Food hygiene ratings rarely stand still. Businesses improve, inspections uncover new problems, management systems change and premises are reassessed. Our latest monitoring data provides a particularly interesting snapshot of just how much movement can take place. Between 1 and 5 October 2026, our monitoring system detected 718 changes to food hygiene ratings across the UK. The overall result was remarkably balanced.
Of those 718 changes:
That means 51.4% of the changes were improvements and 48.6% were declines. At first glance, that suggests very little difference between businesses moving up and businesses moving down. But looking more closely at the data reveals a much more interesting picture.
Nearly half of the businesses moved by at least two rating points
The most striking finding isn't actually the small difference between improvements and downgrades. It is the size of some of the changes. Of the 718 rating movements identified:
In other words, almost 45% of the businesses in this dataset didn't simply move from a 4 to a 5 or from a 5 to a 4. Their rating changed by at least two points. That includes businesses moving from very low ratings to a 5, as well as establishments moving sharply in the opposite direction.
It shows why looking only at the total number of upgrades and downgrades can hide some of the most significant changes taking place underneath.
Improvements slightly outnumbered declines
There were 369 improvements compared with 349 downgrades. Among the businesses whose ratings increased, the most common improvement was a move of one point, recorded by 213 establishments. However, substantial improvements were also common:
- 76 businesses improved by two points
- 49 improved by three points
- 26 improved by four points
- 5 moved the full five points from a rating of 0 to a rating of 5
There were also 22 businesses moving from a rating of 1 directly to 5. Some of the biggest improvements in the dataset are worth highlighting.
From 0 to 5
Five establishments moved from the lowest rating in the dataset to the highest:
- East & Tea. Co in Wandsworth
- Lockdown Bakehouse in Wandsworth
- Oasis Hotel in Harlow
- Breakfast Club in Powys
- Natalia’s Meat Land in Newcastle upon Tyne
The new rating dates recorded for these establishments were all in September 2026. Where detailed component scores were available, the scale of the improvement can be significant.
- For example, Oasis Hotel moved from 0 to 5, with the recorded hygiene score moving from 25 to 5, structural score from 25 to 5 and management score from 30 to 0.
- Breakfast Club also moved from 0 to 5, with its recorded component scores changing from 15 to 0 for hygiene, 20 to 0 for structural conditions and 20 to 0 for management.
- Natalia’s Meat Land moved from 0 to 5 with its recorded hygiene and structural scores both changing from 25 to 5, while management changed from 30 to 5.
These aren't small movements. They represent substantial differences between the old and new inspection data recorded for those premises.
Businesses moving from 1 to 5
A further 22 businesses improved from a rating of 1 to the maximum rating of 5. Examples include Warren Chippy in Teignbridge, Miso House in Sunderland, O Portuguese in Oxford, Pizza Pilgrims in Birmingham and Hunningley Grange Care Home in Barnsley.
Warren Chippy had a new rating date of 1 October 2026 and moved from 1 to 5. Its recorded component scores also improved:
- Hygiene: 10 to 5
- Structural: 10 to 5
- Management: 20 to 5
Miso House in Sunderland also moved from 1 to 5, with its hygiene score changing from 10 to 5, structural score from 20 to 5 and management score from 20 to 5.
O Portuguese in Oxford City moved from 1 to 5, with its management score changing from 20 to 5 alongside improvements in the other recorded inspection components.
Individual examples like these demonstrate something important about the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme: a poor rating does not necessarily have to be permanent. The data contains numerous examples of businesses making large upward movements.
But significant downgrades were also recorded
While improvements slightly outnumbered declines overall, the latest data also shows a significant number of businesses moving in the opposite direction. In total, 349 businesses received a lower food hygiene rating than their previous recorded score. Just over half of these downgrades were relatively small movements of a single rating point. However, a substantial proportion involved much larger falls:
This means 165 of the 349 downgrades, around 47%, involved a fall of at least two rating points.
More substantial changes were less common, but still notable. There were 63 businesses whose rating fell by three points or more, including 22 that dropped by four or five points. The most extreme movement in the dataset was a business falling from the maximum rating of 5 to a rating of 0.
Its underlying inspection scores also changed considerably. The hygienic food handling score moved from 0 to 25, cleanliness and structural conditions from 5 to 25, and confidence in management from 0 to 30. Under the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme, lower component scores represent better performance, so increases of this scale indicate a substantial deterioration across each of the three areas considered during an inspection.
There were also a number of businesses that moved from a rating of 5 to 1, demonstrating that even establishments which previously held the highest food hygiene rating can receive a considerably lower score at a subsequent inspection.
Restaurants and takeaways dominate the changes
The businesses in the dataset cover a wide range of sectors, but restaurants and takeaways account for more than half of all the changes. Out of the 718 updated ratings, there were:
- Restaurants, cafés and canteens accounted for around 32% of the entire dataset.
- When takeaways are included, the two categories account for 383 of the 718 changes — approximately 53%.
- Interestingly, neither category shows a strong bias towards improving or declining.
- Among restaurants, cafés and canteens, 117 ratings increased and 113 decreased.
- Among takeaways and sandwich shops, 76 increased and 77 decreased.
That almost perfect balance suggests the overall 51/49 split isn't being driven by one particular large category. Instead, upward and downward movements are occurring throughout the sector.
More than six in ten finished with a rating of 4 or 5
Although this dataset only covers establishments whose rating changed, and therefore shouldn't be used to represent the rating distribution of all UK food businesses, it is still useful to look at where the businesses ended up.
After their recorded change:
- 237 businesses had a rating of 5
- 201 had a rating of 4
- 132 had a rating of 3
- 66 had a rating of 2
- 74 had a rating of 1
- 8 had a rating of 0
That means 438 of the 718 businesses, or 61%, ended this particular recorded change with a rating of either 4 or 5. The single most common rating movement was also an improvement from 4 to 5.
There were 144 examples of 4-to-5 improvements. The second most common change went in the opposite direction: 115 businesses moved from 5 to 4.
Other common movements included 56 businesses falling from 5 to 3, 45 moving from 3 to 4 and 43 moving from 3 to 5. Again, this demonstrates how much movement there can be behind the headline rating figures.
Management appears particularly important in the changing scores
The dataset also includes the three underlying inspection component scores for many of the establishments. Not every record contains a complete old and new set of component scores, so these figures need to be treated separately from the overall 718 ratings.
There were 646 records where both old and new scores could be compared across the individual components. Among businesses whose overall rating improved, the management score was the component most frequently moving in the same favourable direction.
Of the 320 improving businesses with comparable component data:
- 249 recorded an improved management score
- 209 recorded an improved hygiene score
- 198 recorded an improved structural score
The same pattern appears among downgraded businesses.
Of 326 downgrades with comparable component data:
- 234 recorded a worse management score
- 225 recorded a worse hygiene score
- 210 recorded a worse structural score
That doesn't mean management alone determines the overall rating.
What it does show is that, within this particular group of changed ratings, changes to the management component were especially common alongside significant movements in the headline rating.
For food businesses trying to improve their rating, that is a useful reminder that food safety isn't simply about whether a kitchen looks clean on inspection day. The systems used to manage food safety matter too.
Birmingham recorded the largest number of changes
The 718 changes were distributed across a large number of local authorities. Birmingham had by far the largest number in this particular data export, with 53 changes. Of those, 31 were improvements and 22 were declines. Other areas with relatively high numbers included:
- Wiltshire: 17 changes
- Somerset: 17
- Rhondda Cynon Taf: 14
- Hillingdon: 13
- Rochdale: 12
- Wyre: 10
- Cheshire West and Chester: 10
- Bristol: 10
- Tower Hamlets: 9
- Newham: 9
- Knowsley: 9
- Camden: 9
There were some noticeable differences within these areas.
- Rhondda Cynon Taf recorded 12 improvements against two declines, while Newham recorded eight improvements and one decline.
- At the other end, Bristol recorded two improvements and eight declines, while Camden recorded one improvement and eight declines.
These numbers shouldn't be interpreted as a ranking of which councils have the best or worst food hygiene standards. The data only shows rating changes detected in this particular monitoring period. The number of records appearing from a local authority can be influenced by when inspection information is uploaded or updated.
The dates need to be understood correctly
This is an important point when interpreting the figures. The 718 changes were detected by our monitoring system between 1 and 5 October 2026, but that does not mean 718 inspections took place during those dates. The underlying new rating dates in the dataset range from 10 June 2020 to 1 October 2026, although the data is overwhelmingly weighted towards much more recent ratings.
Of the 718 records:
- 702 have a new rating date in 2026
- 660 have a new rating date in August or September 2026 alone
- only 16 have a rating date before 2026
So while a small number of older records are present, almost 92% of the entire dataset relates to new rating dates from August and September 2026.
The monitoring period should therefore be understood as the period during which the changes became visible to our system, rather than the inspection period itself. That distinction is particularly important when comparing areas or attempting to identify short-term trends.
What does this latest snapshot tell us?
The clearest headline from the data is that food hygiene ratings are moving in both directions at almost the same rate, with just 20 businesses separating improvements from declines. More significant, however, is the scale of some of those movements: almost 45% of businesses changed by at least two rating points, one in five changed by three points or more, and 53 businesses moved by four or five points.
At the extremes, the dataset includes businesses improving from 0 to 5, as well as one establishment falling from 5 to 0. This shows that the data is much more than a simple list of updated ratings; it provides a useful picture of how quickly food hygiene performance can change, how businesses can recover from poor results and how previously high-rated establishments can subsequently receive much lower scores.
It also highlights the value of looking beyond the headline rating, as the individual hygiene, structural and food safety management scores can provide important context about what has changed within a business, with the latest data suggesting that management is particularly worth watching when ratings move substantially.
