An Open Letter to Brigid Simmonds

Dave Mountford
Aug 24, 2017 · 5 min read

Re : Publicans Morning Advertiser article 23rd August 2017

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Legal/Legislation/Pub-industry-bodies-slam-PCA-s-MRO-report-as-one-sided-and-opaque

Dear Brigid,

Even by the standards that you have set in the past, your comments in the above article are breathtaking in the extreme.

I quote:

“The report is one-sided, anecdotal, not evidence-based and lacking in transparency, nor does it include any views from the pub companies on how the legislation is working.

This is, as you are well aware is complete and utter rubbish. Whilst the “fact finding” mission was well overdue, the evidence sought, was done by Stephen Childerstone in a structured manner in which he spoke to all stakeholders to gain a clear picture of the facts. He was provided with comprehensive evidence which was redacted for purposes of confidentiality, but otherwise demonstrated the exact nature of your members deliberate and systematic avoidance of the MRO procedure and the Code in general. I stress that he was provided with comprehensive evidence from cases both ongoing and many cases of individuals that had simply “given up” in despair at the barriers being placed in front of them by BBPA members.

Whilst speaking to The Pubs Advisory Service, Stephen frequently stated that the information we were providing him was “nothing new” and had been repeated by a “great many” of the stakeholders he had spoken to.

The information provided to Stephen, with clear examples and evidence was of the following specific behaviour.

  1. Deliberately refusing MRO offers with trivial and pedantic emphasis on wording.
  2. Issuing Rental Assessment Proposals being fully aware that the Tied tenants knew nothing about MRO and then allowing the 21 day period to lapse.
  3. Consistently failing to comply with the requirements on duty and in the case of Greene King, blatantly stating they would refuse to do so and would be telling the PCA of that fact.
  4. Constantly failing to provide any evidence for the Rental Assessment Proposals and failing to provide any evidence to back up the MRO offer.
  5. Constantly failing to provide any comparable evidence to justify the RAP or MRO figures.
  6. Deliberately and knowingly providing false information regarding the true meaning of MRO — In one instance a Tied Tenant was told by a Senior Enterprise operative that MRO was not just applicable to Pubs but could in fact be the rental figure for shops, businesses or a Costa Coffee, which is simply untrue.
  7. Consistently providing a completely inaccurate picture of the benefits of remaining tied when it has been shown by 4 select committee enquiries that those benefits are tenuous to say the least.
  8. Consistent exploitation of the poorly drafted legislation by demanding in every case a surrender and re grant when the expectation, desire and will of Parliament demanded a simple severing of the tied agreement through a Deed of Variation, something your members already have in their leases and have been using for years and something the PCA have stated can be the method of delivery of MRO.
  9. The consistent use of the threat of a terminal dilapidations schedule, arguably designed to intimidate the tenant into choosing to remain tied rather than to face potential final dilapidations costs.
  10. The sudden and significant demand for a “new for old” policy on Dilapidations rather than the “put and keep” option which is the norm and consistently ignoring the Rics guidelines on dilapidations which references the fact that the POB can only demand losses rather than the full cost of the repairs at vastly inflated prices.

This list is far from exhaustive but, what it undeniably is, is “evidence based” and your comment above is therefore, quite simply inaccurate and you should rectify that as a matter of urgency, otherwise your fast dwindling credibility will take another downward turn in the eyes of so many Politicians who have listened to your protestations over the years.

You further go on to say :

Simmonds continued: “Evidence shows the renegotiation of tied deals is delivering exactly what the consultation and the subsequent legislation intended.”

This of course is a perfect example of your ability to turn black into white in a desperate attempt to confuse and distort the facts . The truth of the matter is that your members are simply taking advantage of the plight of their tied tenants, by putting them under increased pressure and then offering them a reduction in the tied rent by a few grand here and there, which their often desperate situation forces them to take. None of the POB’s “business partners” accept a better tied deal because they want to — it’s simply because the business model that your members have evolved, forces their “business partners” into such a position of despair they have no choice but to accept any crumb your members at the BBPA will offer. A business model, I may add, that you have supported with your consistent and laughably inaccurate statements over the years.

You then continued:

She said the BBPA is determined to make the pubs code work but, as with all new legislation, there are always challenges in bedding it in, such as raising awareness, interpreting the rules, managing differing expectations, and dealing with unintended consequences.

The evidence that we have seen over the last 12 months, leads us to conclude that the BBPA has absolutely no desire at all to make the Pubs code work, as your members have consistently shown by their actions. I would suggest that the only challenges are those faced by your members team of lawyers who have had to spend a considerable time, picking through the legislation to seek any opportunity to exploit loopholes. And of course I note the hugely overused and incredibly boring phrase “unintended consequences” which is your fall back position to justify the actions of the members of many of the BBPA.

Only the adjudicator can progress some of these issues, through taking decisions on pending cases, and publishing the guidance we all need, to move forward.

In specific cases, clarification may be needed through the courts.

Finally of course I do like the veiled threat for the need for “clarification through the Courts”, setting the scene for the obvious and fully expected legal challenge to any decision that the adjudicator might eventually make, that doesn’t go in your members favour, therefore dragging out the process as long as possible in the hope that your members “business partners’ simply run out of money as so many will no doubt do.

As we all know this is simply a matter of time and that all you are doing, with your predictable, incredibly boring and amazingly easy to discredit statements, is attempting to give you’re members at the BBPA the time they desperately need to sell, change or turn into Managed houses, the Pubs they own, and in doing so further inflict irreparable damage on the infrastructure of the industry and the lives of the tenants who have work so hard to survive the business model you so eagerly support.

The simple fact is that, as a campaigner who has worked to support tenants in their dealings with tied tenants I can honestly say , the treatment they are currently receiving from the members of the organisation you represent is as bad as at any time I have know, showing the upmost contempt with which you regard the Pubs Code and therefore the Government.

We are all aware that the your members business model is over, the beginning of the end, arguably being the Beer orders of 1989. It is just a question of how long it takes before you all go and how much damage you do before that finally occurs.

Regards

Dave Mountford

The Pubs Advisory Service

)

Dave Mountford

Written by

Supporting tenants who have suffered financial loss at the hands of a Pub company or brewer. Search ‘Pub Defender’ on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter for more.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade