Food hygiene in Birmingham: results and inspection dates

Food hygiene map
England
Food hygiene in Birmingham: results and inspection dates

This is an area summary. It does not give a rating for one premises. Find a premises rating at the Food Standards Agency.

In Birmingham, the hygiene file accepted on 18 October 2026 holds 8,606 known ratings, and 10.3% of them need improvement. The 95 percent interval runs from 9.6% to 11.0%. Against the same business types in England the gap is 7.2 pp. Waiting and exempt records stay outside.

Wilson 10.3% (95% interval 9.6% to 11.0%), from 8,606 ratings

This is an area summary, not a rating for one premises. Improvement means a result that needs improvement; it is not improvement over time. The file date is not the date of every inspection. Find a premises rating at the Food Standards Agency.

Needs improvement means FHRS ratings at 0, 1 or 2, or an FHIS Improvement Required result. Waiting and exempt results do not enter that share.

Median age of the known rating dates: 571 days. Older than two years: 42.5% (95% interval 41.4% to 43.6%), from 8,606 ratings.

Birmingham restaurants: 13.5% (95% interval 12.1% to 15.0%), from 2,238 ratings
Birmingham takeaways: 15.1% (95% interval 12.9% to 17.7%), from 885 ratings

Choose an area or a business type

These figures describe groups. Use a current FSA record for an individual premises.

Birmingham restaurants Birmingham takeaways Find a premises rating at the Food Standards Agency

Figures

Gap against the same types7.2 ppOther premises of the same business types and scheme in the same country; weighted to this area's mix. A difference has no Wilson interval. Comparison covers 8,606 ratings; excludes 0 ratings without an adequate same-type base.
Median age of a rating571 daysDays since inspection, known rating dates only. This does not say an inspection is overdue. Based on 8,606 ratings with a known date.
Older than two years42.5% (95% interval 41.4% to 43.6%), from 8,606 ratingsShare of dated results above two years. Missing dates stay outside this denominator.
Waiting or unknown results1,465 recordsCount outside every known-rating share; waiting is not a rating of zero.

Share needing improvement. Dots and end marks show each group's own Wilson interval. Country totals describe their own business mix; they are not the weighted base used for the gap. Source: Food Standards Agency, file accepted 18 October 2026.

Shared scale: 0% to 11.0%.

Birmingham: 10.3% (95% interval 9.6% to 11.0%), from 8,606 ratings
England: 3.1% (95% interval 3.0% to 3.2%), from 442,930 ratings

Parts with the most points lost among results at 0, 1 or 2 with all three scores. Ties count in each tied part, so shares can add up to more than 100 percent. Source: Food Standards Agency, file accepted 18 October 2026.

Hygiene: 24.9% (95% interval 22.1% to 28.0%), from 874 ratings
Structural: 41.6% (95% interval 38.4% to 45.0%), from 874 ratings
Confidence in management: 53.4% (95% interval 50.1% to 56.8%), from 874 ratings

Birmingham — Food Standards Agency, file accepted 18 October 2026
Measure	Result	Low	High	Ratings counted
Known ratings	8,606 ratings	No interval	No interval	Exact file count
Results needing improvement	883 ratings	No interval	No interval	Exact file count
Waiting or unknown results	1,465 records	No interval	No interval	Exact file count
Exempt premises	220 premises	No interval	No interval	Exact file count
Needs improvement	10.3%	9.6%	11.0%	8,606 ratings
Rated five	64.1%	63.0%	65.2%	8,606 ratings

Further calculated measures

Birmingham — Food Standards Agency, file accepted 18 October 2026
Measure	Result	Low	High	Ratings counted
Gap against the same types	7.2 pp	No interval	No interval	8,606 ratings
Median age of a rating	571 days	No interval	No interval	8,606 ratings
Older than two years	42.5%	41.4%	43.6%	8,606 ratings
Low ratings with all three scores	874 ratings	No interval	No interval	Exact file count
Hygiene	24.9%	22.1%	28.0%	874 ratings
Structural	41.6%	38.4%	45.0%	874 ratings
Confidence in management	53.4%	50.1%	56.8%	874 ratings

England — Food Standards Agency, file accepted 18 October 2026
Measure	Result	Low	High	Ratings counted
Known ratings	442,930 ratings	No interval	No interval	Exact file count
Results needing improvement	13,862 ratings	No interval	No interval	Exact file count
Waiting or unknown results	39,697 records	No interval	No interval	Exact file count
Exempt premises	21,620 premises	No interval	No interval	Exact file count
Needs improvement	3.1%	3.0%	3.2%	442,930 ratings
Rated five	78.5%	78.3%	78.6%	442,930 ratings

Further calculated measures

England — Food Standards Agency, file accepted 18 October 2026
Measure	Result	Low	High	Ratings counted
Median age of a rating	436 days	No interval	No interval	442,930 ratings
Older than two years	25.1%	25.0%	25.3%	442,930 ratings
Low ratings with all three scores	13,759 ratings	No interval	No interval	Exact file count
Hygiene	22.6%	21.8%	23.3%	13,759 ratings
Structural	41.5%	40.6%	42.4%	13,759 ratings
Confidence in management	48.8%	47.9%	49.7%	13,759 ratings

What to do next

Part of what this page would normally show is missing from the accepted file: either the rating dates needed for an age figure, or the three component scores needed for a mix, or the second snapshot needed for a 30-day change. The figures that are present stand on their own denominators. The missing part is absent, not zero.

Open one business type in this area, or read how the figures are calculated.

Limits of these figures

Known results: 8,606 ratings; needing improvement: 883 ratings; waiting or unknown: 1,465 records; exempt: 220 premises. Waiting and exempt records are outside the known results.

Rating dates missing from 0 ratings. The median and age share use 8,606 ratings with known dates.

Low ratings with complete component scores: 874 ratings. Low ratings excluded because a score is missing: 9 ratings. Published ratings are not reconstructed from their components.

Unknown-result scenarios: 8.7% to 23.4% if every waiting or unknown result became known. These are scenario bounds, not confidence intervals. Exempt premises remain excluded.

Comparison covers 8,606 ratings; excludes 0 ratings without an adequate same-type base. The base uses other premises in England under the same scheme.

No 30-day change is published: two accepted files exactly 30 days apart are required. One snapshot cannot show how many premises improved or worsened.

Inspections are not a random sample. These intervals describe the known-result shares, not the chance that a particular premises is safe.

It does not tell you about one premises. A share describes the known ratings in an area on the day of the file, and a single rating can change the day after.

It does not count premises waiting for a rating, and it does not count exempt premises. Both stay outside the denominator, so a low share is not evidence that everything was inspected.

It does not say an inspection is overdue. The age of a rating is the gap since the last published inspection, and the publisher sets no deadline we could measure against.

It does not rank areas. Where two intervals overlap, the order of the two numbers carries no information.

It does not combine schemes. A Scottish pass result and a 0 to 5 score are different measurements and are never averaged.

Source

Source: Food Standards Agency, national English-language open data file
File accepted: 18 October 2026
Publisher file timestamp: 2026-10-17T01:06:42Z
National file count: 614,349
Source SHA-256: 0eccd1ba6db3e1cb9ec1e50c296a825d4c4a0dceec3935b2fc2e0106936b5715
Calculation release: fsa-2026-10-18-0eccd1ba6db3-e2b1a3747bdf
Method: Same-type, same-scheme profiles; unknown and exempt results excluded from shares.
Substantive change: 18 October 2026

Download this page’s aggregate CSV · Read this page’s calculation data · Read how the figures are calculated