Webbscatering V Enterprise Inns

[webbscatering]

Hi El Cojones, I'll email it over tomorrow, Cheers Webbscatering

[WIRHWYNH]

I am in a similar situation to you, although a few months behind in the process and would be grateful to compare notes.

Enterprise Inns are operating on the boundaries of so many laws but seem to be getting away with it as they are so powerful. They seem to be clearly breaking EC competition law but the OFT won't take them to court as they exercise so much power on various MPs, so the relevant Select Committee won't refer them to the Monopolies Commission, so OFT don't see the point in taking up the case of individual publicans or the case put to them by FSB in 2002/03.

My Enterprise Inns Regional Business Development Manager (phony job title if ever there was one) accepts that the Business Model they are operating is immoral but that's an off the record admission of course - he's looking for another job, as he can't see any future in it and is depresssed at going round to hardworking people who are going under on a weekly basis just on his patch. I'm sure they will find another sucker to replace him, just as their business now depends on finding more suckers to take on pub leases, though it seems that is getting harder to do.

Ted Tuppen is happy enough as Enterprise is becoming a REIT, though how they will satisfy HMRC that 75% of their earnings are from real estate surprises me unless of course they are doing some serious financial shenanigans, which in turn does n't surprise me.

Meanwhile, landlords are going under left right and centre making the market more competitive and so landlords as a whole are less unitifed and less able to fight back against such unfair practices. Where will it all end? Lot's of shut pubs; ineffective political tripe after the event and a lot of financial broke people. I'm sure Ted will still sleep well in his retirement villa in Barbados bought with a fat bonus off our backs anyway.

[webbscatering]

Hi WIRHWYNH, thanks for your post everything you have pointed out is absolutely right the way this company treats its tenants is atrocious, the way they are prepared to sacrifice innocent peoples livelihoods with promises of a worthwhile and profitable businesses is nothing but scandalous. At this moment Enterprise are getting shirty with me and are threatening to boot me out my pub unless I drop my claims against them... thats not going to happen. I have a contact at the publican magazine who will find out about this bully boy tactics they are trying to pull.

 

Can you tell us more details of your situation as El Cajones is pretty smart with this and maybe could be able to give you a few pointers,

 

Cheers

 

Webbscatering

[webbscatering]

A Nice letter from "Sprecher Grier Halberstam LLP"

 

Dear Sir & Madam,

 

We act for Unique Pub Properties Limited (Enterprise Inns),

 

We refer to the lease of the above premises dated 16 August 2007 between Unique Pub Properties Limited as Landlord, your company Limited and Kevin J*** W**b and Mic***** J***s as guarantors by virtue of which you quarenteed the performance of the tenants obligations by your company Limited

 

Under the terms of the Lease your company Limited covenated with the landlord thai it would:

 

1. Pay rent by equal payments in advance on the due date and all other sums payable under this lease by direct debit and without deduction or set off.

2. Pay interest on a daily basis at the rate of 4% above base rate for the time being of the national Westminster bank plc on any payment overdue.

3. Reimburse the landlord on demand for all costs relating to any breach or suspected breach of the tenants obligation.

4. Pay to landlord all proper Value Added Tax Charge.

 

Under the lease you covenated that if your company limited did not pay any monies due under the lease when it should you would pay it on demand and if your company limited, were in breach of any of its obligation under the leases you would indemnify the landlord in respect of all claims loss and liability arising as a result.

 

In breach of the terms of the terms of the lease and as at 12 May 2008 your company limited has failed to pay the following sum of £8***.73p (up to and including 31st May 2008.

 

Interest is due on the above mentioned arrears.

 

This letter is formal demand upon you to pay these sums to ur lient and make good the various breaches, failing which, our client has elected to forfeit the lease. This will be done by way of counterclaim in the proceeedings which you have issued.

In addition, Your Company Limited are in breach of the terms of trading and in this regard a notice pursuant to s146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 has been served. Damages will be sought from Your Company limited,

and you in this regard.

 

There is a bit more but just blah. blah, blah concerning bankruptcies and things.

 

Quite a good read and its all to stop me from perusing my claim for the return of my charges. Yes I owe them money as of the 12th of may excluding the unlawful charges it stood at less than 5.5k which in business terms is not a lot. There was a bit about if they suspected breach of the tenants obligations, In all fairness thats harsh if they think there is wrong doing then they can penalise you. But what do I have to lose I go to court demand they give me the information regarding the charges, they counterclaim with kick this basket out our pub!!

 

I under:-

Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20) s146.

Restrictions on and relief against forfeiture of leases and underleases.

— (1) A right of re-entry or forfeiture under any proviso or stipulation in a lease for a breach of any covenant or condition in the lease shall not be enforceable, by action or otherwise, unless and until the lessor serves on the lessee a notice—

(a)specifying the particular breach complained of; and

(b)if the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the lessee to remedy the breach; and

©in any case, requiring the lessee to make compensation in money for the breach;

 

and the lessee fails, within a reasonable time thereafter, to remedy the breach, if it is capable of remedy, and to make reasonable compensation in money, to the satisfaction of the lessor, for the breach.

(2) Where a lessor is proceeding, by action or otherwise, to enforce such a right of re-entry or forfeiture, the lessee may, in the lessor’s action, if any, or in any action brought by himself, apply to the court for relief; and the court may grant or refuse relief, as the court, having regard to the proceedings and conduct of the parties under the foregoing provisions of this section, and to all the other circumstances, thinks fit; and in case of relief may grant it on such terms, if any, as to costs, expenses, damages, compensation, penalty, or otherwise, including the granting of an injunction to restrain any like breach in the future, as the court, in the circumstances of each case, thinks fit.

 

and I Apply for relief and in this day and age where the pubco's are not favour of the month should stand a relatively good chance of a reprieve. But by putting my neck on the line we might expose the system of these penalties as unlawful.

Edited May 28, 2008 by webbscatering

[WIRHWYNH]

Hi mate,

Glad someone else gets letters like that n not just me!

I would be wary of throwing yourself at the court and applying for "relief" per se from their court action against you, as that courtroom will be the battleground of their choosing where their lawyers are likely to be well-known to the judge. David & Goliath rarely plays out as intended in court in my experience, especially if you intend to represent yourself (if not this will cost you dear whatever - that's the Catch22 of legal action of course).

Probably the best way of applying for relief would be to apply for an injunction (which amounts to a form of relief) against EI's action of revoking your lease on the basis of a legally "unproven" breach by you, on the basis that you have legally challenged the basis for the breach, but that challenge has not yet been given a fair hearing. I expect that you would be able to get an injunction on that basis and you could do that in a court local to you, which causes EI to fight the case on your home turf (or apply for a transfer) - whatever happens, it puts you on the front foot.

You need to take legal advice on this - maybe someone out there can comment or maybe FSB will give some free advice, or try a one hour free legal consultancy (with an experienced set of corporate/property not run of the mill solicitors), just to get a heads up. For a lawyer to prep an injunction can cost from a few thou to 10-15k, but someone may be able to advise how to do it cheaper - standard forms exist for most of this stuff now. Injunctions on property issues can be notoriously difficult to overturn and will no doubt buy you at least 12 mths time, by which time EI may have moved on to other issues. You need to be wary that if you lose your liabilities may be much higher, although the imdemnity in the lease in regard to lease probably as solid as EI would like you to believe.

I have some experience of the injunction path from the property development game and it will not make EI happy.

The only analogy to your case involving threats to revoke the lease that I've heard about involves breach action taken by a national against someone in the same boat as you, which i've heard about on another forum and I still have n't bottomed that out yet. in that case the pubco invoked a Section 25 eviction order and the lessee invoked a Section 26 response on the basis that the pubco had sthemselves breached the lease agreement (and ergo the tie agreement which forms a sub-part to the lease). On that basis, the lessee successfully argued that the pubco had broke the tie and the lessee then bought out from that day on. It took the pubco 7 years to evntually resolve it and it was only resolved (in favour of the lessee0 when the pubco bought him off, so they could sell the freehold as part of a big real estate deal.

There is thus real benefit in dragging this out, as time may not be on EI's side - EI may need to address various issues as part of the REIT process and will want no thorns in their side. You've already experienced a buy-out from your original Unique owners in just 2 years, so what will happen in the next 2. All my contacts tell me that although EI are sitting on a large asset portfolio, the worth of that portfolio is seriously questionable in the currnet market and may be overvalued, which will become clear to the stockmarket in time. EI's problem will be cashflow, as they will struggle with falling revenues (see current figures v last years!), plus higher costs and they can't easily borrow against their portfolio to get out of trouble. in my view this is the whole reason why EI have gone for REIT status and they will move out of the "indefensible" tie as a proactive measure, rather than be forced at some stage to do so. REIT is not the only way forward, as I believe they will also try and convert leases into tenancies over time as well. though I don't think this objective is achievable as there are less suckers willing to take pubs on, albeit a tenancy can look attractive v a lease with a premium buy-in, especially if gioven the corporate marketing spin.

Personally, I don't think EI is in as good a position financially as they would let us believe. EI's shares are 40% down on a year ago and Punch 60% down, so it's only a matter of time before one of these goes down, either by failing or acquisition. If it is acquired there may be more opportunties for lessees to renegotiate.

Have you put your case on other forums (or to FSB), e.g. Freedom For Pubs Association or Enterprise Inns PLC Tenants Support Group :: Index The latter seemed to be going somewhere but fizzled out in 2007.

Will have to discuss any more detail on PM me thinks.

Keep me posted

[WIRHWYNH]

Good to talk.

 

I think the wider community would benefit from a guide to dealing with pubcos when the going gets tough, as a one-off doc, as it very quickly gets hard to follow over numerous pages. Any volunteers to write it?

 

I don't have your experience as yet, but perhaps we could knock up an easy draft based on your experience to date or perhaps someone has done one already. Trawling around, there are numerous sites where the airings are similar, though mostly there seem to be a lot of licensees that have already been evicted. I've started eliciting views of thos who seem most informed, such as Bobfm on the NAL & FFPA sites, as he seems to have approached Bii on these issues (to no avail). Anyone in the same boat as us should check these sites/links out for wider reading:

 

Enterprise Inns PLC Tenants Support Group :: View Forum - Enterprise Inns PLC Tenants Support Group

The National Association of Licensees | Freedom2Choose

JFL - Justice For Licensees

Inn The Cold - Save Our Pubs

Freedom For Pubs Association

The Publican - Home

The Publican - Home - Beer-tie cheat claims proven wrong

House of Commons - Trade and Industry - Written Evidence

 

The winds of change are blowing!

[WIRHWYNH]

I have n't got to take the Mrs out for a meal, so have been busy. These atachments probably explain why Enterprise are not keen to go to court and admit what they charge/make profits under the tie.

 

The tie in many leases has got to be illegal under EU competition law - it's just that no-one has forced the issue in a court and there is no organisation capable of doing so. Bii and BBPA seem a bit too close to the pubcos and the rest are not organised enough (yet)!

 

Here is the government guidance on competition law as at April 2008 and also the BBPA guide to member pubcos on pub leases & tenancies, which makes interesting reading and would be a good attachment to a legal case.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2747&stc=1&d=1212009318

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2746&stc=1&d=1212009318

 

Hope the meal was good

BBPA_CODE_OF_PRACTICE_Second_Revision_2005.pdf

BERR%20paper%20(2).pdf

[webbscatering]

Thanks for the chat its a pity El Cajones is not about because like yourself he too has a logical brain and puts things into its perspective. The idea of drawing up a draft plan for all to view is a good idea, but until a proper test case is put into place it going to be while until we draw something up. I am intrigued with section 25 and 26 also the injunction I could do with more info to be posted again for all to see and give feed back on.

Going back to my case the Enterprise made it clear they will counter claim on my claim but what are they expecting the judge to ignore my opening argument and listen to them and say lets evict this guy because he works seven days a week for no pay but he dares to challenge the mighty enterprise for ruining his lively hood.. I don't think so!!, My claim is for info only and has no monetary value, My request is simple all i want is written proof that the charges are proportionate to their true losses. They are making a mountain out of a mole hill not me!! they want to evict me for questioning their principles of fining innocent hard working people who are struggling to make ends meet so the customer can have a local pub that they can enjoy a drink in.

[WIRHWYNH]

I think the tide is turning legally. Punch Taverns and Enterprise are operating virtually identically on a legal basis with respect to how their leases are drawn up, action on brulines issues, rent reviews, maint, eviction processes etc - not sure about the other pubcos, as examples are hard to find. Not so with the big 2, as examples abound and this doubles the number of disgruntled folk out there and thus the pool of experience, though the info and the contacts of those who have been through the mill are disparate on various forum websites.

As you and I both know, the legal process in case law generally works on precedent. What the big 2 are doing is steering judges in a very formulaic manner through the eviction process, giving judges little room to manoevre, but use the legal process under commercial property regulations, which generally operates in the pubco's favour, as they have done it hundreds of times. The use of an injunction gives the lessee the opportunity to intro previous cases which may be similar. If the judge is forward leaning, the big 2 will not then win, as per the example below:

The Publican - Home - Licensee wins court battle with Enterprise

Quoting aspects of such cases is basically what a defence lawyer should do and i would advise alll of us to find examples and maybe list them centrally on one of the forum websites.

With regard to legal costs and threats by pubcos that they will claim against you - whatever leases say, this is up to the judge as i understand it. They' re are several examples I have seen of judges awarding costs where they lie - can dig out the references if nec.

I don't have the time at the mo to pull this together, but we need someone who has - maybe somone who has lost their pub and wants to appeal? Similar, a legal firm might pick up the role of collating recent case law in the hope of cornering the market. This chap defending the case above, Spencer Glasher, may be worth contacting.

Keep me posted

[WIRHWYNH]

Just spoke with Inez Ward from the Mavericks case I sent you the link to.

She is behind the lapco initiative and the Justice for Licensees website: JFL - Justice For Licensees

She is making progress with the media and has a press conference on her harassment case today (worth noting for your racial abuse case), plus is making some political inroads. Suggest you link up - (send me a PM for her private email or email on the JFL website). We have discussed regional Enterprise/Punch lessee reps for organising national representation. You on board for your area? Anybody else out there?

[El_Cojones]

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

Edited August 17, 2008 by jonni2bad

[webbscatering]

Right There are many things making up the big picture

 

1. The Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 - My visit by Enterprise and being treated less favourably because of my race and colour.

 

2. Health an Safety - 37 faults with the electricity and the condemning of the central heating boiler and kitchen.

 

3. Breach in the agreement to carry out the remedial work to the pub.

 

So with their threat of forfeiture of the lease do I have enough to get and injunction against Enterprise should we go as far as court?

[El_Cojones]

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

[webbscatering]

El Cojones, I was more looking ahead of myself after reading the Wards demise with their injunction case, but we are in agreement that the work is down to them as previously posted in this thread.

[webbscatering]

Just a quickie, under the lease agreement there is a sub heading "Disputes"

 

if at any time during the term a dispute arises under the terms of this lease it will be refered to an arbitrator who must be experienced in the licensed property industry, and will act in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1996.

 

What Your Views On This?

[El_Cojones]

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

[webbscatering]

Hi People, i have been dropped in the mire by DAS who I thought would take up the case on my business insurance but they have found a way of getting out of it and I now have days to get my Allocation Questionaire in. I need help with this as there is really no time for legal advice unless I can apply for more time. In my AQ i want to put this in:

 

allocation questionaire

 

I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.

 

However, the continuing problem is (in common with other cases currently being brought by other customers) that Enterprise Inns refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime, I respectfully ask the judge to order a form of basic disclosure requesting Enterprise Inns to reveal the information I originally requested. As Enterprise Inns have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly,in utmost good faith and conduct themselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law.

 

But the problem is the forfeiture of the lease they are requesting how do I reply to this in my AQ?, can I have it put aside as this has no relevance to this case or do I attach a seperate sheet of paper with my defence on it?

[webbscatering]

This I hope will form all or part of my defence:

 

 

EI = Enterprise Inns.

 

1) On 26th June 2007 I sign a "Tenancy at Will" agreeing to take on the pub in return that there will be work done to correct the electricity as the previous tenants had the electric disconnected and was running the pub on generators and various mains wires were cut in order to connect to a generator. We agreed that there is also remedial work be carried out within a six month time scale all of which has been put in writing. Also the pub was in a bad state of repair which I agreed to put right. In August 2007 we are given the full and proper lease.

 

2) All was fine then the bad weather and smoking ban took effect the bank started to bounce direct debits which then affected beer orders, inevitably all orders gets put on stop. My BDM Chris E***s at the time gave us permission to get the beer from another source when it was made first aware the beer order was put on stop. A possible breach on my behalf for not having a direct debit in place and buying out the tie with permission?

 

3) So agreements get made to clear arrears and resume beer orders and agree to pay for beer before delivery. Then we start getting deliveries for beer before we have paid for placing the trade account into arrears yet again.

 

4) Six months later our business relationship falls apart as the Electrics, gas or asbestos testing has not been done, Contractors and myself have done work on the place using high powered machinery putting strain on the power supply and have been in areas of the building where asbestos is present exposing ourselves to potential asbestos risks. These breaches not only could have negated my insurance but has placed everyone in a vulnerable position with regards to Health and Safety which is covered by the control of asbestos at work regulations 2002. EI rented the building to me knowing full well it did not conform to Health and safety regulations as well as everything mentioned there is no smoke alarms and inadequate fire escape signs fitted and the building is not fit for the purpose it is intended for. I have lost valued custom because there is no adequate smoking facilities outside the pub as promised, and these smokers would prefer to use a grotty pub down the road that has one. Customers are now starting to question where the promised work is and are now looking at me for answers. EI come in and verbally assault me and treat me less favourably because of my colour.

 

5) My racial complaint goes in concerning this matter, EI send out a new BDM Janis and Area Manager Nick to discuss concerns with Brulines and hit upon my complaint, the summary of this meeting was we will look in to the racial complaint and suspecting possible breaches of buying out of tie issue a £1200 fine.

BDM clearly point out that the racial incident must be kept quiet and not go to press as I threatened to do.

 

6) BDM comes out and tells me nothing further will happen concerning the racial incidents as they have investigated fully and is happy nothing of this nature ever happened. I have two witnesses and they were never approached by EI over their account of the actual events.

 

7) This has now been confirmed by the EI company solicitors issuing a statement that the whole incident never happened.

 

8) I issued three preliminary letters requesting for the information with regard to the system of their penalties and request that they provide information that this is a true reflection of their losses. What they have provided so far is that regardless of what product you are accused of buying may it be a keg of beer costing £50, Keg of lager costing £75, a bottle of spirits costing £27 or a case of bottled beers costing £20 you will be fined £180 regardless, as this is an average cost of their losses. My requests is far from exhaustive as I want to know the true cost of their losses and I want them to show me how much they pay per product and how they calculate the penalties. It appears they are prepared to defend the £1200 penalty at all costs, this may be speculative but this system they have of fining their tenants must be unlawful.

 

9) They now counterclaim that I am now in breach of the lease agreement and want the pub back. This is clearly retaliatory because the information regarding their beer prices and system of fines are unlawful and this breaches an implied terms laid out in there lease that they would conduct business in compliance with English law. There is also serious breaches in the lease with regards to health and safety work as I now have a list with 37 faults with electricity and also according to the engineer the gas should have been condemned prior to opening back in July, all this is putting the lives of everyone in the pub at risk as well as negating my insurance. Their defence does not defend the penalties or the system in which they impose them. In respect of finances it would have been difficult to have closed the pub until the work was completed because we had taken out a secured loan to set up the business.

 

 

10) My Customers are now sending letters and emails to EI voicing concerns of the state of the pub and their failure to complete the work they promised to do. One local goes as far as getting a reporter to do an article which is headed “Where’s Our Re-Vamp". Soon after this article EI start the health and safety work some tens months after we signed which is still not complete.

 

a) My breaches are suspicion of buying out the tie, bear in mind they are using a monitoring system that still uses 56k modem technology and sends information down an unsecure line with no guarantee’s that the information has not been intercepted before they receive it, as well as not conforming to National Weights Measures standards. The metering system has broken down on several occasions where and engineer has been called. They are yet to provide sufficient evidence that I have brought out of tie apart from a set of printed figures that suggest I could have. This also provides another problem as we have no way of checking to see if the meter readings are correct. As there are no set parameters regarding meters most devices clearly show visible numerals i.e. water meter, electric meter, gas meter, petrol pumps...etc. this would enable me to cross check any discrepancies. EI device displays neither it is a box on the wall with no visible meter to display.

 

b) My other breaches is Not paying the rent on time and falling behind on payments although there is a clear history of regular payments still being made to this very day. It is essential to note that I have not withheld the rent at any time, also bear in mind each lease holder has two accounts with EI, a Rent and a Trade Account my trade account is at zero, it is my rent account that has arrears do not forget that EI are holding a £9000 deposit of mine. The fear of paying for your order before delivery is once it hits EI account they can still withhold beer orders and use the money to offset any debt they wish to put the money towards, when this happens this leaves you in an unfortunate position of buying out of tie. This could be looked at by the courts less favourably because this is a breach of the agreement but through EI not completing the said work within the time they stated then they caused me to breach on rent because of the significant drop in trade, caused by customers especially smokers who now prefer to use the grotty pub down the road which has a smokers shelter joined together with the non smoking customers who are unhappy with the general external appearance and the threadbare carpeting in the pub. They have voiced concerns that they are fed up of waiting for the revamp.

 

EI’s negligence has put people lives at risk which they seem not too bothered about that but they see my rent arrears a far superior breach. During the time the pub was in arrears and they had me collared and I basically had to agree to their demands I was then a good tenant, because I choose to challenge their regime of charges they want me out, they implied they would conduct their business with accordance to English law and their regime of penalty charges are in direct breach of UK law.

 

In respect to the business relationship breakdown this is entirely EI own making as there has been no response from the BDM Janis Silins since February either by a personal visit or by mail, to amicably resolve the issues stated mentioned in the letter.

 

It is stated in the lease agreement that if a dispute arises over the lease then the rights of arbitration would be used to help solve any issues. This was never given as an option they had every opportunity to go to arbitration when I issued the three warning letters stating I was prepared to take this to court.

[webbscatering]

Hi Rarebine, what was the outcome of your meeting with the silver fox?

[jonni2bad]

webs - I've only just started to read through this thread and I'm a little confused, to say the least.

 

Have you submitted the court claim or are you defending an action against you?

 

If you are defending, what are the POC in the case against you?

[rarebine]

Hi Rarebine, what was the outcome of your meeting with the silver fox?

most excellent really. Had someone sit in on the meeting as it was 'such a serious issue', not my words, and the wolf became a gentle lamb.

Quite boring really as I was up for a good row.

Seems the chap who did the spot check originally was a little exciteable. Was told verbally it was a small slap on the wrist. Ho Hum.

The spot check chap was adamant brulines would be installed anyway. The choices I was given were

a) Progress the breach and have all history looked into and fines would be accordingly high

or

b) Accept to have Brulines fitted and nothing more would be said.

I am many things, but stupid I ain't !

Reading between the lines are these spot check blokes on any sort of commission or bonus to get brulines in ?

Anyway wont see Foxy for another year now. Might see spot check chap soon though, not many of Foxy's pubs left open in my town so he has a shorter hit list than normal.

How you getting on ?

[Mark the Landlord]

Hi there, first time here so please forgive me if I am covering old ground...

 

How many people have been sent penalty notices from Enterprise Inns?

 

I was threatened with being sent a letter by our RDM, long story short.

 

Botched installation by Nucleus Data, incorrectly set up equipment, first accused of buying in real ale, proved that the monitoring system for line cleaning was inaccurate, agreed to having line cleaning sockets on the wall similar to keg cleaning heads. This stopped the error with real ales.

 

Then accused of buying in Carlsberg lager.

Enterprise claimed that the Brulines kit showed unexplained sales of Carlsberg.

Threatened with a penalty if I couldn't prove I hadn't.

(HOW CAN YOU PROVE YOU DIDN'T DO SOMETHING?!)

 

I demanded a break down of all sales by each pump, by the hour so I could investigate whether it was happening behind my back by a member of staff...

 

Discovered that their data was incorrectly recording on eof my real ale lines as Carlsberg.

 

Despite it being me who found the error, I have yet to receive any kind of formal apology from either either Enterprise Inns or Brulines for all the pain and stress caused. This happened back in March 2008!

 

Advice to anyone who has received a penalty from Enterprise.

 

Demand proof, demand that the equipment be checked and double checked.

Demand an hour by hour dispense report

Ask them to prove how the system determines line cleaning as opposed beer dispense.

When cleaning real ale lines, do you simply put the end of the ale line in to a bucket of water, or do you attach it to the cleaning ring main (like you do with lager, guinness etc).

Make sure that the results from each flow meter tally up with the report, in other words. For instance you have only one meter in the cellar for Carlsberg - so make sure that there is only one line of data on the dispense report for Carlsberg.

[webbscatering]

Hello Mark The Landlord,

 

Well done on finding the faults on your system, many landlords are suffering from this metering system with its flaws plus a massive amount of tenants are losing their pubs because of this system. To date no one has challenged them in court, I nearly did but they dropped the penalties at the last moment in the court and me with it... I lost my pub. They will go to great lengths to protect their system and if it means getting rid of potential threats then they will stop at nothing to do so.

Go over to this forum you can post what you have done here and get a better response.

 

  http://pubtrade.yuku.com

 

Cheers

 

Webbscatering

Edited March 12, 2009 by webbscatering

[MARTIN3030]

Kevin whats happening with your case ?

[webbscatering]

At the moment we are working on a counterclaim which I cannot go into great detail about, but they successfully got the eviction regardless of the fact we had the money to pay off the rent arrears to sop the eviction. Also we made a complaint with the OJC concerning the judge asking why he had heard our appeal on his own judgement he made previously, which was a complete waste of time!!. As for the charges that started this whole issue they dropped it at the last minute quite literally before we was due in court, which left me defenceless.