Memorandum submitted by Inez Ward
1.(a) I contacted Mr X of Unique Pub Company
in early August of 2002 with a view of purchasing the lease for
The Harvester, later to be changed to Mavericks Public House.
I had been given Mr X's telephone number by the then current landlady,
Miss Y. A meeting was arranged and the options and views of Unique
and ourselves were discussed. We were informed that we would need
an initial ingoing of approximately £50,000.00 and that the
rent for the lease would be £25,000.00 PA rpi linked. It
was explained to Mr X that we were interested if the schedule
of works could be ironed out, however we could do nothing until
our house had sold as that was where the finances were being raised.
1.(b) Mr X arranged a meeting for the end
of August/beginning of September 2002 and asked would we consider
moving in under a tenancy agreement until we were in a position
to sign for the lease. The provisions for the tenancy was a rent
of £24,000.00 for the first year rising to £30,000.00
for the second year, this raised some concerns as far as we were
aware the rent for the lease would be £25,000.00. When these
concerns were raised with Mr X he assured me not to worry about
it as we would be signed under the lease by the second year so
that part of the tenancy would not come into question. Mr X confirmed
that we would receive in writing the figure for the rent on the
lease. Our other concern was that we did not have the ingoing
for the tenancy of approximately £15,000.00 we informed Mr
X of this said that finances could be arranged through a loan.
Mr X held no objections to this course of action and so a loan
was taken out with Tesco in September of 2002 for a sum of £15,000.00.
1.(c) We were due to move in on Wednesday
23 October 2002 under the tenancy agreement, the stipulations
being that I had the figure for the rent for the lease in writing
and that the pub would be able to trade the day of signing ie.
23.10.02. I arrived at the pub at 10.30 am to meet with Mr X and
take over the premises known as The Harvester. Upon arrival I
was dismayed to find no Mr X, very little stock and no correspondence
with reference to the rent for the lease. I stood for a few minutes
and surveyed the carnage unfolding before me, after a short while
I decided that perhaps I had made the wrong decision in agreeing
to the tenancy. I gathered up the keys which had already been
handed to me by that point along with the paperwork, staff uniforms
and stools that I had brought with me. As I had left the premises
and was making my way across the car park to my car Mr X arrived.
I handed Mr X the keys and informed him that I would not be taking
on the tenancy due to no beer and the fact that I still had not
received in writing the figure for the rent on the lease. Mr X
replied that I could have the rent figure for the lease immediately
and that perhaps I could borrow some beer from somebody as my
beer order would not be arriving until the next day. I informed
Mr X that as this was his cock up and not mine he could arrange
for borrowing beer as I was not having the embarrassment of on
my first day in the trade having to ask to borrow beer, this would
bring my abilities into question and was not something that I
would wish to do as it was not good for business. Mr X acquiesced
and arranged for some beer to be borrowed from The Mermaid and
also from Fosters. The beer having been sorted and the figure
for the rent on the lease received in writing I considered that
all avenues had been covered and therefore moved in.
2.(a) By early February Mr X had started
to exert pressure for us to sign the lease. Mr X was informed
that until the house had been sold then it was not possible for
the lease to be signed. He asked that we sign an agreement to
lease and this is where the problems really began. The rent had
jumped by 20% to £30,000.00pa rpi linked. We refused to sign
the agreement until the rent had been reduced to the correct amount
that we already had in writing ie £25,000.00. The arguments
between Mr X and myself over this issue escalated until the point
where he was asked to leave the premises and I barred him until
he was willing to discuss these matters in a manner befitting
an employee of such a large company. Mr X took umbrage to this
statement and informed me that I had no right to do this as it
was his pub. I replied to Mr X that as long as I was the licensee
I had every right to ask whom ever I chose to leave as long as
it was not discriminatory. At this point Mr X left the building,
he did return about 20 minutes later with a slightly different
approach however the situation had not been resolved.
2.(b) In early March 2003 Mr X asked for
a meeting to discuss the agreement for lease. At this meeting
Mr X insisted that somebody else was interested in signing the
lease and that if we didn't sign the agreement at the new rent
we would have to leave the premises within four weeks. After careful
consideration we decided that we had very little choice, the house
had been sold subject to contract, the kids had moved schools,
we had given up full time employment and we had already invested
a significant sum into the business. We found out at a later date
that the alleged people interested in taking on the lease had
in fact had no intentions whatsoever. We were made aware of this
fact by the people concerned when they came into our pub one night
in the summer of 2003. It is my opinion that Mr X misrepresented
the facts on two separate occasions ie figure for the rent on
the lease and then again to try and harass us into signing a contract
that we had no intention of signing. The disagreement over the
level of rent has continued from that day to this, even though
there is expert evidence to the contrary and Enterprise Inns/Unique
Pub Company have never provided a complete breakdown of how my
rent was calculated as per the recommendations set in the 2004
TISC report, even though this has been asked for on several occasions
of the whole organisation.
3.(a) By June 2006 things had become unsustainable
and there was a meeting between ourselves and Enterprise Inns
there are some points of this meeting that have never been satisfactorily
answered. We made our accounts fully available to Mr X and informed
him that the rent was unsustainable. Enterprise placed an offer
on the table, this was not acceptable due to the un-affordability
of the plan. Enterprise Inns were unhappy at our rejection of
the proposal and immediately refused to deliver our beer. We offered
to pay for the beer order in cash, three days in advance of delivery,
this was not acceptable to Enterprise Inns as a result of which
we became free of tie in December 2006 as Enterprise Inns had
failed to deliver beer for a period exceeding 14 days. By this
point we were laughingly referred to as the pub with no beer,
this caused me a huge amount of stress and undoubtedly affected
the business, I remember crying my self to sleep at nights. I
consider this to be harassment as I had made an acceptable offer
to ensure that beer would be delivered without me breaking my
tie obligations and can see of no valid reason why this proposal
would not be acceptable to Enterprise Inns. Enterprise Inns issued
court proceedings for forfeiture of lease and the case went to
court on 29 January 2007 a consent order was made and maintained
and finished one month ahead of schedule. It is my opinion that
the period spent free of tie certainly enabled us to fulfil the
consent order ahead of schedule. It is also my opinion that the
court case was not required as I had always made it perfectly
clear that I would repay the outstanding amount at a rate that
was affordable, as is proven.
4.(a) By the end of July 2007 it was blatantly
obvious that the smoking ban, the bad summer and the impending
credit crunch was taking its toll on business. This is a business
that we had improved on year by year and suddenly hit a 20% downturn
in trade, there had been no other disruptions to Mavericks continuing
success. As I could see what was happening I started talks with
Mr X re reducing the rent and some discounts on the beers purchased.
Enterprise put forward an offer which was not acceptable, Mr X
insisted that the terms and conditions had not yet been set as
he was fully aware that a full on tie to include beers, wines,
bottles, spirits and soft drinks would not be acceptable. Mr X
was not happy when I took his copy of the terms and conditions
and insisted that they were not relevant as they were not personal
to Mavericks. When I asked him where the problem was he re-iterated
his initial statement.
4.(b) Enterprise Inns placed another offer
on the table which did appear more favourable so we took it to
our solicitor at that time, Mr H for his advice. I felt the need
for legal advice as I was unhappy at how Enterprise Inns had conducted
previous business and did not wish to make another mistake as
in being harassed into signing another contract which was detrimental
to ourselves. Mr X informed us not to sign the contract until
he had seen the terms and conditions, I felt some safety at this
point as I was fully aware that they would not be able to instigate
a contract which was detrimental. As my husband and myself left
Mr X's office I rang Mr X to inform him that I required the terms
and conditions before I could sign any contract as my solicitor
wished to check them out. I had also contacted Mr Graham Edward
Tuppen, the Chief Executive Officer of Enterprise Inns asking
for his help in this matter to which I received a reply from Mr
X the Regional Director. There was no further contact from Mr
X or Enterprise Inns until 28 November 2007. By this point there
had been a story printed in the local press with reference to
the fact of the boiler having broken down, Enterprise Inns refusal
of help unless I signed the contract and a charity night held
by the locals.
5.(a) On the afternoon of Wednesday 28 November
2007 Mr X rang me, this phone call was taken in the bar. Mr X
was trying to arrange a meeting for the following week, I informed
Mr X that I would not be able to arrange a meeting after Tuesday
4 December 2007 as I was booked in for a cardiac angiogram on
Wednesday 5 December 2007. Mr X was fully aware that I had been
experiencing chest pains and also that I was under investigation
and had already endured a treadmill test and two nuclear stress
tests and that they needed to do an angiogram due to the results
of the previous tests. I was as unsure as anyone as to what would
happen or how long I would be hospitalised for. At this point
Mr X had become very heated so I removed myself from the bar area
for fear of upsetting the customers. I again repeated to Mr X
my reasons for not being able to arrange a date, he seemed unable
to grasp this concept even when I gave him the telephone number
for the hospital so that he could verify and confirm what I was
saying as he had made it perfectly clear that he did not believe
me. By this point I have become very upset and am visibly shaking
there was no need for this harassment, I tried pointing out to
Mr X that in reality there was no rush for a meeting as I had
not yet received the terms and conditions for my solicitor to
look at, this induced a rage in Mr X that I really cannot explain.
He screamed down the phone at me that I had had a set of T&C.
5.(b) By this point I am very upset I cannot
control my shaking, crying or temper I shouted back at Mr X stating
his insistence that the T&C that I had in my possession was
not personal to Mavericks this would appear to be the straw that
broke the camels back, he screamed down the phone at me to just
sign the contract. At this point I put the phone down on Mr X
as I just could not take anymore, I am pretty sure that Mr X used
foul language but could not swear to it as I had been so upset
at his outburst, especially considering I had only asked for something
that by rights they are obliged to give. It took approximately
10 minutes for me to compose myself enough to be able to return
to the bar however I was unable to compose myself enough to hide
the impact of this telephone call from my regulars who had been
in the bar. I was visibly shaking from head to toe and could not
control this, I was suffering waves of nausea which eventually
resulted in me being sick on several occasions throughout the
evening. My heart had been racing ever since the telephone call
and no matter how much I tried to calm down nothing would work
long term. There were periods of a fast heartbeat but not racing
and pounding, in the end I had to tell my husband that I had to
go to bed and that I thought I was probably going to need a doctor.
Craig raced round trying to sort everything out and I went to
bed, everything seemed to calm down so I shouted to Craig that
I thought I might be ok and not to bother calling a doctor. Craig
came and laid on the bed with me and we watched television for
about quarter of an hour then things suddenly got a lot worse
with the way I was feeling, Craig called a doctor immediately
who sent out an ambulance on hearing the symptoms. Two ambulance
crews arrived and they proceeded with lots of questions and tests
they then gave me morphine and things became a little hazy after
that. I do remember the ambulance man asking if anything had upset
me that day and I told him a bit about the telephone call from
Enterprise Inns he stated that he was writing that into his report
and would I give my permission to which I agreed. The rest of
the night passed in a haze of pain and drugs and total fear. Following
the angiogram we were informed that I had suffered a small heart
attack induced by stress.
5.(c) It is my opinion that this phone call
was intended to frighten me into signing the contract without
legal representation, for what reasons I am unsure and therefore
cannot understand. I consider this to be severe harassment as
Enterprise Inns had been informed that I would not sign the contract
until my solicitor had seen the T&Cs. My husband informed
Mr Tuppen of the actions and consequences of one of his employees.
Mr X was moved from his post of covering the Cornwall area on
the 5 December 2007. Mr L sent us a letter dated 6 December 2007
informing us of Mr X's new appointment and asking us to wish him
luck in the future, I consider this at the very least to be insensitive
considering what I had just endured at the hands of this man.
6. Upon feeling a little stronger I again
contacted Enterprise Inns to try and sort out the whole mess.
This again resulted in questions not being answered and threats
of court for forfeiture of lease. I informed Mr L that if that
was the only way forward then so be it but don't threaten it to
get your own way. Mr L wrote to me on 10 December with an unrealistic
payment schedule or forfeiture proceedings would commence. The
court case was heard on 5 February 2008 and a consent order made,
which to date has been adhered to.
7. On 10 January 2008 I e-mailed Mr Tuppen,
for which he sent a read receipt, asking for his help as he had
been quoted in both national and trade press about how Enterprise
Inns were willing to help struggling licensees and we were obviously
struggling. I included copies of all my accounts and asked Mr
Tuppen, as he was an accountant, for his expertise in ascertaining
how the rent was maintainable and sustainable.
8. On 31 January 2008 our scheduled beer
order had not arrived within its scheduled time window, I was
somewhat mystified as to the reasons for this as payment had been
made in cash at the bank on Tuesday 29 January 2008 as per the
agreement. I rang supplyline to enquire what had happened to my
beer order and was there any problems with delivery. I was informed
that credit control had put a stop on the order I asked the telesales
girl why this had happened as I had made the payments as per the
agreement, she informed me that I would have to speak to credit
control. Upon finally speaking to credit control they informed
me that they had placed a stop as they had not received payment,
I assured them that payment had been made and gave the relevant
information and approximate time of payment. She then informed
me that perhaps the bank were at fault as Enterprise Inns had
definitely not received the monies due. By this time it was too
late to speak to the bank as they had already closed, it was no
use speaking to Enterprise any further as by this time nothing
could be done to achieve delivery, another night of no beer in
Mavericks yet again through no fault of my own. It is soul destroying
to have to endure these conditions. The following morning I contacted
the bank to confirm if indeed what Enterprise were informing me
could be true. The bank informed me that they were no way at fault
and that the monies cleared into Enterprise Inns bank account
at 14.39 on Tuesday 29 January 2008. This fell within the perameters
of the agreement and it is my opinion that Enterprise Inns were
fully aware of these facts and their failure to deliver the beer
and then try and shift the blame was purely harassment which certainly
caused further distress.
9. On 14 February Miss G e-mailed me with
a response from Mr L to the e-mail that had been sent to Mr Tuppen
on the 10 January. This re-iterated previous points which were
historical and not related to my request for help. Mr L stated
that any rent review would be contested vigorously, I cannot understand
the reason for this statement as Enterprise Inns had made it quite
clear that until the consent order had been fulfilled they would
not discuss the rent review. How can they contest vigorously something
that has not even been proposed. It is my view that this was further
harassment with a view to ensuring my earliest departure from
Mavericks. This view was confirmed with the meeting with the new
Regional Manager Mr M the following day. The rent review, as per
their own codes of practice, should have been completed by 28
December 2007, this was before any court action had been instigated.
10. A meeting had been arranged for Friday
15 February 2008 with Mr M. Mr M had been informed by email that
I would accept a meeting with him but that it had to be for a
valid reason and that I certainly did not want a meeting that
would cause any further distress or was likely not to achieve
anything and so causing more distress. I did not wish for a futile
meeting that would only ensure in upsetting me. My opinion of
this meeting is that it was always intended to have the effect
of threatening and harassing me. It could certainly not be considered
as a productive meeting that proved to be mutually beneficial
to both parties, I can only consider it as yet another threat,
more bullying and harassment.
11. Enterprise Inns have made it perfectly
clear that they view me as an un-compliant tenant because of the
approach that I have adopted, that is involving the whole organisation.
I had no choice in this matter, I was asking for help, we have
never drawn a wage since we have been here. We are in receipt
of full tax credits, half of which go to Enterprise Inns, why
should the government and ultimately the tax payer pay for the
greed of this company. We have improved turnover year on year
up until the current perfect storm that the entire trade is facing.
We have worked in excess of 100 hours a week to achieve this,
year on year the prices that we have to pay to Enterprise Inns
have risen considerably, both on the rent and the trade accounts.
The greed of this company is unbelievable, that is there only
goal, they neither care for their pubs or their licensees.
12. It is my belief that Enterprise Inns
have not only completely ignored the recommendations in the 2004
Select Committee Report, but they have breached their own contract
and they have not followed their own codes of practice, they have
completely abused their position of power and strength. My case
with Enterprise Inns has involved the whole organisation including
Mr Graham Edward Tuppen and Mr Simon Townsend. Everything I have
said can be proven either in writing or with witness statements
and if required I would be more than happy to speak in evidence
as I would for any evidence to be published.
Since writing this evidence it has come to light
that there may be anomalies with reference to the initial electrical
safety certificate issued by Unique, unfortunately I have run
out of room on the evidence allowed to be submitted.
I confirm that there is no requirement that
the content of this, my submission, should be confidential and
it's content either in part of full may be printed in any subsequent
report made by the Committee and that, if required, I am prepared
to attend the Committee Hearings to give oral evidence in support
of my comments and observations.
I declare that this is my witness statement
and that the information that I have given is true to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
29 September 2008
| 
