NickO Report
CitiesExplore

PAYA THAI scored 75; newer inspection records 86

Inspected

1198 HOWELL MILL RD STE 115 ATLANTA, GA 30318

Map ↗

PAYA THAI received a C, scoring 75 out of 100, in a Fulton County food-service inspection on Jul 23, 2026. The official report lists seven findings. [1]

Inspection score

75/100Grade COfficial inspection

Inspection summary

The inspector observed a blocked handwashing sink at the bar with a strainer. The note records an on-site correction: “PIC removed the strainer to allow for appropriate handwashing.” [2]

The inspector also observed sauces containing TCS items not stored appropriately under time as a public health control. [3]

A separate finding described 3 spray bottles in the main kitchen and 1 spray bottle at the bar not labelled with the chemical that is stored in them. [4]

The report marks one finding as corrected on site. [5]

A newer inspection in our records, dated Aug 4, 2026, lists 86 out of 100, grade B. The findings above belong to the Jul 23, 2026 inspection. [6]

What inspectors found

Read the official report

Showing 7 of 7 findings

  1. Handwashing

    Item 2-2D
    Observed a blocked handwashing sink at the bar with a strainer. COS PIC removed the strainer to allow for appropriate handwashing.
    Inspector’s full note

    Code 511-6-1.06(2)(o)

    Observed a blocked handwashing sink at the bar with a strainer. COS PIC removed the strainer to allow for appropriate handwashing. Corrected On-Site. New Violation. Correct By: 08/03/2026
    Official report · Item 2-2D ↗
    Corrected on siteNew violation

    Correct by

  2. Handwashing

    Item 2-2D
    Observed employees using a dump sink at the bar and a vegetable prep sink in the main kitchen for handwashing. CA: Advised PIC that food employees shall clean their hands in a handwashing sink or approved automatic handwashing facility and may not clean their hands in a sink used for food preparation or warewashing, or in a service sink or curbed cleaning facility used for the disposal of mop water and similar liquid waste.
    Inspector’s full note

    Code 511-6-1-.03(5)(d)

    Observed employees using a dump sink at the bar and a vegetable prep sink in the main kitchen for handwashing. CA: Advised PIC that food employees shall clean their hands in a handwashing sink or approved automatic handwashing facility and may not clean their hands in a sink used for food preparation or warewashing, or in a service sink or curbed cleaning facility used for the disposal of mop water and similar liquid waste. New Violation. Correct By: 08/03/2026
    Official report · Item 2-2D ↗
    New violation

    Correct by

  3. Time as a public health control

    Item 6-1D
    Observed sauces containing TCS items not stored appropriately under time as a public health control. CA: Advised PIC to have notated times displayed or in written procedures for all TCS items not being cold or hot held.
    Inspector’s full note

    Code 511-6-1.04(6)(i)

    Observed sauces containing TCS items not stored appropriately under time as a public health control. CA: Advised PIC to have notated times displayed or in written procedures for all TCS items not being cold or hot held. New Violation. Correct By: 07/26/2026
    Official report · Item 6-1D ↗
    New violation

    Correct by

  4. Toxic substance storage and use

    Item 8-2B
    Observed 3 spray bottles in the main kitchen and 1 spray bottle at the bar not labelled with the chemical that is stored in them. CA: Advised PIC to label all working containers with the common name of the chemical.
    Inspector’s full note

    Code 511-6-1.07(6)(b)

    Observed 3 spray bottles in the main kitchen and 1 spray bottle at the bar not labelled with the chemical that is stored in them. CA: Advised PIC to label all working containers with the common name of the chemical. New Violation. Correct By: 08/03/2026
    Official report · Item 8-2B ↗
    New violation

    Correct by

  5. Specialized process compliance

    Item 9-2
    Observed no haacp plan for sous vide duck as stated by the manager. Observed no haacp plan for reduced oxygen packaged duck breast.
    Inspector’s full note

    Code 511-6-1.02(5)(a)(b)

    Observed no haacp plan for sous vide duck as stated by the manager. Observed no haacp plan for reduced oxygen packaged duck breast. CA: Advised PIC that before engaging in an activity that requires a HACCP plan, a permit applicant or permit holder shall submit to the local Health Authority for joint review by the State Office of Environmental Health and the local Health Authority, a properly prepared HACCP plan as specified under DPH Rule 511-6-1-.02(6) and the relevant provisions of this Code if: 1. Submission of a HACCP plan is required according to the Chapter; 2. A variance is required as specified DPH Rule 511-6-1-.04(5)(a)4(iv), 511-6-1-.04(6)(j), or 511-6-1-.05(2)(v)2; 3. The local Health Authority determines that a food preparation or processing method requires a variance based on a plan submittal specified under DPH Rule 511-6-1-.02(4)(b), or an inspectional finding, or a variance request. (b) Before engaging in Reduced Oxygen Packaging without a variance as specified in DPH Rule 511-6-1-.04(6)(k), a permit applicant or permit holder shall submit a properly prepared HACCP plan to the Health Authority. New Violation.
    Official report · Item 9-2 ↗
    New violation

  6. Specialized processing approval

    Item 10C
    Observed no proposed variance plan for sous vide duck. CA: Advised PIC that Documentation of Proposed Variance and Justification.
    Inspector’s full note

    Code 511-6-1.05(b)

    Observed no proposed variance plan for sous vide duck. CA: Advised PIC that Documentation of Proposed Variance and Justification. Before a variance from a requirement of this Chapter is granted by the Department, the information that shall be provided by the person requesting the variance and retained in the Department’s file on the food service establishment includes: 1. A statement of the proposed variance of the Chapter requirement citing relevant rule and subsection numbers; Pf 2. An analysis of the rationale for how the potential public health hazards and nuisances addressed by the relevant rules and subsections will be alternatively addressed by the proposal; Pf and 3. A HACCP plan if required that includes the information specified under DPH Rule 511-6-1-.02 (6) as it is relevant to the variance requested. Pf New Violation. Correct By: 08/03/2026
    Official report · Item 10C ↗
    New violation

    Correct by

  7. Facility maintenance and cleanliness

    Item 17C
    Observed buildup and spillage on the floors and walls of the main kitchen as well as the warewashing area. CA: Advised the PIC that physical facilities shall be cleaned at a frequency to prevent the accumulation of debris.
    Inspector’s full note

    Code 511-6-1.07(5)(a),(b)

    Observed buildup and spillage on the floors and walls of the main kitchen as well as the warewashing area. CA: Advised the PIC that physical facilities shall be cleaned at a frequency to prevent the accumulation of debris. New Violation.
    Official report · Item 17C ↗
    New violation

Correction and repeat labels quote the report. An absent label leaves correction status unknown; a deadline does not confirm a correction.

Inspection history 2

Official history ↗
  1. Newer record
    86/100B
    Report
  2. This report
    75/100C
    Reading

Sources

01 / Primary source Official inspection & findings

Fulton County · Jul 23, 2026

02 / Same facility Official inspection history

Available records for this official facility

03 / How scoring works Georgia’s food-service rules
Record details & methodology
Authority
Fulton County
Inspection ID
57543127
Facility ID
12996021
Record captured
Venue address source
Official listing ·

Scores and findings describe the dated inspection, not current operating conditions. A correction deadline does not establish whether an issue remained unresolved afterward.

Findings quote the official report captured . “Corrected on site” and “repeat” reflect explicit report markers. “COS” and “CA” in the inspector’s notes refer to corrections and corrective actions; an instruction to act is not proof that it was completed.

History links the same official facility ID within the issuing authority and may omit intervening inspections. Same-day results have no inferred sequence. Report excerpts follow source order, not a severity ranking.

This report comes from Fulton County. History includes only this authority’s exact facility ID.

Georgia’s grading scale
A
90–100
B
80–89
C
70–79
U
0–69
Georgia food-service rules ↗

Checked