but who knows what murky secrets are lurking out the back?

Well, thanks to the Scores on the Doors hygiene rating, a food outlet’s attention to cleanliness is now rated from five stars, for excellent, to zero, for not very good at all.

Have a look at our list of places in the Watford area which according to the Food Standards Agency, are in “urgent need of improvement”.

Watford Observer:

1. Watford Halal Meat in Whippendell Road, Watford was inspected as recently as February 4, when it was given a rating of zero. The Watford Observer was unable to make contact with the manager.

Watford Observer:

2. Watford Supermarket, in Market Street, Watford was awarded its zero food hygiene rating on December 6, 2013.

Ahmed Istiksar, manager, said: “We were working on the cold room and freezer inside the store so they said they would come back again when the work was finished and give us a new rating."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Day 1, in St Albans Road, Watford hasn’t been inspected since October 25, 2012, when it was given a rating of zero. A new owner took over in November and it is due to be reassessed in the next month. As of June 2014, Day 1 had a score of three.

Watford Observer:

4. Blue Check in Bushey High Street was inspected on December 13 last year and given a rating of zero.

David Johal, from the restaurant’s head office, said: “Our food hygiene inspection was carried out on a Friday lunchtime just before Christmas when we had 120 dining with us and it was in the middle of service.

“Unfortunately there were no management in the restaurant at the time so there was no-one to go over the inspection with the inspector.

“Since the inspection all requirements have been complied with, we have also taken on board an independent food hygiene inspector who has been helping us to achieve five star rating.  When our independent inspector visited us they felt that our zero rating was very harsh.

“Our re-inspection will take place between four and six months from the date of our inspection.  This means that our re-inspection will take place within eight weeks.”

Watford Observer:

5. Thai Orchid in Moneyhill Parade, Rickmansworth was awarded a food hygiene rating of zero on June 18, 2013. It was re-inspected before Christmas and an improvement was noted, but the owner has not yet asked to be reassessed.

Watford Observer:

6. Atlantis Fish Bar in Watling Street, Radlett was awarded a zero in its food hygiene rating on April 18, 2013, but the manager refused to comment on why.

Watford Observer:

7. Bonnies Cafe in Bushey High Street was also given a food hygiene rating of zero, on March 4 this year, because of procedures and documentation, as opposed to cleanliness.

Bonny Riby-Williams has owned the cafe for four months, after ripping out the old one.

She said: “I was visited by the council last week and they told me that if I go on a second food hygiene course I will get a five star rating.”

Watford Observer:

8. Rice Bowl in Bushey Hall Road was inspected on October 18, 2013 and awarded a rating of zero. The Watford Observer was unable to make contact with the owner.

Watford Observer:

9. Shimla Spice Bushey in Bushey Hall Road was inspected on August 21, 2013. The Watford Observer was unable to make contact but the restaurant’s answer machine said it was under new management.

Watford Observer:

*The Watford Observer previously reported that Saffron restaurant, in Carpenders Park, had been given a score of zero in its Food Hygiene Rating.

The rating was given to the previous premises and was not related to Saffron, which has not yet opened or been inspected.

This was due to an administrative error at Three Rivers District CouncilWe apologise for any confusion caused.

Information obtained from the FSA website and was correct at the time of writing.

 

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:17pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Mad_Hat says...

Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public?
Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public? Mad_Hat
  • Score: 16

1:37pm Wed 9 Apr 14

G_Whiz says...

Mad_Hat wrote:
Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public?
We should assume so!

It's amazing how so many eateries treat their customers with such arrogance and disrespect.

Cleanliness is a no brainer to people who really care!
[quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public?[/p][/quote]We should assume so! It's amazing how so many eateries treat their customers with such arrogance and disrespect. Cleanliness is a no brainer to people who really care! G_Whiz
  • Score: 23

2:28pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Andrew1963 says...

There must be a difference between rating Zero and being so bad that they close you down. As far as i am aware non of these listed were forced to close. Many are very long standing businesses and it makes you wonder if standards have slipped or they have always been poor. Need for urgent improvement is clearly better than unhygenic- unfit for human consumption, but it is not acceptable.
There must be a difference between rating Zero and being so bad that they close you down. As far as i am aware non of these listed were forced to close. Many are very long standing businesses and it makes you wonder if standards have slipped or they have always been poor. Need for urgent improvement is clearly better than unhygenic- unfit for human consumption, but it is not acceptable. Andrew1963
  • Score: 9

2:36pm Wed 9 Apr 14

bishopofwatford says...

What happened to the system where those failing an inspection were given a period to correct / improve defects and if not achieved they were closed down?
What happened to the system where those failing an inspection were given a period to correct / improve defects and if not achieved they were closed down? bishopofwatford
  • Score: 10

3:20pm Wed 9 Apr 14

angryangryangry says...

No shocks there!
No shocks there! angryangryangry
  • Score: 10

3:54pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Blue Check says...

Mad_Hat wrote:
Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public?
Unfortunately Zero rating is not all about the hygiene. Now days its more about paperwork than the cleaning!! We are a restaurant that still cooks everything fresh to order and everything is homemade and we are being ostracised due to this. We welcome anyone to come and inspect our kitchen in the restaurant as our reputation is so important to us. Our re-inspection cannot come fast enough for us and hopefully the Watford Observer will run an article on a more positive note!
[quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public?[/p][/quote]Unfortunately Zero rating is not all about the hygiene. Now days its more about paperwork than the cleaning!! We are a restaurant that still cooks everything fresh to order and everything is homemade and we are being ostracised due to this. We welcome anyone to come and inspect our kitchen in the restaurant as our reputation is so important to us. Our re-inspection cannot come fast enough for us and hopefully the Watford Observer will run an article on a more positive note! Blue Check
  • Score: 24

4:11pm Wed 9 Apr 14

AJM321 says...

Blue Check wrote:
Mad_Hat wrote:
Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public?
Unfortunately Zero rating is not all about the hygiene. Now days its more about paperwork than the cleaning!! We are a restaurant that still cooks everything fresh to order and everything is homemade and we are being ostracised due to this. We welcome anyone to come and inspect our kitchen in the restaurant as our reputation is so important to us. Our re-inspection cannot come fast enough for us and hopefully the Watford Observer will run an article on a more positive note!
Well, my wife ate at The Blue Check a month or so ago and said it was awful.
[quote][p][bold]Blue Check[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public?[/p][/quote]Unfortunately Zero rating is not all about the hygiene. Now days its more about paperwork than the cleaning!! We are a restaurant that still cooks everything fresh to order and everything is homemade and we are being ostracised due to this. We welcome anyone to come and inspect our kitchen in the restaurant as our reputation is so important to us. Our re-inspection cannot come fast enough for us and hopefully the Watford Observer will run an article on a more positive note![/p][/quote]Well, my wife ate at The Blue Check a month or so ago and said it was awful. AJM321
  • Score: 2

4:20pm Wed 9 Apr 14

mrcube says...

A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.
A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting. mrcube
  • Score: 3

4:34pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Mad_Hat says...

mrcube wrote:
A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.
mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer?
[quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.[/p][/quote]mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer? Mad_Hat
  • Score: 7

4:36pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Mad_Hat says...

From the FSA website (and probably should have been included, in part at least, in the article to provide a bit of balance):

"Why are businesses with poor ratings not closed?

Businesses given ratings of ‘0’ or ‘1’ must make urgent or major improvements to hygiene standards. The local authority food safety officer will use a number of enforcement tools as well as giving advice and guidance to make sure these improvements are made.

The food safety officer will also tell the business how quickly these improvements must be made and this will depend on the type of issue that needs to be addressed.

The Food Hygiene Rating Scheme means that people can choose instead to eat out or buy food at places with higher ratings and businesses with low ratings are in danger of losing customers and so will be encouraged to improve standards more quickly and to maintain these in the future.

If the officer finds that a business’s hygiene standards are very poor and there is an imminent risk to health – this means food is not safe to eat – the officer must take action to make sure that consumers are protected. This could mean prohibiting part of an operation or closing the business down."

So, there you go. If the established is not closed there and then by the inspector then from the above quote you can assume that the food is not dangerous, apparently.
From the FSA website (and probably should have been included, in part at least, in the article to provide a bit of balance): "Why are businesses with poor ratings not closed? Businesses given ratings of ‘0’ or ‘1’ must make urgent or major improvements to hygiene standards. The local authority food safety officer will use a number of enforcement tools as well as giving advice and guidance to make sure these improvements are made. The food safety officer will also tell the business how quickly these improvements must be made and this will depend on the type of issue that needs to be addressed. The Food Hygiene Rating Scheme means that people can choose instead to eat out or buy food at places with higher ratings and businesses with low ratings are in danger of losing customers and so will be encouraged to improve standards more quickly and to maintain these in the future. If the officer finds that a business’s hygiene standards are very poor and there is an imminent risk to health – this means food is not safe to eat – the officer must take action to make sure that consumers are protected. This could mean prohibiting part of an operation or closing the business down." So, there you go. If the established is not closed there and then by the inspector then from the above quote you can assume that the food is not dangerous, apparently. Mad_Hat
  • Score: 6

4:39pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Mad_Hat says...

*establishment
*establishment Mad_Hat
  • Score: -1

4:48pm Wed 9 Apr 14

mrcube says...

Mad_Hat wrote:
mrcube wrote:
A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.
mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer?
Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim.

I know because I've seen it myself, I guess I'm not in a position to say definitely it's better, but it's undeniable that it's not right to include a statistic based on what was essentially a completely different business that happens to be at the same location.
[quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.[/p][/quote]mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer?[/p][/quote]Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim. I know because I've seen it myself, I guess I'm not in a position to say definitely it's better, but it's undeniable that it's not right to include a statistic based on what was essentially a completely different business that happens to be at the same location. mrcube
  • Score: -4

4:55pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Mad_Hat says...

mrcube wrote:
Mad_Hat wrote:
mrcube wrote:
A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.
mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer?
Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim.

I know because I've seen it myself, I guess I'm not in a position to say definitely it's better, but it's undeniable that it's not right to include a statistic based on what was essentially a completely different business that happens to be at the same location.
"Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim." Erm....

Your previous post clearly states: "..... reopened under new management and with much higher food standards." I am neither putting words in your mouth or in your post on the internet.......
[quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.[/p][/quote]mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer?[/p][/quote]Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim. I know because I've seen it myself, I guess I'm not in a position to say definitely it's better, but it's undeniable that it's not right to include a statistic based on what was essentially a completely different business that happens to be at the same location.[/p][/quote]"Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim." Erm.... Your previous post clearly states: "..... reopened under new management and with much higher food standards." I am neither putting words in your mouth or in your post on the internet....... Mad_Hat
  • Score: 7

5:20pm Wed 9 Apr 14

mrcube says...

Mad_Hat wrote:
mrcube wrote:
Mad_Hat wrote:
mrcube wrote:
A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.
mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer?
Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim.

I know because I've seen it myself, I guess I'm not in a position to say definitely it's better, but it's undeniable that it's not right to include a statistic based on what was essentially a completely different business that happens to be at the same location.
"Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim." Erm....

Your previous post clearly states: "..... reopened under new management and with much higher food standards." I am neither putting words in your mouth or in your post on the internet.......
Dear me.

I was referencing your bizarre question as to whether I was an Environmental Health Officer.

Anyway, the point I keep trying to make is this article references an inspection from six months ago when it was a different business, company, management, owner, etc. That inspection is for a place that no longer exists. The fact that a new business has opened there, that happens to offer the same service, should not be penalised for what the old shop was like.
[quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.[/p][/quote]mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer?[/p][/quote]Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim. I know because I've seen it myself, I guess I'm not in a position to say definitely it's better, but it's undeniable that it's not right to include a statistic based on what was essentially a completely different business that happens to be at the same location.[/p][/quote]"Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim." Erm.... Your previous post clearly states: "..... reopened under new management and with much higher food standards." I am neither putting words in your mouth or in your post on the internet.......[/p][/quote]Dear me. I was referencing your bizarre question as to whether I was an Environmental Health Officer. Anyway, the point I keep trying to make is this article references an inspection from six months ago when it was a different business, company, management, owner, etc. That inspection is for a place that no longer exists. The fact that a new business has opened there, that happens to offer the same service, should not be penalised for what the old shop was like. mrcube
  • Score: -7

5:27pm Wed 9 Apr 14

The Rover says...

Blue Check wrote:
Mad_Hat wrote:
Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public?
Unfortunately Zero rating is not all about the hygiene. Now days its more about paperwork than the cleaning!! We are a restaurant that still cooks everything fresh to order and everything is homemade and we are being ostracised due to this. We welcome anyone to come and inspect our kitchen in the restaurant as our reputation is so important to us. Our re-inspection cannot come fast enough for us and hopefully the Watford Observer will run an article on a more positive note!
I appreciate that the inspection happened when you were very busy, but the whole point is that they do not make appointments. Even when very busy there is no excuse to lower your hygiene standards and not have a clean kitchen. To get a zero rating the inspector must have found serious problems. A friend of mine had a restaurant in Watford (now closed) which also got a zero rating. On the day the inspector turned up one of their freezers had packed up and flooded the kitchen, so I do appreciate that sometimes the inspections happen at the worst possible time!
[quote][p][bold]Blue Check[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public?[/p][/quote]Unfortunately Zero rating is not all about the hygiene. Now days its more about paperwork than the cleaning!! We are a restaurant that still cooks everything fresh to order and everything is homemade and we are being ostracised due to this. We welcome anyone to come and inspect our kitchen in the restaurant as our reputation is so important to us. Our re-inspection cannot come fast enough for us and hopefully the Watford Observer will run an article on a more positive note![/p][/quote]I appreciate that the inspection happened when you were very busy, but the whole point is that they do not make appointments. Even when very busy there is no excuse to lower your hygiene standards and not have a clean kitchen. To get a zero rating the inspector must have found serious problems. A friend of mine had a restaurant in Watford (now closed) which also got a zero rating. On the day the inspector turned up one of their freezers had packed up and flooded the kitchen, so I do appreciate that sometimes the inspections happen at the worst possible time! The Rover
  • Score: 12

7:22pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Mad_Hat says...

mrcube wrote:
Mad_Hat wrote:
mrcube wrote:
Mad_Hat wrote:
mrcube wrote:
A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.
mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer?
Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim.

I know because I've seen it myself, I guess I'm not in a position to say definitely it's better, but it's undeniable that it's not right to include a statistic based on what was essentially a completely different business that happens to be at the same location.
"Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim." Erm....

Your previous post clearly states: "..... reopened under new management and with much higher food standards." I am neither putting words in your mouth or in your post on the internet.......
Dear me.

I was referencing your bizarre question as to whether I was an Environmental Health Officer.

Anyway, the point I keep trying to make is this article references an inspection from six months ago when it was a different business, company, management, owner, etc. That inspection is for a place that no longer exists. The fact that a new business has opened there, that happens to offer the same service, should not be penalised for what the old shop was like.
Why is that a bizarre question if you're offering an opinion as if you are an expert food hygienist? I was merely trying to clarify your qualifications to make such a claim. Thanks for answering the question with an unnecessary unpleasant attitude.
[quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.[/p][/quote]mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer?[/p][/quote]Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim. I know because I've seen it myself, I guess I'm not in a position to say definitely it's better, but it's undeniable that it's not right to include a statistic based on what was essentially a completely different business that happens to be at the same location.[/p][/quote]"Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim." Erm.... Your previous post clearly states: "..... reopened under new management and with much higher food standards." I am neither putting words in your mouth or in your post on the internet.......[/p][/quote]Dear me. I was referencing your bizarre question as to whether I was an Environmental Health Officer. Anyway, the point I keep trying to make is this article references an inspection from six months ago when it was a different business, company, management, owner, etc. That inspection is for a place that no longer exists. The fact that a new business has opened there, that happens to offer the same service, should not be penalised for what the old shop was like.[/p][/quote]Why is that a bizarre question if you're offering an opinion as if you are an expert food hygienist? I was merely trying to clarify your qualifications to make such a claim. Thanks for answering the question with an unnecessary unpleasant attitude. Mad_Hat
  • Score: 5

9:20pm Wed 9 Apr 14

neighbour says...

I can't comment on any of those singled out other than Blue Check, which in my opinion is one of the best restaurants for miles. I've been there (with friends and/or family) a few times and always found it provides great food, friendly and courteous service and the bill doesn't bust your wallet. Highly recommended. Zero? More like zero points for the inspectors. I just hope they enjoy their usual Big Macs.
I can't comment on any of those singled out other than Blue Check, which in my opinion is one of the best restaurants for miles. I've been there (with friends and/or family) a few times and always found it provides great food, friendly and courteous service and the bill doesn't bust your wallet. Highly recommended. Zero? More like zero points for the inspectors. I just hope they enjoy their usual Big Macs. neighbour
  • Score: -8

11:19pm Wed 9 Apr 14

donnaxxx says...

Mad_Hat wrote:
mrcube wrote:
Mad_Hat wrote:
mrcube wrote:
A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.
mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer?
Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim.

I know because I've seen it myself, I guess I'm not in a position to say definitely it's better, but it's undeniable that it's not right to include a statistic based on what was essentially a completely different business that happens to be at the same location.
"Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim." Erm....

Your previous post clearly states: "..... reopened under new management and with much higher food standards." I am neither putting words in your mouth or in your post on the internet.......
I can say I've have recently used this sandwich bar a can tell its hygiene and food standards are very good . it is unfair to judge them on the last owners without doing another check yourself , Then I think you will find you will have to print them apologies in your coming news . this is not how you should treat new bussiness .
[quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.[/p][/quote]mrcube - How do you know they have 'higher food standards' (whatever that is), are you an Environmental Health officer?[/p][/quote]Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim. I know because I've seen it myself, I guess I'm not in a position to say definitely it's better, but it's undeniable that it's not right to include a statistic based on what was essentially a completely different business that happens to be at the same location.[/p][/quote]"Please don't make an attempt at putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim." Erm.... Your previous post clearly states: "..... reopened under new management and with much higher food standards." I am neither putting words in your mouth or in your post on the internet.......[/p][/quote]I can say I've have recently used this sandwich bar a can tell its hygiene and food standards are very good . it is unfair to judge them on the last owners without doing another check yourself , Then I think you will find you will have to print them apologies in your coming news . this is not how you should treat new bussiness . donnaxxx
  • Score: -3

12:14am Thu 10 Apr 14

LSC says...

I'm shocked and saddened to see the Blue Check on the list. I've eaten there on and off since it opened, and while I might never have had a look under the fridge in the kitchen, front of house is spotless. The owners seem enthusiastic and professional. I will continue to eat there.
In case anyone thinks I'm plugging the place; remember I'm LSC. If I thought it was pants, I'd say so. I do opinions, not favours.
I'm shocked and saddened to see the Blue Check on the list. I've eaten there on and off since it opened, and while I might never have had a look under the fridge in the kitchen, front of house is spotless. The owners seem enthusiastic and professional. I will continue to eat there. In case anyone thinks I'm plugging the place; remember I'm LSC. If I thought it was pants, I'd say so. I do opinions, not favours. LSC
  • Score: 7

11:12am Thu 10 Apr 14

CaptainPC says...

Blue Check wrote:
Mad_Hat wrote:
Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public?
Unfortunately Zero rating is not all about the hygiene. Now days its more about paperwork than the cleaning!! We are a restaurant that still cooks everything fresh to order and everything is homemade and we are being ostracised due to this. We welcome anyone to come and inspect our kitchen in the restaurant as our reputation is so important to us. Our re-inspection cannot come fast enough for us and hopefully the Watford Observer will run an article on a more positive note!
Is it alright if I pop in on the way home from work? About 5.30?
[quote][p][bold]Blue Check[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: Isn't it the case that premises with a zero pose a health threat to the public?[/p][/quote]Unfortunately Zero rating is not all about the hygiene. Now days its more about paperwork than the cleaning!! We are a restaurant that still cooks everything fresh to order and everything is homemade and we are being ostracised due to this. We welcome anyone to come and inspect our kitchen in the restaurant as our reputation is so important to us. Our re-inspection cannot come fast enough for us and hopefully the Watford Observer will run an article on a more positive note![/p][/quote]Is it alright if I pop in on the way home from work? About 5.30? CaptainPC
  • Score: 4

11:15am Thu 10 Apr 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
I'm shocked and saddened to see the Blue Check on the list. I've eaten there on and off since it opened, and while I might never have had a look under the fridge in the kitchen, front of house is spotless. The owners seem enthusiastic and professional. I will continue to eat there.
In case anyone thinks I'm plugging the place; remember I'm LSC. If I thought it was pants, I'd say so. I do opinions, not favours.
You do boring. And you do it a lot.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I'm shocked and saddened to see the Blue Check on the list. I've eaten there on and off since it opened, and while I might never have had a look under the fridge in the kitchen, front of house is spotless. The owners seem enthusiastic and professional. I will continue to eat there. In case anyone thinks I'm plugging the place; remember I'm LSC. If I thought it was pants, I'd say so. I do opinions, not favours.[/p][/quote]You do boring. And you do it a lot. CaptainPC
  • Score: 1

11:50am Thu 10 Apr 14

cheeky210 says...

The only thing that matters is the DOME BAR got a 5 rating and serves the best Thai food in Watford
The only thing that matters is the DOME BAR got a 5 rating and serves the best Thai food in Watford cheeky210
  • Score: 4

1:37pm Thu 10 Apr 14

G_Whiz says...

neighbour wrote:
I can't comment on any of those singled out other than Blue Check, which in my opinion is one of the best restaurants for miles. I've been there (with friends and/or family) a few times and always found it provides great food, friendly and courteous service and the bill doesn't bust your wallet. Highly recommended. Zero? More like zero points for the inspectors. I just hope they enjoy their usual Big Macs.
No matter if the food tastes good or bad, is cheap or expensive and the staff are horrible or lovely. The inspectors don't look at that - they look at the cooking practices, how food is stored, wash facilities, cross contamination etc etc.

Don't you understand that?
[quote][p][bold]neighbour[/bold] wrote: I can't comment on any of those singled out other than Blue Check, which in my opinion is one of the best restaurants for miles. I've been there (with friends and/or family) a few times and always found it provides great food, friendly and courteous service and the bill doesn't bust your wallet. Highly recommended. Zero? More like zero points for the inspectors. I just hope they enjoy their usual Big Macs.[/p][/quote]No matter if the food tastes good or bad, is cheap or expensive and the staff are horrible or lovely. The inspectors don't look at that - they look at the cooking practices, how food is stored, wash facilities, cross contamination etc etc. Don't you understand that? G_Whiz
  • Score: 6

1:42pm Thu 10 Apr 14

CaptainPC says...

cheeky210 wrote:
The only thing that matters is the DOME BAR got a 5 rating and serves the best Thai food in Watford
Really, is it nice? I used to quite like the Thai food in the Wishing Well, is it similar?
[quote][p][bold]cheeky210[/bold] wrote: The only thing that matters is the DOME BAR got a 5 rating and serves the best Thai food in Watford[/p][/quote]Really, is it nice? I used to quite like the Thai food in the Wishing Well, is it similar? CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Thu 10 Apr 14

neighbour says...

G_Whiz wrote:
neighbour wrote:
I can't comment on any of those singled out other than Blue Check, which in my opinion is one of the best restaurants for miles. I've been there (with friends and/or family) a few times and always found it provides great food, friendly and courteous service and the bill doesn't bust your wallet. Highly recommended. Zero? More like zero points for the inspectors. I just hope they enjoy their usual Big Macs.
No matter if the food tastes good or bad, is cheap or expensive and the staff are horrible or lovely. The inspectors don't look at that - they look at the cooking practices, how food is stored, wash facilities, cross contamination etc etc.

Don't you understand that?
Yes thanks, I do understand that. I have, after all, been dealing with idiots, bureaucrats and 'elf n safety' morons most of my life. What's annoyed me about this is that Blue Check is lumped in with all the salmonella snack bars and chicken-wing eateries which saddens me because it isn't going to do what is a truly excellent establishment much good. Is there anything YOU do not understand about that, you condescending little man? To argue with a fool makes two fools, so now please free to rant away to yourself. Nurse will be round shortly.
[quote][p][bold]G_Whiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]neighbour[/bold] wrote: I can't comment on any of those singled out other than Blue Check, which in my opinion is one of the best restaurants for miles. I've been there (with friends and/or family) a few times and always found it provides great food, friendly and courteous service and the bill doesn't bust your wallet. Highly recommended. Zero? More like zero points for the inspectors. I just hope they enjoy their usual Big Macs.[/p][/quote]No matter if the food tastes good or bad, is cheap or expensive and the staff are horrible or lovely. The inspectors don't look at that - they look at the cooking practices, how food is stored, wash facilities, cross contamination etc etc. Don't you understand that?[/p][/quote]Yes thanks, I do understand that. I have, after all, been dealing with idiots, bureaucrats and 'elf n safety' morons most of my life. What's annoyed me about this is that Blue Check is lumped in with all the salmonella snack bars and chicken-wing eateries which saddens me because it isn't going to do what is a truly excellent establishment much good. Is there anything YOU do not understand about that, you condescending little man? To argue with a fool makes two fools, so now please free to rant away to yourself. Nurse will be round shortly. neighbour
  • Score: -6

2:38pm Thu 10 Apr 14

G_Whiz says...

mrcube wrote:
A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.
The new owners (if they really are new owners) would have known this rating when they purchased the place.

Anyone with any business nous would have changed the name!
[quote][p][bold]mrcube[/bold] wrote: A little unfair to include Croxley Sandwich Bar and Bakery on this considering the inspection is dated October 2013. Since then the place has closed down, been completely refurbished, and reopened under new management and with much higher food standards. This is damaging for the new guys and an unfair and unthought through posting.[/p][/quote]The new owners (if they really are new owners) would have known this rating when they purchased the place. Anyone with any business nous would have changed the name! G_Whiz
  • Score: 7

2:47pm Thu 10 Apr 14

G_Whiz says...

neighbour wrote:
G_Whiz wrote:
neighbour wrote:
I can't comment on any of those singled out other than Blue Check, which in my opinion is one of the best restaurants for miles. I've been there (with friends and/or family) a few times and always found it provides great food, friendly and courteous service and the bill doesn't bust your wallet. Highly recommended. Zero? More like zero points for the inspectors. I just hope they enjoy their usual Big Macs.
No matter if the food tastes good or bad, is cheap or expensive and the staff are horrible or lovely. The inspectors don't look at that - they look at the cooking practices, how food is stored, wash facilities, cross contamination etc etc.

Don't you understand that?
Yes thanks, I do understand that. I have, after all, been dealing with idiots, bureaucrats and 'elf n safety' morons most of my life. What's annoyed me about this is that Blue Check is lumped in with all the salmonella snack bars and chicken-wing eateries which saddens me because it isn't going to do what is a truly excellent establishment much good. Is there anything YOU do not understand about that, you condescending little man? To argue with a fool makes two fools, so now please free to rant away to yourself. Nurse will be round shortly.
Hehe, Just glad the inspectors don't use your method to rate hygene that's all.
[quote][p][bold]neighbour[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Whiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]neighbour[/bold] wrote: I can't comment on any of those singled out other than Blue Check, which in my opinion is one of the best restaurants for miles. I've been there (with friends and/or family) a few times and always found it provides great food, friendly and courteous service and the bill doesn't bust your wallet. Highly recommended. Zero? More like zero points for the inspectors. I just hope they enjoy their usual Big Macs.[/p][/quote]No matter if the food tastes good or bad, is cheap or expensive and the staff are horrible or lovely. The inspectors don't look at that - they look at the cooking practices, how food is stored, wash facilities, cross contamination etc etc. Don't you understand that?[/p][/quote]Yes thanks, I do understand that. I have, after all, been dealing with idiots, bureaucrats and 'elf n safety' morons most of my life. What's annoyed me about this is that Blue Check is lumped in with all the salmonella snack bars and chicken-wing eateries which saddens me because it isn't going to do what is a truly excellent establishment much good. Is there anything YOU do not understand about that, you condescending little man? To argue with a fool makes two fools, so now please free to rant away to yourself. Nurse will be round shortly.[/p][/quote]Hehe, Just glad the inspectors don't use your method to rate hygene that's all. G_Whiz
  • Score: 5

7:41pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Tizer001 says...

I will not be visitmg any of them, it's 2014 ffs, it isn't that difficult and doesn't take that much brain to get things hygeinic as well as looking relatively good/stylish nowadays.
I will not be visitmg any of them, it's 2014 ffs, it isn't that difficult and doesn't take that much brain to get things hygeinic as well as looking relatively good/stylish nowadays. Tizer001
  • Score: 4

9:21pm Thu 10 Apr 14

TheLocalEater says...

Much like many people I am very shocked to see Blue Check Restaurant in this list. I have visited the restaurant many a times and never been disappointed. The food, service and the price is the best in the local area. Once The Blue Check or any of the above restaurants have a re-inspection I hope The Watford Observer highlight their new ratings, especially considering The Blue Check is a gem to the Bushey and Watford area.
Much like many people I am very shocked to see Blue Check Restaurant in this list. I have visited the restaurant many a times and never been disappointed. The food, service and the price is the best in the local area. Once The Blue Check or any of the above restaurants have a re-inspection I hope The Watford Observer highlight their new ratings, especially considering The Blue Check is a gem to the Bushey and Watford area. TheLocalEater
  • Score: 1

9:38pm Thu 10 Apr 14

PhillipAllan says...

TheLocalEater wrote:
Much like many people I am very shocked to see Blue Check Restaurant in this list. I have visited the restaurant many a times and never been disappointed. The food, service and the price is the best in the local area. Once The Blue Check or any of the above restaurants have a re-inspection I hope The Watford Observer highlight their new ratings, especially considering The Blue Check is a gem to the Bushey and Watford area.
I agree. It would be great to see a article that emphasises on the way these Restaurants have changed. I live in Bushey and have been to The Blue Check for many years now, and I still will as the food is excellent and the atmosphere is warm every time. To see some good news about the loved Bushey restaurant would be nice.
[quote][p][bold]TheLocalEater[/bold] wrote: Much like many people I am very shocked to see Blue Check Restaurant in this list. I have visited the restaurant many a times and never been disappointed. The food, service and the price is the best in the local area. Once The Blue Check or any of the above restaurants have a re-inspection I hope The Watford Observer highlight their new ratings, especially considering The Blue Check is a gem to the Bushey and Watford area.[/p][/quote]I agree. It would be great to see a article that emphasises on the way these Restaurants have changed. I live in Bushey and have been to The Blue Check for many years now, and I still will as the food is excellent and the atmosphere is warm every time. To see some good news about the loved Bushey restaurant would be nice. PhillipAllan
  • Score: 2

12:17am Fri 11 Apr 14

LSC says...

CaptainPC wrote:
LSC wrote:
I'm shocked and saddened to see the Blue Check on the list. I've eaten there on and off since it opened, and while I might never have had a look under the fridge in the kitchen, front of house is spotless. The owners seem enthusiastic and professional. I will continue to eat there.
In case anyone thinks I'm plugging the place; remember I'm LSC. If I thought it was pants, I'd say so. I do opinions, not favours.
You do boring. And you do it a lot.
I'm aware that your contribution is insightful and fascinating. It is hard for the rest of us mortals to keep up, so please forgive us.
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I'm shocked and saddened to see the Blue Check on the list. I've eaten there on and off since it opened, and while I might never have had a look under the fridge in the kitchen, front of house is spotless. The owners seem enthusiastic and professional. I will continue to eat there. In case anyone thinks I'm plugging the place; remember I'm LSC. If I thought it was pants, I'd say so. I do opinions, not favours.[/p][/quote]You do boring. And you do it a lot.[/p][/quote]I'm aware that your contribution is insightful and fascinating. It is hard for the rest of us mortals to keep up, so please forgive us. LSC
  • Score: 3

11:49am Fri 11 Apr 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
CaptainPC wrote:
LSC wrote:
I'm shocked and saddened to see the Blue Check on the list. I've eaten there on and off since it opened, and while I might never have had a look under the fridge in the kitchen, front of house is spotless. The owners seem enthusiastic and professional. I will continue to eat there.
In case anyone thinks I'm plugging the place; remember I'm LSC. If I thought it was pants, I'd say so. I do opinions, not favours.
You do boring. And you do it a lot.
I'm aware that your contribution is insightful and fascinating. It is hard for the rest of us mortals to keep up, so please forgive us.
No drama, sweetheart. You are forgiven.

Blue Check is AWFUL though.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I'm shocked and saddened to see the Blue Check on the list. I've eaten there on and off since it opened, and while I might never have had a look under the fridge in the kitchen, front of house is spotless. The owners seem enthusiastic and professional. I will continue to eat there. In case anyone thinks I'm plugging the place; remember I'm LSC. If I thought it was pants, I'd say so. I do opinions, not favours.[/p][/quote]You do boring. And you do it a lot.[/p][/quote]I'm aware that your contribution is insightful and fascinating. It is hard for the rest of us mortals to keep up, so please forgive us.[/p][/quote]No drama, sweetheart. You are forgiven. Blue Check is AWFUL though. CaptainPC
  • Score: 2

8:48pm Fri 11 Apr 14

crazyfrog says...

I think the scores on the doors scheme is a good thing if it gets food establishments to up their game in the hygiene stakes, have I got to comment on the blue check now? Ok I have been there (think most people have) and thoroughly enjoyed it! Do they still clear the tables after the food away and have the music thing going on?
I think the scores on the doors scheme is a good thing if it gets food establishments to up their game in the hygiene stakes, have I got to comment on the blue check now? Ok I have been there (think most people have) and thoroughly enjoyed it! Do they still clear the tables after the food away and have the music thing going on? crazyfrog
  • Score: 2

11:01am Sun 13 Apr 14

HermanGoering says...

PhillipAllan wrote:
TheLocalEater wrote:
Much like many people I am very shocked to see Blue Check Restaurant in this list. I have visited the restaurant many a times and never been disappointed. The food, service and the price is the best in the local area. Once The Blue Check or any of the above restaurants have a re-inspection I hope The Watford Observer highlight their new ratings, especially considering The Blue Check is a gem to the Bushey and Watford area.
I agree. It would be great to see a article that emphasises on the way these Restaurants have changed. I live in Bushey and have been to The Blue Check for many years now, and I still will as the food is excellent and the atmosphere is warm every time. To see some good news about the loved Bushey restaurant would be nice.
I think we all know who is to blame for this. It's the cockroaches.
[quote][p][bold]PhillipAllan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheLocalEater[/bold] wrote: Much like many people I am very shocked to see Blue Check Restaurant in this list. I have visited the restaurant many a times and never been disappointed. The food, service and the price is the best in the local area. Once The Blue Check or any of the above restaurants have a re-inspection I hope The Watford Observer highlight their new ratings, especially considering The Blue Check is a gem to the Bushey and Watford area.[/p][/quote]I agree. It would be great to see a article that emphasises on the way these Restaurants have changed. I live in Bushey and have been to The Blue Check for many years now, and I still will as the food is excellent and the atmosphere is warm every time. To see some good news about the loved Bushey restaurant would be nice.[/p][/quote]I think we all know who is to blame for this. It's the cockroaches. HermanGoering
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree