Further supplementary evidence submitted
by David Morgan
I accept that you have had a multitude of further
representations since the BEC hearing in early December when you
interviewed the Chiefs of Enterprise Inns and Punch. A specific
item of disingenuous evidence has now reared itself in a number
of situations nationwide through clients of this company, Cooksey
DMP. The issue is that of insurance and Question 297 that was
raised by your good self.
Mr Tuppen's response was:
"If any licensee can demonstrate that he
can get the same cover at a cheaper price, we give him his money
back so we could not make a greater commitment than that".
The reality is that clients of this Firm have
sought advice from their independent insurance brokers who, after
expressing incredulity at both the size of the premium and the
excess (always £1,000 minimum), they said that they could
only consider the position if they had sight of the existing Enterprise
Inns insurance policy and thus directly give a competitive quotation.
Herein lies the problem. Enterprise Inns flatly refuse and have
refused in every instance of which I am aware, to issue a copy
of their insurance policy. We thus have the ultimate Catch 22
which shows the strength of honesty of Mr Tuppen's reply to your
Question 297. As far as I am aware, no tenant has been able to
obtain a competitive quote, specifically because they are unable
to obtain a copy of the Enterprise Inns insurance policy.
I do accept that the Committee has now virtually
concluded its detailed Report, although I did feel that this item
was of such importance that you may care to consider it further
before the issuance of the final Report.
19 January 2009
| 
