List of all posts by user:

Hi Richard it’s a condition of BBPA membership to support the scheme. So that covers nearly all companies. (Greene King incidentally are still members of BBPA). The only companies who are definitely not part of the scheme are Trust Inns and Wellington Pub Co. Trust are members of ALMR and BII and can access it if they wish. They are keeping an open mind. Wellington are not part of the scheme nor frankly are they likely to be. Their argument is that they are a ‘free of tie’ property company and they will operate exactly as per the lease i.e. full arbitration and upwards only rent reviews. This discriminatory approach to free of tie lessees has also been followed by Enterprise for its one hundred or so FOT outlets. My view as per my comments in last week’s MA is that free of tie publicans should be no worse off than tied ones. Phil PS The scheme only applies to periodic rent reviews ie 3-5 year ones. If anyone is implying you can’t use the scheme let me know please. Phildixoncmbii@aol.com

Mark ‘Outlaw the tie to any property companies and any brewers who own more than 200 pubs.’ Have you had some dodgy mushrooms for breakfast? Sorry but this is ‘Fantasy Island’ its not going to happen. By the way what have you got against Fullers? As for ‘stick to your agreement’ that’s your view and no one can make any licensee not do that. You may be happy with the onerous one-sided rent review clauses in most Pub Co Tied and Free of tie agreements I am not. Why do you want to perpetuate the ‘you can legally challenge the rent but have you got £50.000 to do it?’ BII ALMR and other organisations are simply doing something about it. PIRRS is available and is now an option for 90% of licensees. FYI three cases going to PIRRS have now been settled when the landlord decided that their final offer was in fact not really that final. The Worcestershire licensee who now has a rent at £5K less than the final offer and £12K less than they were paying surprisingly does not think the scheme is that bad! You are right its not the solution to every isssue but we are making the industry a better place no more no less. Phil Vince thanks for your kind comments re the Rent Review Seminars.

Good Morning Michael I have sent you my personal contact details so if you want any guidance on the PIRRS scheme we can discuss in detail. Bob whilst I am sure that Pat the Wiltshire Postman would be perfectly able to work out a fair rent you have to have a qualitative criteria to determine a panel. Originally we came up the proposal that we would only use valuers who had five years experience of rent reviews and had taken a qualification in acting as an expert. Rather quickly we realised that this would result in a very small select number of ‘leading’ RICS members. So we widened the criteria to include anyone who has had ten years experience of conducting rent reviews and an appropriate qualification plus professional indemnity. As opposed to the Pub Cos you accuse me of hobnobbing with Nigel (and Viv) Wakefield is someone who has wined and dined me on many occasions. I would see a role for Nigel in helping licensees prepare their submissions for PIRRS. A key aspect of the scheme is that it restricts both parties to limit their submission (10 sides A4) and their comparables (max 5) so the Landlord i.e Pub Co cannot swamp the valuer with evidence. It is intended that the result will be confidential to both parties. However if it was your rent review then I am sure we would all read about it sooner than later. There can be a time for confidentiality BII CEO Neil Robertson requested that I (with Bernard Brindley) investigate and produce a confidential report (4000 words typed with two fingers!) on the Rising Sun David & Lorraine Mountford v Punch. I would hope its fair to say that this may have assisted the Landlord v Tenant relationship see page 9 today’s MA. Has anyone anymore questions on the scheme? Regards Phil

I am not sure if there is a play on words here. If a licensee is taken to court for buying out/damages with Brulines data being used then it will be the Pub Co/Brewery who will be the Plaintiffs? So the question needs to be asked: Have Pub Co/Breweries ever lost a case? Then I suspect the term only a handful (I am aware of a couple) does apply. The issue re Brulines is really all about how the data is used? Some companies have been frankly outrageous in assuming guilt and then levying charges without consent. (I am of the opinion and I have made representations on behalf of BII members that they have ceased to do this?) There was once a principle in this land of ‘innocent until proven guilty’! So its how the data is applied that is crucial and what transparent procedures for double checking the calibrations and determining proper evidence takes place before serious accusations are made. Let’s all recognise one thing if we owned our own free house and employed a manager we would all have (as most of them do) the systems in the cellars. It is afterall a useful management tool? e.g. Its an important ally for all tenant/lessees at rent review for when the BDM starts talking about FMT using figures from the last three years, how do you get an up to date picture of your business at the moment Brulines! Phil

Hi Karl No I was not. I also concur that a tenant’s actual VAT returns are frankly irrelevant to a rent review as it is always assessed on the basis of a hypothetical operator. Here’s what I submitted to RICS in respect of the 50% being taken for rent. 1. 50% of net profit = Rent. RICS members have fallen for this notional 50% and state it is fair. It is not, other leisure retail outlets Pizza Burgers etc share the profit much more in favour of the retailer. Tough Council estate pubs ought to be nearer 25% of RFNP*. Hotels overlooking a Cornish bay closer to 60%. If a business in a picturesque part of the country e.g. Cornwall or Barnsley with serious letting profits was up for tenancy then maybe over 50% would be realistic. Phil not quite 70/30 but most companies used to levy 25-45% of profit for rent and that’s where we need as a start to return. Mr & Mrs Brooker’s** case makes it clear that 50% as the norm is no longer acceptable. Every Publican in Britain should be raising a glass in their honour. Phil PS* Rent Free Net Profit PPS ** Don’t forget this is the second time they have been through this.