Gail's Epsom

Surrey

Food hygiene rating 5 / 5 · Very good

Squeaky clean

Gail's Epsom scored a 5 out of 5 at its last inspection. Tuck in.

The breakdown

Hygiene Good Cleanliness & condition Good Confidence in management Good

Last inspected on 18 June 2024 by Epsom and Ewell.

What does this rating mean?

Gail's Epsom in Surrey has a food hygiene rating of 5 out of 5 (very good). On the Food Standards Agency scale, 5 is the best and 0 is the worst. Yes - 5 is the top food hygiene rating. It means hygiene standards were very good at the last inspection.

The rating reflects standards found at the last inspection. It is not a verdict on how the food tastes - it scores how well the business manages food safety. How often a place is inspected depends on its risk: lower-rated and higher-risk businesses are revisited more often than spotless ones.

Where is it?

113 High Street,
Epsom,
Surrey,
KT19 8DT

This is the official Food Standards Agency hygiene badge for Gail's Epsom. The data is published by the FSA under the Open Government Licence.

Who inspects Gail's Epsom?

Food hygiene at Gail's Epsom is inspected by Epsom and Ewell, the local authority responsible for this area. You can reach them at http://www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk or [email protected].

Questions about Gail's Epsom

What is Gail's Epsom’s food hygiene rating?

Gail's Epsom has a food hygiene rating of 5 out of 5 (Very good), based on its last Food Standards Agency inspection on 18 June 2024.

When was Gail's Epsom last inspected?

Gail's Epsom was last inspected by Epsom and Ewell on 18 June 2024.

Is a 5 out of 5 hygiene rating good?

Yes - 5 is the top food hygiene rating. It means hygiene standards were very good at the last inspection.

What do the food hygiene scores mean?

The rating combines three checks made on the day of the inspection: how hygienically food is handled, the cleanliness and condition of the premises, and how confident the inspector is that management will keep standards up. A higher overall score, from 0 up to 5, means fewer problems were found.