Pubs code consultation: The Forum of British Pubs supports extended protection for tenants

By Michelle Perrett

- Last updated on GMT

Pub impact: the organisation calls for more protection for tenants (credit Getty/aluxum)
Pub impact: the organisation calls for more protection for tenants (credit Getty/aluxum)

Related tags: Pubs code

The Forum of British Pubs has claimed that the information the parallel rent assessments (PRA) for prospective tied tenants are “always wrong.”

In its submission to the review of the pubs code it said that it believed that the information provided to tenants in relation to rent is not correct which impacts on both PRA and the calculation of Fair Maintainable Trade. The organisation claims that figures are too easily manipulated.  

The Government announced its plans to review the legislation on 12 July 2021​, with the deadline to submit evidence on 5 September 2021. 

The review asked for specific input into plans to introduce a trial period for prospective tied tenants to familiarise themselves with running a tied pub.

Waste of time

The Forum of British Pubs said: “This would be a waste of time and effort and simply wouldn’t work.”

It said that this was for a number of reasons including the fact that the first three months is the period that has the most impact on customers. It highlighted that while the tenant will be enthused by the cash flow and response from customers the majority of tied agreements get into financial trouble after a year, when VAT and PAYE become major issues. 

Extended protection

In its submission The Forum of British Pubs also supported more extended protection for tenants. It said: “Simply put every aspect of the code should be included within extended protection – so that would include, MRO, Investigations, BDM investigation.”

The campaign group also said that there should be an alternative appeal route and not just the High Court. 

In its  response it said: “The lack of understanding of this appeals process results in “bad law” being created as the tenant effectively is unrepresented, being unable to finance the costs. Everything about this process is contrary to the reasons behind the code being bought in." 

Related topics: Legislation

Related news

Show more