Redstone are an absolute bunch of crooks and the sooner that this and other **** are brought to book, so much the better.They lost a case badly in June 2009, here's the detail on it. Redstone | Nearly Legal

re your question about arbitration. My opinion is that this depends on how strong your case is. The point is that arbitration is designed so that both parties walk away with something. To refer to my own case, I want them to walk away shredded to tatters so for me arbitration is not an option. Final thing is that doubtless they have a relationship with the arbitrators already so think lions den. later E C

Hi, I think that the issues are getting a tad confused here. 1. An INJUNCTION is to PREVENT someone continuing with a particular course of action. From the sound of it you are more in the realm of forcing them to comply with their end of deal. i.e their duty to repair. You do however need to be very certain that the items you refer to are indeed down to them and not your responsibility as per the contract. 2. As I indicated earlier, as long as you pay the rent ( and associated costs, e.g insurance ) they have zero chance of getting you out for other alleged and as yet unproven breaches of contract. 3. Regarding the racist issue, I would be inclined to drop it for the following reasons. (a) What's done is done and it may draw the courts attention away from the more salient issue, i.e that Enterprise are ripping you off. (b) Like or not, as a white guy it looks a little odd to make a racism claim and you'd need to prove that the assault was based on your race/colour rather than the more likely reason that the guy works for Enterprise. My point is that the colour difference may well have been incidental to the assault. You NEED to get a bloody good solicitor to hit them and hit them HARD with a counterclaim. Later E C

Hi guys, my apologies for my absence but I've had loads of crap to deal with of late. I've read through this little lot in brief but I'll give it my undivided attention tomorrow. In the meantime, points to note: 1. In terms of relief against forfeiture of the lease the ONLY thing that is sacrosanct is RENT. In other words, so long as the rent is up to date, everything else is open to argument and the pubco has ZERO chance of succeeding in court to boot you out until those arguments are settled. How do I know? I was in that exact situation in April and now I have the opportunity to expose Enteritis (sic) for the [edited] they really are.......... as if we didn't already know it. 2. I also spoke to Inez Ward, the sole reason that she lost her case for harassment was lack of legal representation. It's an unfortunate fact of life that in court no-one is interested in the emotive issue of being ripped off by the pubco and their Brulines bum buddies but solely on points of law. If you try to represent yourself against ( as in Inezs' case) several Barristers, you have a snowballs chance in hell and you WILL have costs awarded against you. Legal representation actually doesn't cost the earth but you have to know who to use. Going to your own solicitor and thus probably the guy who did the conveyancing on your house is a BIG mistake, I dropped 2 grand on my prat of a solicitor effectively for him to apologise on my behalf for my existence. So ... the lesson is, use a SPECIALIST ...... the other side does so you have to fight fire with fire. I was represented at court by a super-sharp Barrister ( nice guy too ) with all of the ground work done by my solicitor AND preparation of my counterclaim with numerous letters to rattle Enteritis's cage and now we're close to the kill. Total bill to date 5 grand, I expect to have to drop another 3 grand but no more and that only if they're REALLY dumb enough to try to fight. If anyone wants the name of the specialist solicitor I've used, feel free to email me at [email protected] On the subject of the Enteritis estate ...... yep, they have a problem, well several actually. If you read their company report from last year the average pub on their books is worth £750,000. Given the number of neglected and bordering on derelict state pubs they have, my own assessment is that this average is woefully inflated , probably to the tune of at least £300 grand. I have a friend who happens to be a hot shot corporate accountant and he agrees with my estimate. However, pubs occupy land and demolishing a derelict pub to build yuppie flats is the way to go because this masks the overestimation of the pub estate from their shareholders. Putting landlords out of business by whatever means possible is undoubtedly systemic and sadly, incredibly successful for them. IF they REALLY wanted to run a pub estate they would charge reasonable rents and realistic beer prices under the tie. As that nice Mr Gordon Gecko said, 'greed is good' .... but only if you're the beneficiary of course. I at least am old enough to remember when Breweries owned the pubs and landlords were the envy of everyone .. nice cars, holidays and more bling than you could shake a stick at, not to mention expensive cirrhosis and arterial schlerosis of course but at least they could afford it. Renting surviving pubs to gullible licensees also masks the capital value hence the desirability of the REIT status ( 70-30% by the way ) Let's not forget that pub companies have NO interest in the average pub, only those that are natural and ongoing cash cows for them. later ... E C

Hiya Kev ........ any chance of a scanned copy of the item in your local newspaper ? If not a quote here will do

Simpson ...... "if cable just unplug the modem (the one that has the big white cable goes into) for five mins as the ip will be dropped back into the pool" Wrong I'm afraid, the minimum DHCP lease is four hours.

Prior to the introduction of flow monitoring systems, pub companies and breweries were reliant on what was I beleive known as the "vanguard system" , i.e physical checks of a pub cellar to identify foreign products if for whatever reason there was a suspicion of the licensee breaking the beer tie. With the advent of Brulines which by their own admission is totally dynamic in that it can identify and record every pint of beer immediately it pours, it begs the following question. Why. when a pub company has to hand such a powerful indication that a licensee is buying out, do they not inspect the pub cellar immediately the suspicion is raised by the Brulines figures? The point is that the pubco would KNOW in no more than one week that there was an apparent discrepancy in the relationship between beer sold to beer bought from them and yet wait months to address the issue in applying their penalties. This seems to me to have two edges. Assuming that a licensee has indeed been buying out, an early addressing of the situation may produce a typical penalty of no more than £1000, little more than a financial slap on the wrist and the issue resolved. Naturally, this course of action would greatly reduce what has become an additional revenue stream for Brulines and the pub companies.

I'm still tracking this so it might take me a while. The link to the full report is at the end of the post. "CBS firmly defended its chief executive after last month's revelation that he had been convicted in August 1986 at Ipswich Crown Court on charges of conspiracy and blackmail. These related to an engineering contract in the offshore oil industry. He was given an 18-month prison sentence, of which 16 months were suspended." How to ride a company's growth cycle without falling off - Telegraph

Hi Simon, we're of a similar ilk it seems and in the same industry. I troubleshoot I.T issues across the board on a contract basis, so if I get it wrong I don't get work. To date I'm still 100%. The key to finding a solution is finding the indicators to the problem. If I can find three indicators pointing to the same place I can then be pretty damned certain I'm in the right zone. One indicator is next to useless, two introduces an element of chance that makes me nervous. If I hypothetically adopted the Enterprise method, you call me to tell me your desktop is running like a dog, I just tell you you're just too stupid to use a computer, job done. Enterprise has no interest in actual analysis because the only indicator they actually have (Brulines) 'proves' exactly what they want it to and produces yet another neat revenue stream for them. They then force the landlord to accept the figures under duress of losing their tenancy. Enterprise and the other pubcos apparently believe they're above the law or, can write their own laws. I continue to research the position but one rather excellent document you should read is the 2006 FRAUD act. There is little doubt that the pubcos are vulnerable under this law and happily, it carries JAIL TIME. Later ..... E_C P.S . Looking for a contract right now so if ya need ..........

and there's more ...... Your beloved BDM is paid commission on the amount of beer sold through the pubs he controls. It follows therefore that he/she also makes a significant personal gain form Brulines fines and probably explains why the BDM has little interest in a licensees protestations of innocence. Doubtless he or she will send you a postcard from their next jaunt to the Caribbean, paid for by you. The only good news arising from the recent flurry of activity re Pubcos and Brulines etc is that word gets around. The pubcos currently have hundreds of vacant pubs and their chances of finding tenants for them is becoming as unlikely as finding rocking horse **** under your pillow. The bad news is that this gives them greater incentive to screw the tenants they already have to prove to their shareholders how 'successful' they are. "Swim with sharks, expect to get bitten" Later .......E_C

Posted on Morning Advertiser this a.m HOW TO BEAT THE BRULINES 'FINES' I'm not a lawyer or anything like it but something dawned on me this morning that would be of equal benefit to the licensee AND the pubcos. Much has been said and reported concering the accuracy of the Brulines system, its lack of recognised calibration etc etc. The pubcos for reasons I cannot fathom accept Brulines figures without question and then slaughter the licencee with punitive fines that in many cases put the licencee out of business, Brulines has a 100% record in obtaining injunctions on apparently errant licencees which of course guarantees that there can be no longer be any buying out on pain of contempt of court. However, this has to be a two way street. By my reckoning, if a licencee voluntarily makes a declaration to a Magistrates court that they will adhere to the terms of the beer-tie ( thereby effectively placing an injunction on themselves ) the onus is then on Brulines and the pubcos to provide SUBSTANTIAL proof that the tie has been broken and by EXACTLY what quantity. The final question really is, would Brulines figures stand up in court? Answers please to Brulines@la_la_land.

As promised re Brulines. The Publican - Home - Beer-tie cheat claims proven wrong The Publican - Home - Brulines: more than a spy for the beer-tie ( the section on false accusations is VERY interesting particularly their CEO's admission) http://www.iltsa.co.uk/files/Stock_Auditor_Magazine/StockAuditorFEB06.pdf ( scroll down to page 15 for the Brulines ) bit. E_C

I'm not a lawyer, advocate or any kind of advisor. Whatever I post here you are free to ignore, abuse or even perhaps ponder its validity. You might even choose to check my thinking with your solicitor over a pint of grossly over priced beer, Anyway, my life skills center around analysis and pure logic but are in no way connected to the licensed trade. However, I ask you to consider the following and bear with me until the end. Hypothesis #1. I am driving my car as drunk as a skunk and weaving all over the road. I am stopped by the police for my erratic driving, breathalysed, convicted in a court of law and banned for 12 months. Why did the police stop me? Because of my erratic driving which of course indicates my wrongdoing. Hypothesis #2. I am a licensee of a tied pub owned by any particular pub company you want to name but Enterprise will do. An uncertified, unauthorised and more to the point non-legally calibrated flow metering system indicates that my beer pumps have dispensed more than I have purchased from the pubco. I am immediately accused of fraud and have punitive fines levied against me that I have no defence against. My options are (a) pay up (b) don't pay and have my tenancy, home and livelihood taken from me. The key word in both of these hypotheses is indicates. As far as I can research ( and by the way, research is my third life skill ) Brulines , the pubcos and their levying of 'fines' have NEVER been challenged in a court of law. . Ah you may say ..... they have a 100% record in court which indeed they do. The fact is that this 100% record relates ONLY to injunctions to prevent tenants buying out, all of which logically would by their very nature be undefended. Going back to the hypotheses. In hypothesis #1 the police have an indication of my wrongdoing and then act upon it with a legal process, I would have no complaints, fairy nuff. In hypothesis #2 Brulines figures indicate that I have bought out ...... and that's the end of the game, I'm cooked. The pubco regard Brulines figures as sacrosanct and take totally inappropriate and what is quite possibly, illegal action. If the police acted in the same fashion I'd get a 12 month ban for double parking .... because I obviously only do that when I'm three sheets to the wind. The salient point is this. The pubcos would in my laymans opinion be quite correct in regarding Brulines figures as an INDICATION of wrongdoing but in order to succeed in a court of law they would need much more substantial proof. This additional proof they never need or even attempt to gather because hitting the licencee with punitive fines is like shooting fish in a barrel for them. Incidentally, on more than one occasion Brulines figures have been proven to be total cojones, I'll post the relevant links next time. To express my laymans opinion one last time in this post, "don't pay and have my tenancy, home and livelihood taken from me" has a simple definition in law ..... it's called demanding money with menaces. Later....... El Cojones ( which for those of you who don't speak Serbo Croat means 'the bollocks'

Something else I just noticed in the posts. If anyone has a letter from Enterprise referring to a maintainence budget overspend I'd really appreciate a copy of it. [email protected]

Hi guys, I think I can shed some light on Enterprise/Brulines 'success' in court. They have a much vaunted 100% record but they're hiding something or more to the point, using sleight of hand. For fairly obvious reasons I have been researching this [problem] and lo and behold the 100% court success record is for INJUNCTIONS only, i.e to force the lessee to conform to the terms of the lease by not buying out. Now, the significance of this is that I can find NO reference to the veracity or validity of the Brulines extortion [problem] ever reaching a court of law. Generally speaking by the time the pubco has leeched all it can from a tenant with the Brulines [problem] , legal action is not an option due to the costs involved. For myself, I've decided to fight back because it goes against my personal grain to take it up the arse from scumbags like these. I read earlier in this list a reference to NWML stating that Brulines is not certified with them. If anyone has this statement in scanned hard copy or Email can you please Email it to me at [email protected] Thanks.