How EHO calculate your scores on the doors.

12 February 2022

And how to estimate your EHO score for yourself

Your rating

The following is a brief overview on how EHO work out your scores on doors, officially called the food hygiene rating system.

EHO use the system to rate your premises from 0 to five; with five being ‘very good’, down to zero, which means ‘urgent improvement required’.

You might imagine sites rated 1, or 2, would be dirty, possibly with pest infestation. Poor personal hygiene, mouldy food, lack of hand washing. Perhaps poor structure with dirty, crumbling walls?

They may well be, but not necessarily, as I’ll explain in this blog.

The scheme applies to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. There is a different scheme in Scotland (Pass or Improvement required).

The standards checked will be similar, but how the score is calculated will be different.

It is a legal requirement to display your rating in Wales, but not, currently in England.

This article will help you understand how scores are calculated. It will explain why many sites receive low ratings, and this knowledge will help ensure your scores remain high.

You could even use this information to develop your own expertise in the food hygiene ratings.

The greater your understanding of how your scores are calculated; the better you can prepare for inspections.

EHO visit

When EHO complete your inspection, they’ll make note of everything that’s wrong. Hopefully, this will be a very short list, or empty page for you!

Typical things they might mention are:

- Out of date food.

- Dirty floor beneath cooking equipment.

- Gaps in temperature records.

They will now put their findings into one of three sections:

1. FOOD HYGIENE AND SAFETY (out of date food would be scored here)

2. STRUCTURAL COMPLIANCE (dirty floor score here)

3. CONFIDENCE IN MANAGEMENT (gaps in temperature records scored here).

Each of these three sections are given a sub score, and these sub scores are added together to calculate your final rating.

The important thing to remember is this:

If any of these sections (hygiene, structure, and confidence in management) have a poor score, your overall rating will be low.

Think of it like you’re MOT. If your brakes are faulty, you wouldn’t expect to pass the MOT, even if everything else was perfect.

Three sub sections

Here’s more detail on those three sections, and some of the issues EHO will group into each one.

1. FOOD HYGIENE AND SAFETY

Here, EHO score your practices; the things you do.

It will include things like cross contamination, cooling procedures, fridge temperatures, dates, labelling and personal hygiene.

2. STRUCTURAL COMPLIANCE

Here, EHO score your structure, your cleaning, and any pest issues.

3. CONFIDENCE IN MANAGEMENT

Here, EHO rate your knowledge, your paperwork, and how confident they are that, moving forward, standards will be maintained or improved.New Paragraph

Calculating a Five Rating

EHO give a sub-score to each of the sections, for example:

FOOD HYGIENE AND SAFETY = 0

STRUCTURAL COMPLIANCE = 0

CONFIDENCE IN MANAGEMENT = 0

The above example is the perfect score. Each section has scored a zero, meaning there is nothing wrong, no issues found..

Roughly speaking, each section is scored as 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25.

There is no 15 in the confidence in management section, and scores in that section go up to 30.

A score of 15 in any of the sections will result in an overall rating of two.

Many people will Google ‘scores on the doors’ to find the rating for a particular site.

The official, more reliable food standards agency website can be found by searching FSA Food hygiene ratings.

Whichever site you use, you enter the name of the site, the area and press ‘search’.

For example, see below. Here, I used the ‘scores on the doors’ site; I searched for ‘Red Lion’ and ‘Norwich’, and found these results:

If I then click on F: White Lion, I can find more details of the visit:

The official Food Standards agency results can be accessed here:

Go to offical site

This is a more reliable site, with no annoying adverts

As you can see, numbers are not used for the sub sections, but rather a written description.

The descriptions correspond to our numerical scores, for example:

‘VERY GOOD’ = 0

‘GOOD’ = 5

‘GENERALLY SATISFACTORY’ = 10

‘IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY’ = 15

‘MAJOR IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY’ = 20

‘URGENT IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY’ = 25

Therefore, the scores for the White Lion example above would be:

FOOD HYGIENE AND SAFETY = 5 (Good)

STRUCTURAL COMPLIANCE = 5 (Good)

CONFIDENCE IN MANAGEMENT = 0 (Very good)

As we can see here, the standards don’t have to be perfect to achieve a five, it allows for non-critical issues.

We don’t know exactly what issues EHO found at the White Lion. However, the following points would have resulted in a Five:

Calculating a Four Rating.

If you score a 10 on any section, your maximum score is four.

Example:

Two tens and a zero would also be a Four rating.

Calculating a Three rating.

Two tens and a five will reduce the overall rating to three.

Example:

For guidance on which score to select, EHO refer to the brand standards.

This is basically a scoring guidance for inspectors.

The criteria for selecting a structure score of 10 (not critical to safety, but could become so), is taken from the brand standards.

If you want to become a real expert, you can download the brand standards yourself.

See brand standards

Calculating a Two rating.

A 15 on any section reduces the overall score to a two:

Calculating a One rating.

CALCULATING A ONE RATING

An overall score of 45 (i.e. 15 on all three sections) will result in a one rating.

However, if you score a 20 on any section, this could also result in a one.

Example:

As you can see, a site could receive a ‘one’ rating simply because they don’t have a written food safety management system. Even though standards were otherwise good.

Now, many EHO will argue this isn’t the case. They wouldn’t award a site a one rating purely on lacking paperwork. It’s great to hear of EHO taking an ‘holistic view’ of standards. However, in my personal experience this isn’t always the case.

And, if it doesn’t, how would they explain the rating below?

This is taken from the official FSA website I discussed above.

Calculating a Zero rating.

An overall score of 50 or more results in a zero rating.

If a site has scored a zero, we can be fairly sure the site DOES have poor standards.

Summary

Many businesses have very low ratings because of one or two major issues.

The following are likely to reduce the overall rating to TWO, even if everything else is perfect:

No hot water

Pest infestation

Some of the controls necessary to prevent cross contamination not in place or implemented.

The following could reduce the overall rating to ONE, even if everything else is perfect:

No documented food safety management system in place.

Please remember this; you can download a FREE food safety management system from the Food standards agency.

There are information packs available for various business types.

Ensure you work through the system, explaining how you keep food safe. You can find more advice in our blog ‘how to get a five rating from EHO.

See free food safety management system.

Additional food safety concerns resulting in a one would include:

Many of the controls necessary to prevent cross contamination not in place.

Hygienie training courses will include advice on maintaining suitable cross contamination controls.

You can also read our blog on achieving a five rating for my information.

< Older Post Newer Post >

Availability Heuristic in Hospitality Safety

by Nick Dore Hygienie • 22 February 2026

This week I’ve read about the Availability Heuristic, with information taken from The Decision Lab.com. I’ve then tried to relate this information to safety. The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that allows us to make choices easier and faster. We base decisions on information that comes easily to mind, rather than objective analysis of facts. For example, people may overestimate the dangers of plane crashes, shark attacks, and rare diseases if there have been recent events, vividly reported on the news. In some respects, it’s important that we do easily recall major events associated with safety. Knowledge of these incidents and help change attitudes and improve culture. The main danger, as I see it, is when memorable events aren’t easily recalled. This can lead us to underestimating the danger. For example, in food safety, we might not easily recall food poisoning outbreaks related to long, slow cooking. This might lead us to underestimate the danger, take short cuts, and not follow the correct procedures. The effect is increased when we, personally have not experienced such an incident. Recent, positive, memorable events can also result in overconfidence. For example, a recent Five rating and glowing praise from EHO can can result in overconfidence, and lessen focus on the standards that brought us the reward. This is closely related to over confidence bias, where subjective confidence in our abilities is greater than objective evidence. Often illustrated by the fact around 44% of UK marriages end in divorce, but most newly weds would estimate the likelihood of divorce for them to be around 0%. The ‘availability short cut’ is deeply ingrained and largely necessary. When starting a car journey, it’s not feasible to analyse every factor of our forthcoming journey to evaluate the risk. Being aware that car accidents do occur is sufficient to focus our attention on driving safely. As with most bias I’ve read about, it’s difficult to avoid. Even being aware of its existence doesn’t necessary mean we can overcome its dangers. In addition, as noted above, the knowledge of risks and consequences of mistakes can help drive improvements. Perhaps as a food safety and health and safety trainer I should use case studies and real-life examples to illustrate route cause failings, rather than specific subjects. For example, if I describe an horrific incident involving a deep fat fryer, learners are likely to easily recall the dangers of hot oil. They’re perhaps less likely to recall the dangers of taking shortcuts (for example not allowing enough time for the oil to cool). However, taking short cuts can equally result in accidents involving chemicals, working at height, or many aspects of food safety. I’m not in any way an expert in psychology, I’m just interested in how it relates to safety. Through my company I provide food safety and health and safety training at levels three and four. More information is available on my website Hygienie.org

Authority Bias in Safety

by Nick Dore • 17 February 2026

Authority bias is our tendency to be influenced by authority figures. A 1960’s experiment had members of the public (volunteers) ask questions to people hidden behind a screen. Those answering the questions were played by actors. Under the guidance of authority figures, the volunteers administered an electric shock for every wrong answer. The actors would cry out in pain, and so far as the volunteers were concerned, the pain was real. Under instruction, the current was increased for every wrong answer, some exceeding a level that would be fatal. I know a city centre restaurant where someone from head office arrived unannounced one weekend to monitor the sites performance. By Monday morning they had gained access to the safe and the takings. At no point did anyone challenge their authority, or check they were from head office. Many will have experienced the frustration of having their work suggestion dismissed…. Only for later, a senior manager make the same suggestion and having it adopted. If a group decision is to be made, the decision will usually reflect the opinions of the most senior manager in the room. Our tendency is to focus on the messenger rather than the message. There are positive aspects to authority bias. During a global pandemic it helps that millions of people will follow the advice of authority figures. Of course, some people will lean in the opposite direction and have a distrust of all authoritarian advice. This can result in conspiracy theories, particularly is someone with authority, an ‘expert’ encourages the distrust. Most people would advocate a balance. For example, to follow professional advice, but where possible, to fact check and seek alternative opinions. Which brings us to safety. Employees must follow safety policies and food safety management systems. Environmental health officers’ documented actions on inspection reports must be completed. However, when EHO’s recommend soaking cloths (for wiping down surfaces) in a bleach solution, it’s reasonable to consider alternative methods. If EHO’s insist food must be cooled to below 8°C in 90 minutes you might question is this is feasible. When a safety officer insists you wear a hard hat, they must be worn. Although on one course a delegate, who was ex forces told me that on manoeuvres they camouflaged vehicles with netting. During this task they were made to remove army helmets and replace with construction hard hats. Of course, I’ve no way of fact checking this. I do recall one company who, for years had been using the wrong chemical to disinfect surfaces. If an employee identifies such mistakes, it’s good they question rather than blindly follow. Unfortunately, whether these concerns are heard may depend on whether they’re an officer, senior manager, or perceived to be an expert. (PS, I’m not an expert in any of the above, I’m just interested in the subject) The original source of this material was an article in ‘thedecisionlab.com’

Attention Bias in Safety

by Nick Dore • 17 February 2026

I’m continuing to read and consider how aspects of psychology might be relevant to safety. This week, I was reading about Attention bias. This is where our attention might be biased towards certain elements in our environment, whilst ignoring others. It’s like ‘zooming in’ on certain information which renders us blind to other factors. The implications for safety audits and checks are clear. If we have a pet hate (like, oh, I don’t know, people putting things other than food on chopping boards; car keys, glasses, delivery notes and such) we might focus on this and miss other contraventions. There are wider concerns for management such as ignoring someone for promotion because we’re focussed on their weaknesses whilst ignoring strengths and potential. Or focussing on one measurement of an employee’s productivity. It’s possible to ruin work and personal relationships by focussing on a specific flaw. The tendency to focus on the negative can also be detriment to our own mental health. There are several factors that can bias our attention. External events such as the past performance of an individual, emotional stimuli such as anger, and internal states such as hunger (which can bias our attention towards donuts and chocolate). Avoiding attention bias is difficult. Our brains have a limited capacity of focus, and a mental shortcut such as this helps maintain cognitive efficiency. In some circumstances it helps to avoid stimuli. So, when giving up smoking, our habit might be linked to a cup of tea. When drinking a cup of tea, the stimulus focuses our attention on cigarettes, and it’s hard to stop thinking about having a smoke. I’m not sure if this is relevant to safety. And in some ways, attention bias is a useful trait in safety. There are evolutionary reasons for the bias. Those early humans more aware of dangers in their environment were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Being aware of hazards is clearly a good thing in safety. I also considered this bias in terms of how we can influence others. For example, if a manager is angry or confrontational with an EHO, there may be a strong tendency for the EHO to focus on negative information. Conversely, if we’re calm, confident and welcoming, others are more likely to focus on positive information about us. The original source of this material was an article in ‘thedecisionlab.com’ I claim no expertise in psychology; I am just keen to learn more. I train food safety and health and safety to levels three and four. Through my website, Hygienie.org I offer online and live streaming courses to individuals and businesses.