Resist being rent-bullied
As an avid reader of your august newspaper, I must take issue with the observations made [MA, 16 January] summarising the Christie & Co overview of rents in their 2002 review. I do not accept the statement: "we don't see rents going down" from Colin Wellstead, as recent cases that have passed through this office prove a very different viewpoint. An ever more common situation facing 10-year leaseholders, granted in the early 1990s, is that of lease renewal. Almost all of our recent cases to which we have been referred, and were set fair for court adjudication, havebeen settled out of court by"negotiation" at significant rent DECREASES. I fully accept that virtually all modern leases since 1989/90 in the pub trade have had upwards- only rent review clauses. However, there are a significant number of cases that have been settled at nominal increases, ie, only an upward increase of, say, £50. A large number of previous Bass and Vanguard leases on a 10-year format are now coming to the end of their full term and fall to be granted a further 10-year term. The new pubco freehold owners of these many hundreds of leases would love to switch the existing leaseholders on to new agreements for the perceived financial advantages that are often linked with headline-level discounting. All very well if those discounts are guaranteed and continue for the life of the new 10-year lease. However, the opportunity exists for the renewal of the previous Bass/Vanguard leases or similar on very much the same terms as were originally granted. At lease renewal the court has the opportunity to DECREASE the rental agreed. Naturally I have not yet come across a single instance where the BDM or estates director, etc, for the new owning company, has happily owned up to this phenomena. It would seem the party line is that if you want a new lease, you have to automatically consider a change of supply tie revision and that the rent will increase. Not so. The opportunity exists on lease renewal for a comprehensive review of the rental assessment. Please do not be bullied into accepting a completely new and revised lease that is inconsistent with the current lease. Ironically, we also act for a large number of freeholders and our advice is as evenly confirmed for their attention not all rents go up and if the rent assessment [as with public houses] is linked to profitability, there is a very strong chance that on lease renewal, rents can go DOWN. Having said that, our freeholder clients are, in the main, not major public companies, unlike certain national agents, and our living does not depend on the aspirations of the City's view of securitisation and the income linked thereto or of keeping shareholders happy with the prospect of an automatic increase in rental values whatever the circumstance. In 2003, I have the strong suspicion that on lease renewal, there will be an exceptionally large number of well-founded cases that will not reach the courts and as a result it will not be published or widely known that, if properly represented, we will see rentals coming DOWN as a direct reflection of the decrease in profitability upon which the rental valuations are based. My view is confirmed by the banner headlines on your front page of the edition of 16 January: "New Beer Price Hike Hits Pubs". David Morgan Managing DirectorDMP Chartered SurveyorsBristol Why training's so essential I think that Stuart Neame's comments (MA, 23 January) on the way councillors perform their duties accentuates the need for training in all sections of the community. We know: 1. ‑Magistrates are not allowed to preside on the bench unless they have undergone training 2. ‑Licensees are not allowed a licence unless they have undergone training 3. ‑What we suspected local councillors can perform "mayhem" without training.
Why, oh why is this Government hell bent on moving licensing from the trained and knowledgeable magistrates to untrained (and in this case) self-gratifying local councillors? Tim Norfolk Rose & Thistle Rockbourne Frodingbridge Hampshire Coors and the ScotCo ad AC Nielsen would like to draw your attention to a recent advertisement that appeared in your publication on 16 January, in which brand comparisons were made between Foster's and Carling. We fully understand that clients want to use our independent data for marketing purposes, however, we do have guidelines in respect of data divulgence, which asks that data is always factually correct and clearly labelled. Whilst we cannot police all activity in the press, we are duty bound to point out when data has been used incorrectly, and in this particular case the data was neither factually correct nor clearly labelled. For the record, our latest On-Trade data for the year to November 2002 shows the average Carling stockist purchased 222 gallons monthly, while the average Foster's stockist bought 174 gallons (GB on-licences average purchases/month in gallons for the year to November 2002). Craig Twyford Client Services Director UK and Ireland AC Nielsen Oxford
