Written evidence submitted by Simon Daws |
I wish to submit the following as evidence to the
latest consultation as regards the Pubco Enquiry.
My evidence relates to:
for a Free of Tie and Open Market Rent Review Process.
only rent reviews.
outside the Codes of Practice.
v Free of Tie supply prices.
1.0 I am a BII Member and lessee of two Enterprise
Inns pubs. My ownership of the Royal Oak commenced in 2000, at
that time being leased from Whitbread Pub Partnerships. I conduct
all my relations with Enterprise Inns in a business like and formal
manner, and I see my Regional Manager four times a year. My other
pub, again located near Cheltenham is called The Gloucester Old
Spot and is leased from Enterprise Inns also.
1.1 I recently asked them to permit me to go
free of tie in both pubs, and have an open market rent review
to establish a workable and fair financial relationship under
which I could take my business forwards. In some part this is
to test the creedence of their claims to offer Free of Tie deals
and to have removed upward only rent increase clauses.
1.2 In the light of the ongoing BISC Enquiry
I feel my request reflects the industries' wish for greater freedom
and transparency for Licensees, but it would appear that my reasonable
request has not received equal treatment.
1.3 Enterprise have made it clear to me that
should I wish to make a free of tie rent proposal, that it would
be considered under a new 20 year commercial lease and would fall
"outside the scope of the Enterprise Inns Code of Practice".
Contrary to evidence and promises given in the last BISC session,
it also stipulates upward only rent reviews. I have since spoke
with my RM and Simon Townsend face to face about this issue and
Enterprise Inn's position has been verbally reinforced.
1.4 Now, either these firms, do or do not operate
under a Code of Practice as accredited by, my Professional Body
the BII. How can they operate peacemeal, choosing to grant Leases
as it suits them outside of this Code? An industry wide Code of
Practice has to be exactly that?
1.5 What the deal they are offering really represents
is exchanging the profit that they make from us in barrelage for
a tie release fee, which itself then becomes subject to annual
RPI increases and a five yearly review. It is robbing Peter to
pay Paul, and has no measure of fairness that a rent would have
using the RCIS appeal system. At no point would the "free
of tie, fair maintainable rent" of the pub be established,
and I would continue to be subject to any increase in the Tie
Release Fee that they deemed fair on a five yearly upward only
1.6 They profess to have moved on, with Codes
of Practice but these fail to address the core issues of the Pubco
debate, namely Pub Retailer's profitability and thus onward viability
of their business.
2.0 I further enclose evidence of the inflated
prices that we have no choice but to pay for their beer. I want
either lower beer prices or, and better still to be released from
my tie with a full and fair rent review. The difference in pricing
of randomly selected beers, lagers and stouts are
|2.1||Free Trade Price
|Wye Valley HPA||62.08
3.0 Simon Townsend of ETI, professes that most of us "opt
for the low rent - higher beer price option". I want neither
and I have opted for neither, I want fair rents and fair supply
prices for beer.
4.0 I also wish to contest Enterprises use of "Licensee's
Surveys" which they have engineered to profess that by saying
"Yes I have received my Code Of Practice" actually means
that I am happy with it. I was very candid in the way that I answered
their loaded questions and the committee should ask to see a transcript
of these questions to understand that The Pubco's interpretation
thereof is dishonest.
20 June 2011