Other catering premises 📍 Windsor and Maidenhead

Sugar And Chic

Food hygiene rating 5 / 5 · Very good

Squeaky clean

Sugar And Chic scored a 5 out of 5 at its last inspection. Tuck in.

The breakdown

Confidence in management Good

Last inspected on 15 September 2017 by Windsor and Maidenhead.

What does this rating mean?

Sugar And Chic 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?

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

Who inspects Sugar And Chic?

Food hygiene at Sugar And Chic is inspected by Windsor and Maidenhead, the local authority responsible for this area. You can reach them at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/ or [email protected].

Questions about Sugar And Chic

What is Sugar And Chic’s food hygiene rating?

Sugar And Chic has a food hygiene rating of 5 out of 5 (Very good), based on its last Food Standards Agency inspection on 15 September 2017.

When was Sugar And Chic last inspected?

Sugar And Chic was last inspected by Windsor and Maidenhead on 15 September 2017.

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.