Pub Companies - Business and Enterprise Committee Contents

Memorandum submitted by The Royal Oak

  I wrote to say that, having listened to evidence from Enterprise to the Committee, I refute absolutely their claim that they provide benefits to tenants which compensate for the increased costs of purchases. Mr. Tuppen even claimed that "property reviews" are a benefit. In fact they are conducted solely for the purpose of ensuring that the tenant is compliant with the repairing and redecorating covenants in the lease.

  I also deny there is any business assistance from Regional Managers or Business Development Managers (BDMs). Their function is principally to carry out administrative tasks, and to conduct rent reviews. I have been an Enterprise tenant for over 12 years, and have never received any assistance with business development from any Enterprise employee. I have received no training. I did try to use their free rating advice but I had previously negotiated a rates reduction, and was told that if anything my rates were too low.

  I was most surprised that the TISC took the view that there are benefits, and that these compensate in some way for the costs of the tie. I hope you will have the good sense to take a different view.

  If tenants were offered a specific reduction in their rent to compensate for the loss of these benefits, and given the opportunity to buy into them, I do not know of one tenant (and I know quite a few) who would buy into the benefits at any cost. Nor do I know one tenant who would not opt out of both benefits and tie given the option. Could you perhaps ask Enterprise to give tenants the opportunity to choose?

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 13 May 2009