The BII aims to make its low-cost rent adjudication system a pan-industry initiative.
The BII Council last night gave support to the Independent Expert Determination Service in principle. The group’s chief executive Neil Robertson has been asked to talk to other trade bodies to form a “consortium” to move the proposal forward.
The service would allow licensees to use an independent rent expert for around £1,000 and obtain quick and binding results in rent disputes.
Pubcos, which are thought to broadly favour the scheme, would pay nearer £2,000. The Government is being asked to pay £100,000 towards it.
In February the BII revealed its plans for the service to the Business and Enterprise Committee. The BII is waiting for Committee’s report, expected in the next few weeks, before taking action.
Robertson said: “The BII Council has discussed the Independent Expert Determination Service. They see considerable merit in the proposal and think it would be of great value to the industry.
53 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 3 of 6
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
Forum user 4010 05/04/2009 15:27:55![]() |
RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system Phil - Robin Wright here. The RICS are in the main an honourable organisation, however, few organisations are without their rotten apples. You will recall The Eagle Ale House rent review where a 12% rent reduction was finally achieved by the tenants who were self represented. The Arbitrator described the Chartered Surveyor acting for Enterprise Inns, who I should remind you was acting as an Independent Expert and was therefore bound by the RICS rules to act impartially and without bias, as "...adversarial and lacking objectivity". The same Arbitrator later admitted to an undisclosed conflict of interest with Enterprise Inns and was cautioned by the RICS accordingly. In the above example only two highly experienced, specialist Chartered Surveyors were involved, the Arbitrator and the Enterprise Inns surveyor, both I think most would agree appear to have acted improperly. So who is to choose your 'unbiased' surveyors ? - the President of the RICS did not do a particularly good job of that for the Eagle tenants. I suppose you might be considering a selection panel using senior executives of BII like Barry Gillham (Fleurets - who derive a considerable amount of work from guess who ?) The principle of bettering the current system is indeed welcome, how you go about it is crucial. The same bought and paid for old 'industry experts' using the same unfair method of valuation will change nothing. Currently, tenants agree an inflated rent rather than suffer the costs of Arbitration. If the BII get it wrong they will end up at the same rent with a bill of £1,000 from you guys. You will need to show a shake up for this to succeed, new faces, new methods. Your pubcos code of conduct 'endorsement' was laughable at the BESC given it is not approval of fairness but of clarity - what good is that ? The BII should be drafting the code of conduct and pubcos should be required to accept it or be shunned by the BII, thats working for your members. This post replies to Phil Dixon > RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system |
|
Forum user 4010 05/04/2009 16:26:44![]() |
RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system Phil 1. David Morgan has to adhere to strict RICS codes of conduct in respect of conflicts of interest and their disclosure. For him to be discounted as a possible BII valuer would be convicting him of breaching those codes. The RICS have not found any breaches of codes and his integrity remains untarnished. Are the BII taking it upon themselves to make these judgements ? 2. Mr Morgan makes no secret of his support for a fair system which, as the system is so unfair on tenants, is confused with a bias towards tenants. With the latter in mind how do the BII stand on Rob May (National Rent Controller of Enterprise Inns) being Chairman of the group who set the valuation method for the RICS, to which all other surveyors must adhere ? 3. Martin Willis - Fleurets, is now the Chairman of the RICS valuation group, he did not disclose to the BESC, when giving evidence, his relationship with pubcos. At that time over 20% of his companys new letting pub instructions were on behalf of Enterprise Inns. Are you prepared to discount Messers Willis and May from your BII valuation panel ? 4. Have you conceded to, Mr. Morgans, Mr. Rex in order to ensure Barry Gillham (also Fleurets) is not discounted for the same reason as Mr Willis ?
5. Re: Brian Jacobs fundamental principle. Forget the valuation method for a minute. Do the BII accept that the tied tenant should be no worse off than the free of tie tenant or not ? 6. Do you agree to the idea that if/when the tie is lost the rent will go up to accommodate the pubco loss on wet rent ? I know it could go up a bit, but to the same amount as the commercial rent and wet rent currently - I can't see that. The new 'free of tie' tenant would have to be doubling his gross profit to accommodate such a rent increase using the rent valuation model. I know tenants would be able to buy cheaper products but anyone would have to either be a bit gullible, perhaps on the pubco pension scheme, to continue to taut this belief. This post replies to Phil Dixon > RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system |
|
Stephen Docking 05/04/2009 16:54:31![]() |
Green light for BII rent adjudication system Funny. No recollection of Rachman ever complaining about the method of rent valution, with or without RICS? Not sure if he ever went to arbitration.... This post replies to this thread |
|
Forum user 4010 05/04/2009 17:13:18![]() |
Green light for BII rent adjudication system Or the pubcos - weird that ! This post replies to Stephen Docking > Green light for BII rent adjudication system |
|
M J 05/04/2009 17:08:40![]() |
Green light for BII rent adjudication system If the FMT is based on an average opperator then to find out if the current system is correct all we need to do is make a list of the assumed turnovers and opperating costs, all these will be known by the respective pubcos. Then compile a list of actual turnovers and costs. Getting this info would be more difficult admittedly. The resultant pairs of profits for each pub could then be compared. As we are basing the FMT on an AVERAGE opperator about 50% of the pubs would be performing equal or below the FMT and about 50% would be performing equal or above the FMT. I would imagine the results, if the system is correct, should form a bell shape curve but its a long time since i did a level stats. This post replies to this thread |
|
Forum user 4010 05/04/2009 17:37:56![]() |
Green light for BII rent adjudication system MJ right enough - but oddly enough Martin Willis (Fleurets) at the BESC Inquiry into Pubcos, who was apparently nominated by the RICS to represent them, tells us the RICS would not agree to such a register in answer to question 92, from Anthony Wright MP. Of the three Chartered Surveyors present the remaining 2 agreed it would be, in the words of David Morgan "fantastic". Robin edited by: Forum user 4010 at: 05/04/2009 17:43:50 This post replies to Stephen Docking > Green light for BII rent adjudication system |
|
Phil Dixon 05/04/2009 17:53:40![]() |
RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system Hi Robin and user 4010 Points on Eagle noted you are aware I wrote an article on the subject. Let’s just be a bit careful here, the tenants were indeed self-represented but one of the guys Simon Clarke is a Chartered Surveyor! It would be wrong to suggest that licensees should venture into Arbitration or Independent Expert without some serious advice. A fact you may be unaware of was that it was only a clause in the BII accredited Enterprise Code that allowed the rent to go down. Legally Simon and his partner Dave had the standard upwards only rent review wording in their agreement. For the record and let’s give credit where it is due, Enterprise have never to my knowledge enforced upwards only. A clear statement on this appeared in their first ever code back in 1996. We did discuss at the BII a generic code when we decided to offer accreditation but felt this would stifle innovation and competitiveness. The Batemans Code is an example, Stuart at his eclectic best. No codes have been accepted without a number of requested amendments, we do issue guidelines but the key issue is clarity. Is there a tie what are you tied for? BII does not have policy in the areas 4010 you are raising. Again personally I recall TISC saying there should be a clear difference between free and tied agreements it’s the ‘no worse off’ bit I find difficult. Happy to discuss this further my email address appears next to all my publications. The next stage for the BII is to talk to other organisations such as ALMR and FLVA. To draw up a list of independent valuers will be a challenge (I may or may not be involved in this). If though we can put an end Martin to your rightful assertion ‘that tenants agree an inflated rent rather than suffer the costs of Arbitration’ then this proposal has to be a change for the better. Justice can be affordable. Phil This post replies to Forum user 4010 > RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system |
|
J Mark Dodds 05/04/2009 18:26:27![]() |
RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system Seems to me Phil you've been on the outside for far too long. "For the record and let’s give credit where it is due, Enterprise have never to my knowledge enforced upwards only. A clear statement on this appeared in their first ever code back in 1996." There is one of the many rubs. There is NO credit due to any of the pubcos on this one. All evidence on the ground - i.e. of passing rent reviews proves to the contrary. Enterprise, and the others, have never "enforced upwards only"??? Try telling that to surveyors and arbitrators. The status qul makes upwards only a default position. This is nonsense that anyone who's been through a rent review in the last ten years and more will qualify. edited by: J Mark Dodds at: 05/04/2009 18:27:33 This post replies to Phil Dixon > RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system |
|
J Mark Dodds 05/04/2009 18:16:24![]() |
RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system Further to that, pubcos are used to dealing with an entirely one sided rent review process i.e. in effect it ALWAYS goes their way. The fact that there are, out of thousands of reviews which have taken place, a few isolated cases where rent has either stayed the same or gone down, does not let pubcos off the hook for the damage they have done to the trade by systematically incrementally over renting their estates. Just look around the evidence of pubs failing is everywhere. Simply a few people, like Dave Law and Simon Clarke, have managed to fight their corner properly and vaguely win (they had very strong grounds that the rent should have gone down even further) because they were acting tooth and nail for their own survival and because of Simon's professional knowledge as a surveyor they eventually won through. Pubcos should have been operating their 'model' responsibly with a sustainable business plan in place. They have not and they deserve everything they reap as reward. This post replies to J Mark Dodds > RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system |
|
Stephen Corbett 05/04/2009 23:43:44![]() |
RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system Phil Dixon, It would seem that you are against the abolition of the tie but concede that the tie has been manipulated in recent years to the disadvantage of the tenants. If this is the case, why do you continue to spread pubco propaganda that when the tie is removed the pubcos would simply increase the rent to absorb the loss of revenue? Many naive tenants, and some not so naïve, like Dennis Griffiths of the FLVA, may believe this rubbish. It does nothing for you, or any other trade commentators, reputations to support this notion and amounts to nothing more than scaremongering, those in the know must consider why any 'expert' would continue to propagate such nonsense, compromised or just ill informed ? Any expert would know that in order to increase the rent a rent review would be required - to fair open market rental value (assuming free of tie status). I was under the impression that the BII support fair, open and transparent rent review negotiations. With the latter in mind, and bearing in mind you have a better than average grasp of rental valuation, you will know that a rental increase will only be provable on the basis of the increase in Gross Profit now achievable free of tie. If we assume the improbable, that FMT has been maintained and costs have not increased, pubcos would have to prove, by comparable evidence, that the GP has increased to at least 95% to cover their lost revenue. Are you trying to say that the average free of tie tenant is achieving over 95% GP? If so,I personally don't know any. To conclude, on removal of the tie the tenant will almost certainly be able to demonstrate a reduced FMT and increased costs, the pubco a moderate increase in GP overall, in the current climate I would envisage a reduction in commercial rent in all but a few cases. If you don't understand the subject don't comment on it. edited by: Stephen Corbett at: 05/04/2009 23:44:53 This post replies to Phil Dixon > RE: Green light for BII rent adjudication system |
|