Lumley Arms

Maltby

Food hygiene rating 5 / 5 · Very good

Squeaky clean

Lumley Arms scored a 5 out of 5 at its last inspection. Tuck in.

The breakdown

Hygiene Very good Cleanliness & condition Very good Confidence in management Very good

Last inspected on 13 March 2019 by Rotherham.

What does this rating mean?

Lumley Arms in Maltby 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?

Tickhill Road,
Maltby,
Rotherham,
S66 7PW

This is the official Food Standards Agency hygiene badge for Lumley Arms. The data is published by the FSA under the Open Government Licence.

Who inspects Lumley Arms?

Food hygiene at Lumley Arms is inspected by Rotherham, the local authority responsible for this area. You can reach them at http://www.rotherham.gov.uk or food.health&[email protected].

Questions about Lumley Arms

What is Lumley Arms’s food hygiene rating?

Lumley Arms has a food hygiene rating of 5 out of 5 (Very good), based on its last Food Standards Agency inspection on 13 March 2019.

When was Lumley Arms last inspected?

Lumley Arms was last inspected by Rotherham on 13 March 2019.

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.