List of all posts by user:

notice with no compensation reprocussions." I know, says some bright spark in marketing, a "Starter Agreement" - job done, the balance is restored. P.S. Is the association with GA select aimed at me ? Not sure what your on about there - guilty conscience ?

Matthew - Whilst FMT based calculations are the preferred method of valuation in the licensed trade the method is used on tied, part tied and free of tie alike. You seem to be suggesting that it would not be possible to use the method if the Pubco don't have the benefit of a tie. It follows that given the tenant can not use their own figures in the valuation model (as they may or may not reflect the 'competent reasonable operator) they would be incapable of undertaking a valuation and therefore arguing their corner. There is no necessity for other methods, plenty of evidence is created when pubs are let, reviewed or renewed financial information is available on assignments, where's the problem ? Many restaurants are valued on the profits method not so many are tied – valuers seem to manage to value them without any trouble. You are however quite right that the rents should be “...continuously reassessed because the trading conditions nationally and locally are constantly changing.” hence the invention of the periodic rent review clause. I believe RPI increases are not necessarily reflective of all the changing conditions as the past few years have demonstrated. RPI is higher than it has been for a long time therefore rents have increased annually accordingly, how can anyone argue these increases are reflective of current market conditions ? The removal of Upward Only Rent Reviews and RPI increases would allow fair reassessment, when the tenants are trading well the Pubco's are trading well, and vice versa – that's a partnership !

To add insult to injury for these poor unsuspecting new lessees, I think these might be the 'agreements' that are outside the security provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act much the same as the 'Retail Partnership Agreements' which are clearly so successful that Enterprise are now resorting to these alternative start up agreements. So as a new tenant of one of the RPA's or presumably one of these 'select' pubs you will undoubtedly have to spend a bit of splash cash to improve the premises and in turn the sales (tenants improvements). Come the end of your term you are not entitled to renew and you are not entitled to compensation if Enterprise choose not to renew. It follows that you must factor in that any investment you commit to the property will have to be depreciated over the term of your agreement as you will not be getting it back. There is no incentive for tenants to spend any money on their pub other than for short term gains as they have no security. Has anyone seen one of these starter agreements ? After reading them, I am recommending prospective tenants don't touch the RPA's so god only knows what these new ones are like !

I read your article with interest. What it does not mention (and I appreciate space is at a premium) is that in the case of the Eagle Ale House, Enterprise originally sought a significant increase and the tenants, after over a year of failed negotiation were forced to seek the appointment of an Arbitrator. The BDM and Regional Director both denied that the rent could potentially go down at review, despite the lease terms, and pleaded ignorance to the comments made by Enterprise at the TISC in which they assured the Committee they would not enforce up only rent reviews and would be removing them from leases where they still exist. These are not particularly good examples of transparency and sadly demonstrate that for all the make up - the Pubco's are still essentially gorillas wearing lipstick !

David The bit many readers might not get is that The Eagle lease had UORR clause and RPI increases and went down 12% on their 5 year rent review it follows that (if my maths is up to anything) the rent now is less than it was 5 years ago - the rent went down - No ? I think its great that EI have had to actually spell out that they 'do not enforce UORR clause' in accordance with their statement to the Select Committee, but I would still challenge Mr. Townsend to ensure ALL lessees are made fully aware of this 'gesture'. As you rightly say without the binding Deed of Variation the future is still uncertain as, if the freehold of a pub is sold, the new landlord may not be inclined to continue the 'arrangement'. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Mr. Townsends predecessor Mr. Harrison state that the UORR clause would be removed from leases where it still exists back in 2004 to the Select Committee ?