Havana Rumba Express (A restored)

http://louisville.eater.com/archives/2013/07/15/havana-rumba-express-explains-c-health-dept-rating-also-lunch-service-starts-today.php#more

Havana Rumba received a C rating. From "Eater" an explanation by owner.

We had dinner there the other day. I was going to wait to comment until we went back since they were new. We were a bit confused by the set up. Tapas on the bar side, rest in the walk up side. When we ordered out sandwiches, Rich asked for his without sauce and was told "they already have the sauce on them". He asked "are they premade?" and was told they are. That was kinda off-putting. I had an empanada that was room temperature. The food was good, but I was not bowled over. We intend to try the tapas side soon - probably after the grade goes up.

We've been twice. We love the tapas!!! So many choices!!! We made sure not to order the same thing both times, and we still haven't made it all the way thru the menu.

The kids ate off of the express line Friday night, and were very happy also.

We went Saturday and loved it. The meal was incredibly inexpensive. My favorite tapa was the Miami hot wings: 3 to an order, cost $2, I believe. We got the hang of the setup and liked that, too. We sat on the tapas bar side. Everything we wanted was ordered at the table and delivered, with the exception of the Cuban sandwiches, which we had to go to the counter in the other room for. We will most definitely return.

Is it only the St. Matthews location or Shelbyville Road too?

Deb

Is it only the St. Matthews location or Shelbyville Road too?

Deb

it's the Havana Rumba Express & Tapas Bar at 2210 Bardstown Road. Maybe the thread subject should be changed!

[Robin Garr]

it's the Havana Rumba Express & Tapas Bar at 2210 Bardstown Road. Maybe the thread subject should be changed!

Good idea!

On its follow-up inspection today, Havana Rumba Express received an A:

http://louisville.eater.com/archives/20 ... ection.php

That's awesome. Thanks for delivering the news, Zach.

I'm certainly glad to see that their reinspection went well but I really question how fair to the public a reinspection in 2 weeks there problems. Obviously, they had issues that needed to be corrected and reinspected but the people running this operation were not new to the restaurant industry and they knew what to expect for the inspection. I'm not so sure that the maximum grade, even if they get a perfect score should be above a "B", by doing that they could show they corrected the problems but the public would know that they had problems. When they get an "A" most people don't realize they ever had a bad inspection. Yes it shows up in small print on the rating placard but how many people really look at that?

I'm not trying to single out this restaurant but rather I'm commenting on the entire system.

A C graded restaurant gets an automatic reinspection within 2 weeks. (Correct me if I am wrong on the timeline.) I absolutely think that's fair, no question. Sometimes, as in the case of Havana Rumba, equipment is in the process of being upgraded, and you get hit at the wrong time during the upgrade. Then, by your reinspection, you're done with the work and right where you need to be. Sometimes, there are some careless mistakes by employees that add up quickly, and you can get dinged hard and end up with a C. I don't care if they've had problems in the past; that does not matter. Do they have problems right now, while I'm eating there? I care about that.

Mark,

I understand what you are saying, but that is the way the inspection system works. I don't have any problem with it changing from a C to an A for the reasons Antonia lists. The real unfairness is that if you get a "B" ( rather than a "C") , you have no opportunity to get reinspected. You have to live with your "B" until your next scheduled inspection. Hence the old columns on restaurants intentionally throwing in serious violations ( move a windex bottle near a cooking area, etc) if a "B" might be forth coming. At least you can correct a C.
The whole thing makes no sense.
Deb

Yeah, sometimes that C comes because of a serious food handling concern and sometimes it comes from something bizarre that is easily fixed. I've shared this before, but I once got a C because of an extremely slow leak from the pipe under my hand sink (not located near any food preparation area). It took 10 minutes and about $6 spent at the hardware store to fix it. (I honestly had no idea it was a violation at all, it was a very slow leak, much less a critical). I would hate to live with a B for six months because of that.

The system isn't ideal, of that I will attest, but this is something that is fair and proper.

Mark, also note this is a new concept for them. The two issues noted were in areas that are not applicable to their other locations as they do not have hot food displays or a "hot food serving line" for lack of a better term. To say they knew what to expect would certainly be true in areas that pertain to the other locations, but not all areas such as those cited.

Mark,

I understand what you are saying, but that is the way the inspection system works. I don't have any problem with it changing from a C to an A for the reasons Antonia lists. The real unfairness is that if you get a "B" ( rather than a "C") , you have no opportunity to get reinspected. You have to live with your "B" until your next scheduled inspection. Hence the old columns on restaurants intentionally throwing in serious violations ( move a windex bottle near a cooking area, etc) if a "B" might be forth coming. At least you can correct a C.
The whole thing makes no sense.
Deb

Thanks for expanding and what I said in pointing out some of the other problems with the system. As I said I understand why they need to be reinspected but I think even if they score a perfect score on that they should still only get a "B", partially to show that they had problems. It might also prevent some of the "throw the score" problems in order to avoid a "B"