Accusations had been levelled by tenant representatives that some of the minimum requirements of the IFC were not incorporated into the current pubco codes of practice (COP) that were accredited by BIIBAS.
In particular, concern was raised about the omission of the phrase: “All contracts will be fair, reasonable and comply with all legal requirements.”
Brindley said BIIBAS will remedy anything that hasn’t been written into the codes.
“There is a possibility that some of the COPs went through without this specific paragraph highlighted.”
However, he moved to reassure licensees: “If this clause was omitted from any previous COP the IFC would always override any individual COP. At all times, the licensee has had full protection.”
Brindley said that all company COPs are currently going through re-accreditation for version 6, and the accreditation panel has specifically been instructed to ensure this part of the IFC will be in every new code. Earlier this week Punch became the first pubco to have its code accredited under version 6 of the IFC.
Independent Pub Confederation secretary and campaign manager Simon Clarke said: “It seems the minimum requirements for accreditation have been overlooked.
“This clause has been in the codes since 2010, so arguably if they are taking measures it is because they have realised that they should have taken measures before.
“I will be saying to the Business, Innovation & Skills Committee I think the company codes are leading the self-regulatory process and not the other way round, and that is not as it should be.
“I have been through some of the company codes and not one has this stipulation in it.”
He also questioned how a contract would be judged as fair and reasonable.
“There is no definition of fairness in commercial contracts,” Clarke added.
However, Brindley responded, claiming that any problems regarding ‘fair and reasonable’ contracts could be ruled upon in a PICA-Service hearing.
“What is fair and reasonable to one person is not fair and reasonable to another. If a case is brought before PICA-Service under fair and reasonable contracts, it would rule on that,” he said.
Chris Wright, of the Pubs Advisory Service, said: “Tenants could be forgiven for concluding that no company code should ever have been accredited in the first place.”
Tim Hulme, CEO, BII,
“The BII accreditation service has embarked on the 3-year cycle of re-accreditation of company codes introduced by Version 6 of the code. In the process of that re-accreditation it has been bought to our attention that company codes do not contain specific reference to the commitment encompassed by clause 35 and 133.
"The over-riding condition of accreditation of company codes is that they agree to comply with the Industry Framework Code. To that extent all company codes are compliant and can be held to account if they do not comply with those provisions.
"We (BIIBAS) have considered the point put to us and in the interests of complete transparency and the avoidance of doubt we are introducing the requirement as a condition of accreditation that specific commitment is made to the provisions contained in clause 35 and 133.”
"We trust that this will leave everybody concerned in doubt that every effort must be made to ensure that ‘all contracts will be fair, reasonable and comply with all legal requirements'. We are always keen to make improvements to our processes and we welcome the opportunity to clarify the position.