Webbscatering V Enterprise Inns

[webbscatering]

I forgot to mention I agreed to buy my drink from them but did not agree to be ripped off

[Struggling_Simon]

Mate,

 

You mentioned the undertakings made by the pubco when you took over in a previous post. Were these conditions of your lease, because if they were the pubco has breached contract with you.

 

 

Has there been any reaction to your LBA yet? What was their response?

Have they disclosed the case numbers for all the other times that they have allegedly won in court over the same argument?

 

 

I would seriously call in the Information Commissioners Office in order to achieve compliance with the DPA request. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with just ignoring it. Every firm in the UK has to comply, unless they are exempted.

 

Well, alls I can say is the very best of luck with this. You have my support so if you need anything PM me, and I will try to help.

[webbscatering]

Hi Simon,

You mentioned the undertakings made by the pubco when you took over in a previous post. Were these conditions of your lease, because if they were the pubco has breached contract with you.

Yes this is conditions of my lease which was to be completed by six months, I have this in writing, after the six months was up I challenged them and they replied that the budget was over spent and the banks are not lending at the moment until February???, after my meeting with them in February they fobbed me off by saying the work will commence in April but they also said they have upto a year to complete the schedule of work!!. On the Schedule are three mandatory pieces of work relating to Health and Safety this cannot be true they have a year to complete this.

 

Has there been any reaction to your LBA yet? What was their response?

Yes the response was the last letter from their solicitors requiring confirmation that they can talk to me, bear in mind I am the lease holder?

 

Have they disclosed the case numbers for all the other times that they have allegedly won in court over the same argument?

Absolutely Not.

 

I would seriously call in the Information Commissioners Office in order to achieve compliance with the Data Protection Act request. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with just ignoring it. Every firm in the UK has to comply, unless they are exempted.

Yes this is something I was going to mention in my reply letter.

 

Thanks Struggling-Simon for your support

[webbscatering]

Also the racism issue appears to be brushed away too.

[webbscatering]

From their solicitor

While not wishing to be obtrusive I would be grateful if a director of that Company would confirm in writing that they are content we enter into correspondence with you personally about the operation of their account.

If I pick up the phone and talk to credit control at Enterprise I can access the most sensitive information concerning the account, so it looks like they are starting to clutch at straws

[El_Cojones]

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.

[El_Cojones]

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]

[webbscatering]

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.

Hi El Cajones.... Ha,Ha nice user name,

welcome to my thread I take it you and I share a common interest with regards to the shoddy behaviour of our landlord. I am about to issue the court papers regarding the return of my charges but the bigger picture when I win is the validity of the compensation claims they are hitting tenants with also the usage of Brulines this will cost both companies a fair amount of money. I will go public when they return my money so they have now shot themselves in the foot by being clever. You can ask you local MP to sign the EDM 674 with regards to re-investigating the TISC behaviour over the beer ties. Also could you tell me more about your treatment by them because mine will be going to the European Courts For Human Rights with regards to the racist thug they sent to deal with me,

Thanks

Webbscatering

[webbscatering]

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.

 

My BDM and his boss told me trying to fight the validity of Brulines was futile as they have used top baristers to fight their cases therefore the costs would be astronomical should I lose!!. I said if the system was that good at catching people why use Barister's surely a minor league lawyer would be sufficient, that's when they said "look at it this way they took 67 people to court and won all 67 cases". But the validity of Brulines in relation to NWML is not recognised as a legitimate forms of measuring.

 

Edited August 17, 2008 by jonni2bad

[El_Cojones]

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'

[webbscatering]

El Cajones, burning the midnight oil I see, thanks for the talk over the phone I found your arguments valid and within reason also thanks for your last posting.

If you have any more suggestions please post away.

 

Thanks

 

Webbscatering

[El_Cojones]

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

[El_Cojones]

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.

[webbscatering]

Hi El Cajones,

I put your stuff on the blogspot, you can put a lot more colourful and descriptive words without censorship on there, I dont know how it will be until they do it on this thread. Keep the work coming

[El_Cojones]

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

[webbscatering]

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

 

El Cajones, I take it you have some valid evidence to back up this claim because it would be good ammo to fire at the BDM at his next visit. Also there was talk concerning false insurance claims

[Struggling_Simon]

E_C and Kev,

 

Following this thread with great interest.

E_C has made has hit the nail on the head. I tried to prompt you right at the start of this to get the transcripts of the court cases.

 

IMHO, all enterprise have done via court is to have injunctions against people who have breached contract. Your case is slightly different as they have as yet only alleged that you have breached contract.....big but ....so have they by not performing the works to meet statutory legislation ( weights / measures AND health and safety....naughty naughty Enterprise).

 

I will state here and now that I am not in the trade either, but I am also a logical person and have a reasonable understanding of contract law. I am not a solicitor. Actually I am a senior consultant in the IT sector, so I feel that it is best to bring my experience to the table, so here goes. Hope it makes sense

 

If, in one of my projects I had an overiding need for measurement so that I could detect a breach of process, and my monitoring system throws up an indicator that there has been such a breach my first action would be to approach the party whom I suspect in a friendly way to question them about it. (e_c - you will note the words indicate and suspect).

 

If that party says that they have not breached as far as they are aware, my only option would be to try to get to the truth, by futher investigation.

 

I'm a naturally trusting guy, so I would be inclined to take the other party at their word at this point. Next action would be to have my measurement equipment calibrated and checked. (This should be done by me, as I am the guy who needs to know).

 

I think that it is logical ask Enterprise to calibrate your brulines system. give them a month to organise,complete and report their findings back to you in writing.

 

You've been accused of something, and should have an abaility to have a defence as you deny the allegation.

 

At this point they (Enterprise) have to ensure that the accusation is fair and truthful.

 

After that, ask Trading Standards and/or HMRC to also check the brulines system independently. Why would Enterprise object, as they claim that their system is accurate?

 

I think thats allowing you both to get to the truth.

 

Stay strong, and defend your position utterly.

[Struggling_Simon]

oh and thanks for the reputation comment.

 

regarding the accuracy, there is no reason that you should not be able to challenge the validity of its findings in court. In fact, the magistrate should order it as necessary disclosure pertainant to the allegation.

 

CPR18 I think you'll find. PM me for more or if you want me to call you.

[webbscatering]

Morning Struggling Simon, thank you for your post, logic and reasoning are something Enterprise Inns Business Development Managers (BDM) completely lack, But the BDM is only as good as the Organ Grinder. The contracts we have are transparent and lack clarity as do most pub contracts, this was the finding of the TISC back in 2004 and part of the findings was the lack of clarity but nothing has been done since. What I will do over the next couple of days is pull some parts out of the contract with regard to the monitoring system and see what you think.El Cajones and myself have spoken personally and he is as yourself very logical and has very good thoughts on this issue.

[El_Cojones]

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 ..........

[El_Cojones]

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

[El_Cojones]

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.

[webbscatering]

Claim form for the return of my charges has been sent today also I have my appointment with Avon and Bristol Law Centre this Thursday with regards to the race discrimination by Enterprise Inns, their solicitors has basically said in her letter to me that " we do not accept that there was an assault, as you allege". Even though I have two independent witnesses.

 

So time to get nasty

[webbscatering]

Hi people, thought i would let you know whats going on, so I went to the law society and as we speak are drawing up a nice letter to Enterprise solictors regarding the racial incident, and with regards to the brulines they have got some high powered london solicitors on the jobby now.

I had a good write up in my local paper giving Enterprise a bit of stick, the next day Enterprise come in and gave me a date when work will commence....oh the power of the press.

[El_Cojones]

Hiya Kev ........ any chance of a scanned copy of the item in your local newspaper

? If not a quote here will do