Written evidence submitted by Mark Charman
1. Since the committees last enquiry and my submission
to your previous enquiry I now only run a free of tie estate.
When we have landlords they tend to be private landlords or small
pubco's with realistic expectations with regard to rents and repair
liabilities.
2. With that said, I do feel that I am in a position
to comment further on the current tenant pubco relationship. In
my current position I am interviewing on a constant basis. This
year alone I have interviewed over 100 applicants that are either
current tenants or have recently been a tenant with one of the
major five pub companies.
3. In my view the situation remains largely unchanged.
I still come across numerous tenants that are not only dissatisfied
with their pubco but usually have a desperate story to tell. The
new codes of practice seem to be treated as a bit of a joke. Forms
are filled out, tenants are provided with information and boxes
are ticked, but the underlying issue of a tenant not being able
to make a decent living still remains. Furthermore, the aggression
with which tenants are treated does not appear to have dissipated.
I can give you a very recent example:
I met a very capable and experienced couple last
year who turned down a position with myself in order to take a
position with Punch Taverns. Punch Taverns were very keen for
this particular couple to run a very well known public house with
a good reputation. The couples were promised a fair deal, fair
rent and were given assurances that some immediate maintenance
issues would be attended to. Seven months on the couple are told
they will not be getting the 21 year lease as originally promised
and instead the pub is likely to be sold. Punch refused to install
a boiler leaving this particular couple no choice but to install
one at great expense. I should point out that they are trading
the pub above expectation and their standards are incredibly high.
There seems to be much of the same treatment whereby in their
own words, this slightly naive couple have been used and abused
and have been put through unnecessary emotional strain.
4. I am however glad to report that smaller pub
companies are at long last facing the reality of the situation
and are starting to make sensible business decisions for the benefit
of all in the industry. There should be a word of caution however
that a number of pubco's with large estates have been unable in
recent years to let large proportions of their estates and have
instead chosen to operate them as managed houses. I have seen
evidence recently that one companies advertised deal for managers
isn't quite as described and managers are sometimes finding themselves
working for very little and on occasion having to pick up a number
of the pubs utility bills. There seems to be some of the tenanted
mentality towards treating people creeping in to these new managed
estates. I believe great care should be taken to ensure a new
problem is not created out of trying to solve an old one. In my
view there is an unhelpful, unwilling and dirty undertone to the
running of many of the larger pubco's. My view remains that the
tie is unworkable as a business relationship and regulation to
remove the tie from estates with more than circa 50 pubs would
be of great benefit to the industry and particularly the hard
working people who run the majority of the countries pubs. However,
I believe further regulation would be required to totally resolve
the industries problems. Once a pub company has more than 1000
pubs they can become dominant and oppressive to those involved
in them. Perhaps the committee should consider whether or not
pubco's in the future should be allowed to grow beyond a certain
number of pubs.
| 
