GMB mounts protest over evicted tenant

Roger I have attempted to impart you with the reason why contracts are written with legal terminology. Not to entrap, babboozle or confuse but to empart with precision and without need for definition the terms to apply. As I said substantially would require to be defined so that it could not be argued in court should the need arrise. I didn't say that atenant would sue just that inaccuracy or undefined or confusineg terminology makes for breakdowns in understanding which require definition and judgement in courts. Sorry if you do not understand this Roger but there it is. As to going to lengths either long or short I would remind you that I don't need to prove or justify anything. YOU asked the question why plain English isn't/can't be used in contracts and I have given you my opinion it's up to you to accept it or not. A sto making it competely understandable to tenants do they not have an obligation to achieve that understanding themselves or must it be laid on a plate for them? Ken NAson

Ken, forgive me I missed your further reply about the plain English contract. Dear, oh dear, you are so desperate. The word 'advise' imposes no contractual obligation on anyone. It merely precludes any liability of the Pub Co for the lessee later claiming they were unaware as to the effect that tied supply prices would have on their profits. It's called transparency and acting in good faith. Your final comment about the possibility of a lessee wanting to sue if he discovers Pub Co prices are NOT substantially higher than he can obtain elsewhere really does illustrate the ridiculous lengths you will go to in trying to defend the indefensible. As ever, Ken, your mind is completely closed to anything which might make a contribution to reducing the rate of lessee failures and the churn. Now why does that not surprise me one iota?

Ken was your criticism of a plain English lease document. "Plain English does not lend itself to such precise specification in contractual matters". If so, which bit of my sample text do you not understand and necessitates a solicitor to explain it to you?

Colin, is that really the best you can do? Consider it done that we can change the text to include the word 'perry'. So now the problem with lessees' understanding of a lease is not the legalese form of english but the total illiteracy of the prospective lessee. How does someone with such a handicap get through the Pub Co's exacting selection process?

Roger - see my post from 18th; it's really not difficult to see why legalese exists; if plain English were possible in legal paperwork then legalese would never have evolved in the first place.

Roger you aspire to greater depths of being unable to actually read what somone has posted. I must assume that you are not as stupid as your posts indicate and therefore must just be doing it for some ulterior reason. Roger I have already pointed out where your "contract" would be questionable as a contractual document.Ken Nason

Roger, you are making an unsafe assumption that even your 'plain english' would be understood by 100% of the incumbent licensees and therefore a solicitor and/or advisor is essential to the process. From memory, literacy has never been a prerequisite to moving into the licensed trade. However, even your own 'plain english' ( which you've obviously given great thought to ) has a fatal flaw re the tie on cider. Even though it may be branded as such, there is no such thing as 'Pear Cider' ..... it's called Perry.

Is there anything in my suggested format that necessitates a solicitor to explain or might not be legally binding if challenged in a court of law? Nothing whatsoever prevents a Pub Co using such simple language if it had the guts to do so.

Roger with the exception of "you are advised to base your trading profit projections on the difference between your intended selling prices and our product supply prices. For illustration, our current supply prices are listed in Appendix A. These prices are substantially greater than may be offered by alternative suppliers to their free-of-tie customers, " the contracts state in exactly the same terms as ou have illustrated. The quoted section illustrates why your interpretation of plain english does not lend itself to contractual methods.You are advised? and the contractual implications of not taking that advice is? You are making calculating the profit margin a contractual obligation?For illustartion, is this illustration a contractual requirement to follow?The prices are substantially higher.... define substantially, what if they are not can you sue?That my dear Roger is why your interpretation of plain english is NOT used in contracts. Ken Nason

Roger for some reason my reply to your post didn't appear. What it said was,That I have never said I was against contracts in plain english but had merely answered your question as to why they were not written in such. Therefore your thinly veiled attempt at inferring some clandestine vested interest in doing so follows all of your other such attempts onto the scrap heap. You really do spend a lot of time reading agents web sites Roger. A fixation perhaps? Ken Nason

Judging from your recent posts Ken, I think you can rule yourself out of any role in writing the plain English guide to the Pub Co lease. The kind of thing I was thinking of would be: "This contract requires you to purchase all draught and bottled beer and cider from ourselves. The products and brands we define as 'bottled beer/cider' are specified below. For these "tied products" you are advised to base your trading profit projections on the difference between your intended selling prices and our product supply prices. For illustration, our current supply prices are listed in Appendix A. These prices are substantially greater than may be offered by alternative suppliers to their free-of-tie customers, but you should be aware of your contractual commitment to purchase these products only from ourselves and at the prices prevailing at the time of placing your order. For other drinks products such as wines, spirits, liqueurs, and soft drinks you are free to negotiate best available terms with any supplier of your choosing. You should be aware of the measures we take to ensure you honour your commitment to purchase tied products from ourselves and the consequences of failing to honour your commitment. (Refer to 'Breach of Lease Agreement"). Any problems with this - in the interest of balance and fair play, as ever?

Again Roger your imagination runs wild. No comment was made by me against plain english contracts. If you recali I answered YOUR question as to why they are not written in Plain english. No agenda to keep solicitors in jobs Roger I'm afraid. Anyway, still avoiding the answer to my question. Ken Nason

Roger, as far as I understand it, many attempts have been made at producing 'plain English' contracts but the necessity to try and cover as many loopholes as possible always descends any plain English text back into Legalese? Surely, that's why legalese exists in the first place? I'm sure even the cleverest solicitor would rather interpret 5 pages of clear English than 50 pages of nonsense!

Roger, as usual, not at all. Given the costs of entering a tied lease, simple logic and/or intelligence dictates that the additional cost of a solicitor is money well spent. Do you have a problem with that?

How surprising that the two of you (in perfect unison) are not in favour of a simple plain English guide to help the prospective lessee actually understand the agreement! Something from an agent's website regarding solicitors; "many say that they can do the work for you but it becomes clear at an early stage that they don't have a clue!!!!" Colin, anyone would think you and Ken actually want people to be ignorant of the lease obligations!

Roger lest you forget my question "Perhaps you could tell us all how a tenant can be unaware of the prices being charged by his landlord and still sign a contract with him" still remains unanswered perhaps your good manners could streach to doing so as you raise the question of tenants being unaware. Ken Nason

Roger, firstly I already posted an answer to your misguided jibe but for some reason Publican didn't post it. Secondly Roger you again attempt to twist what is posted to fit your silly agenda.Your attempt to tie your question regarding leases being written in english to my answer regarding tenants being"aware" is typical of this.My aware answer was written on 11th whilst your question on english in leases was aked on 12th . You then proceeded to infer what I meant which I clearly pointed out was incorrect. Roger as you seem incapable of reading understanding and following simple posts written in the most basic terms no wonder you have problems with legally written documents. One must ask if you could even understand them even if they had pictures. As to my amswer on leases(posted elsewhere) they are written by lawyesr with legal terminology which is precise and concise and NOT open to interpretation. Plain English does not lend itself to such precise specification in contractual matters. I would have thoght such a knowlegable fellow as yourslf would have known this. Or as Colin has so helpfully suggested, employ a Solicitor. Ken Nason

Roger, it's even simpler than that ..... use a solicitor.

Perhaps you could answer for him then Colin, as it appears Ken has lost the power to answer for himself. Do you think a plain English simple guide to the complexities of a lease agreement would benefit prospective lessees and help them better understand what they are getting into?

Ken old chap, I strongly suggest that you disengage with poor old Roger, it's not really fair.

i would like to know the motive behind the gmb,s involment in the issue, and will they see it throuth to the conclusion. gmb fighting for self employed lesses.seems very strange to me.licencees UNITE working quitely on the sideline,with good industry relations,good look on your long turm recrutment drive, you will need it.

Ken, when I asked the question "Why can't the lease include a full explanation of the lessee's obligations in simple English?" you replied "Roger anyone who is "unaware" of anything on your list and still signs a contract requiring adherence to those points does not require sympathy but their heads looking at". Strange, but that doesn't sound to me like a ringing endorsement of the idea of a lease written to help the lessees awareness. Do you support the idea or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Roger my respons does not suggest anything of the sort, it states quite clearly what it says and is not open to your chosen interpretation. It, if you read it asked you a question which I note that with your usual sidestepping avoided answering in favour of hanging your usual completely contrary and inaccurate interpretation on it. Perhaps you could tell us all how a tenant can be unaware of the prices being charged by his landlord and still sign a contract with him. As to contracts in plain english I have as you know already answered that one. Ken Nason

So Ken, your response suggests you are not in favour of a clear, concise, comprehensive plain English guide to the terms of the lease. A guide which would help the prospective lessee avoid getting into something he would regret by accepting terms and obligations he might otherwise be unaware of or fail to understand. Why does your negativity not surprise me?

Roger anyone who is "unaware" of anything on your list and still signs a contract requiring adherence to those points does not require sympathy but their heads looking at. How can they be unaware of the price they will be charged? If they were then how can they produce an accurate projected P&L as a basis for their business plan, how can they set their selling prices, the basis for their income? Perhaps they don't perhaps it is this unawareness that is the basis for their failure in running a pub. Well done Roger you have identified exactly where the problem is, it's not the tie it's the lack of awareness of the tenant.Well done pity no one else has spotted it. Ken Nason

The lease is written by the Pub Co is it not. So whose fault is it that it contains terms (language) and conditions which require a highly-experienced and specialist solicitor to interpret. Why can't the lease include a full explanation of the lessee's obligations in simple English? We've already eliminated the prospective lessee being able to believe any spoken word from any representative (direct or indirect) of the Pub Co.

Roger - that's the nub of the problem - you can't list all those shortcomings like they're the PubCos fault. If I wasn't aware of even one of those things when I signed up then I'd make sure my solicitor was and get him to advise me. If I didn't understand what he was saying I'd damn well make sure I did before I signed anything...

I would imagine all tied lessees fully understand the gist of their obligations under the tie. Whether they understand precisely the brand/products defined by terms such as NAB's, LAB's, FAB's, PPS's, and RTD's is another matter. Many would not understand the relevance of the Minimum Purchase Obligation and the applicable penalties. Many would be unaware of the basis of rent calculations or the wholesale prices charged by the Pub Co (and the massive differential with FOT supply terms). All would be unaware (until it's too late) of the ethics of their so-called business partner. Apart from all that, everything's fine.

DW - I assume you have a reasonable accountant so your 8% net profit will be after a large part of your expenses - motoring, heating etc will have been biased towards the business. �32k net profit ain't bad in the current climate - i'm sure most of your staff would be very grateful

Steve I think you should open up a basic business skills course. There is clearly a need for it to seperate factual information from the emotional mist of hate the pubco bogey man ethos. Ken Nason

DM - there are two main points with regard to this. Firstly, GBP 400K seems to be an excellent figure for a "tiny backstreet pub" with so many local competitors, but then, like Colin, I fail to see what your gripe is? Yours would seem to be an excellent salary for what should be a relatively easy and cheap place to run? Secondly, my point about the rent being 'seperate' is that, it's not something they're taking from your business 'for free'. The rent is in payment for the use of their asset. More importantly, when you quote a ratio like 60%/8%, it is on the assumption that both amounts are comparable, but they're not - your 8% is net profit to you; their 60% is not net profit to them, it is their turnover! Their net profit from that is much lower, once all of their business costs are applied... A true comparison, if you wish to compare what you and they 'take' from your business, would be to compare their net profit from that figure with yours?

Steve W do you think 400k for a tiny backstreet pub is a poor performer with 16 competitors on our doorstep? How is rent a seperate deal from my analogy of Regent Street?

DM - your 60% / 8% on the face of it looks abominable BUT you are, of course, including the rent they take for the use of their property in those figures, which is seperate to any other business 'deals'. I would imagine (because I don't know your exact figures) that it is the low level of your turnover that is the problem, not the percentages themselves, because 8% of turnover is actually quite a healthy return for a licensee these days (I only get around 9% and I'm free-of-tie). Also, of course, the percentage of turnover that's made up of rent will increase as turnover decreases, because rent is a fixed cost...

Ken, at a stroke you have just emptied all of the online fora. It should be fairly quiet around here now with nobody whining.

Hands up all those who thought there was nothing factual in my last call for a show of hands. Oops yes theres Roger at the back so just for him....Are there any tenants of a pubco who didn't know that they were contractually tied for their stock supply (however much or little), at a price to be determined and charged by their landlord? Are there any tied tenants who didn't know that by having to pay a higher price for stock than a free of tie establishment they would either have to reduce their gp% or increase their selling price? Of course not. But if there are then they have no place in this trade.Happy now Roger? Ken Nason

Andy and Janie, voices of down to earth factual reason. Not that it makes your life easier but it displays why you with your realistic perceptions are more likely to be still standing when the dust settles and the trade moves on after the recession.Ken Nason

Mark Daniels you are absolutely right there are many reasons for pubs going bust. But why oh why do the powers that be so readily attempt to ignore their tenants issues. Too often the posts on here are adversarial. Many tied pubs are suffering because of unrealistic biased rents and extortionate beer prices. Yes both parties have a right to earn money out of an agreement but does it have to be so one sided. Before I'm shouted down by the I'm alright Jack brigade or the I'm suffering as a freeholder, I am well aware that many are having a tough time not just tied houses. When are the BBPA amongst others going to admit that so many disenchanted ( IPC, ALMR, GMV, BESC, FAIRPINT, JFL), have issues that need addressing?

Steve W. Its simple but I will explain it further for you. My pubco makes 60% of my turnover and I make 8%. If you think that is fair then your mind is possibly closed.

Colin Matlock - Normally I agree with many things you say, but saying that "any tied landlord in trouble only has themselves to blame" is a little harsh. Irrespective of the tie, there are tied (and untied) licensees who are struggling, and not all of that is down to individuals who didn't do their due diligence before buying into their businesses. Some of it is simply the market place, or other factors affecting their business right now.

Ken, this childish habit of yours of conducting imaginary polls and counting imaginary raised hands to try and prove your point is really irritating. Is there any chance you could argue based upon facts?

I agrre that you should go into this business with your eyes open and hindsight is a wonderfull thing. Knowing what you are signing is one thing but working the business and then finding out what it is you have signed is totally differant in reality. There are extras that get added on especially with Punch pubs, beer is more than double the price, there is a payment every month for the licensing fee, buildings insurance which they arrange, a rating fee that you have to pay, rent for the accomodation upstairs at around £100 per week (we are not allowed to sublet or live off site) and the business rent is phenomenal which in turn makes the rates huge and we are as most fully repairing which in an old building is costly in the extreme and utlities and wages for a business with food open for 13-14 hours a day can be expenential. We are lucky as we have an old vanguard lease so better of than most. I love this trade have been in it a long time and cannot imagine doing anything else but it is has got to be a lifestyle to make anything of it especially in a community local, we have all got to realise the days of the old landlord with money under the mattress are gone,this is a new animal now and we have got to run it as such to the best of our ability or get out of the race!!! Harsh but true I cannot see the beer tie changing any day soon

Twenty five years ago I was offered a vanguard lease. Having consulted my solicitor I was not happy with the terms and rejected it. I bought a run down freehold instead which now happily does in excess of 600 bbls per annum. It was done by getting on with it and not expecting someone else to do it for me. There is no right to be profitable in any business. If you can't stand the heat get out of the fire

What a short memory you have Colin, a few months ago you knew of a handful of people who went to court protesting their innocence ! “how few licensees who have been 'caught' buying out by Brulines , have refused to pay because they were innocent and have thus gone to Court to defend their position. I know of only a handful.” COLIN MATLOCK – The Publican.com 21 May 2009 A licensee was taken to court by Punch for allegedly buying beer outside the tie. Punch was last week granted an interim injunction against licensee Dave Westwood of the Vine at Rugeley, Staffordshire. Mr Westwood who has denied tampering with the beer-monitoring equipment has called into question its accuracy and has always protested that he has never bought beer from anyone other than Punch. http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=28244 Brulines apologises to licensee threatened with court action - THE ACCURACY of the Brulines beer monitoring system has been cast into doubt after the company admitted falsely accusing a licensee of buying out of the tie. A spokesperson for UPC said: “UPC does have a buying-out policy and acts on good faith on the information provided by Brulines. http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=53272 To conclude; I would like to clarify that i have no objection to beer line monitoring, but it needs to be accurate, reliable and transparent. It seems that according to many, Brulines possess none of these attributes. The question needs to be answered, and that can only come from an external enquiry, not Brulines spin. The BEC report was damning, that should be just the beginning.

Colin it is you who is naive, the fact is Trading Standards ARE involved AND interested, contact Bedford Trading Standards agency for one. And you are factually incorrect in your assertation that Brulines evidence is only used in court when a tenant has "freely admitted" his guilt. What utter rubbish ! where do you get your info from?

Rachel, how can you even write a comment like that?? Please be specific, what do I "not have a clue" about?

yES YOUR RIGHT WE DID SIGN AN AGREEMENT BUT ONE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED THE PUB CO TO WORK WITH THE TENNANTS NOT AGAINST THEM BY FORCING MONEY VIA A SYSTEM LIKE BRULINES WHICH IS NOT ACCURATE AND THEY KNOW IT. IF THE SYSTEM WAS TRUSTED THEN FINE BUT ITS NOT . FROM WHAT I AM TOLD ITS ONLY A QUESTION OF TIME NOW BEFORE BRULINES WILL BECOME A WORTHLESS PEICE OF EQUIPMENT. aND NEXT ON THE LIST IS HIGH RENTS AGAIN THEY KNOW WHEN YOU CANT MAKE ENDS MEET FROM THEIR BRULINES SYSTEM REPORTS!!!!. OH YEAH THEY DONT WANT TO TAKE ANY NOTICE THEN . IF THERE IS ANY ONE OUT THERE WHO DOUBTS THIS SYSTEM THEN DO IT GET IT TESTED BY TRADING STANDARDS AND LETS WORK TOGETHER .....

STEVE W. you really do not have a clue.

Hands up all those tenants of a pubco who didn't know that they were contractually tied for their stock supply (however much or little), at a price to be determined and charged by their landlord? Now hands up all those Tied tenants who didn't know that by having to pay a higher price for stock than a free of tie establishment they would either have to reduce their gp% or increase their selling price? No body owning up therefore no complaints then Ken Nason

Jamie Denman - a very sensible post, thank you...

d - I AM a PubCo licensee? But I don't experience bullying because if they had to bully me then there's obviously something deeply wrong with the relationship which I'd work to resolve quickly...

DM - you seem to have your figures mixed up - I know of no business that's achieving a return of "60% of turnover"? But if you're talking about GP then the "8% of turnover" is also woefully incorrect?

Steve G , you appear to be more than a little naive on this subject. 1. Trading standards have no interest in Brulines, it's outside of their remit. They are only interested in issues that directly effect the consumer, just as the OFT. 2. Brulines do not give evidence in Court unless a tenant has freely admitted to buying out in which case their data can be used to assess liquidated damages.

'David' no, I'm not a tied tenant, mainly because common sense prevailed. Any tied tenant in difficulty really only have themselves to blame. They signed a contract, couldn't make it work and reap the whirlwind because of it. No different to any other business sector.

Dan Dan you did the right thing by calling in Trading Standards which vindicated you. If everyone who has an issue with Brulines does the same, and my guess is there are many out there, they would be innundated. Brulines should never be allowed to testify against any tenant, because they earn millions from the Pubco's they are not independent and not impartial. Also, if you are accused of buying out of tie, quote the BEC report, I think it will carrry much more weight than Brulines would like to admit.

Colin Matlock please do not comment on things you do not know. You are not a publican, so butt out.

The Beer Tie is simply Additional Rent by another name. It is however adjusted as a function of Sales. As an independent owner / operator I wish more of my costs were adjustable on a proportion my turnover! I am very sorry to hear of anyone loosing their business and their home, but the terms of leases are freely entered into. The terms of many pub leases signed years ago would then have enabled the tenant to make a decent living. The problem is that times and conditions have changed and many of these leases now make it very difficult for the tenants to make living. In some cases the Pub Co / Landlord / Freeholder / Brewery may be in position to renegotiate with the tenant, but in most cases they are not! In the cases of many of the Pub Co's, if they did negotiate away some of their income, they would quickly become insolvent and collapse! The real issue here is not that the Pub Co's have shifted the goal posts since the tenant signed the lease, but that the Government has! Over the last ten year the Pub industry has had more and more taxes and compliance costs piled on it's back. It should be no surprise that it is now giving-way under the burden. The Beer Tie is a Red Herring! The Government needs to ease the burden or the industry’s collapse will continue and accelerate! Rather that fighting amongst ourselves, all elements of the industry should get behind a campaign to persuade both this Government and the next one to get off our backs!

Well armed with this info from Trading Standards where do we go? There must be some way to stop these pub co conning money out of tennants. As soon as they think theres a breach they are like scavengers and bully untill you give in and pay what they say or be evicted. Just like this poor man.

A contract is a contract and that's all there is to it. If you don't like it, don't sign it and go and buy a freehold pub somewhere.

Is it OK for one of your barstaff to help themselves to your cash or stock because they feel they’re under-paid and don’t have enough to live on? Theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up. We all knew the rules before we joined the club!

steve w, the beer tie is the worst thing that has been inflicted on this trade, the sooner it goes, the better, the future may not be easy, but without the leecherous pubcos on our backs we will almost be able to compete in a very competitive market. if you are so happy with the pubco's, go and experience exactly what it is like to be bullied by them! the people who are tied to these pubco's do not deserve to be on the end of this bullying, most of them will be homeless before christmas, if it was a pubco employee, you would feel sorry for them !

The tie can never be seen as competitive, paying up to 46p a pint more for Worthingtons Creamflow than at Bookers never mind a beer wholesaler, high rent high beer , what competitive edge is there for us.

Steve W, your comment that a "A freeholder has invested a considerable sum in the property so must expect a return on this investment, " is fair. But, a return of 60% of turnover against 8% for the leasee is far from fair. Commercial Landlords on Regent Street don't make that kind of killing.

Well said Steve W. I have freeholds and leases by choice. everyone goes into a pub with the knowledge that it is tied or free of tie. if you don't want to be tied to a landlord don't take the pub in the first place...................................

Steve we know your pubco give you plenty of help. The point is the tied pricing system is not as transparent as a straightforward rent only system and beer prices are being manipulated to cover the pubcos excesses resulting in the bankrupting and eviction of thousands of honest landlords. As more pubs close the loss of revenue if you are tied will be passed on to you. Im allright at the minute jack is no stance to take.

Dan Dan you MUST be mistaken because Brulines consistently claim their equipment is accurate and reliable. How embarrassing when the BEC found huge errors at the pubs they investigated so they declared that Brulines equipment should never be used to enforce beer tie. What did Brulines do? they just laughed it off and said that they were taking legal advice. You are not the only pub who called in Trading Standards. No doubt Brulines are involved in theis mans story. More than once it has been suggested that Publican or Morning Advertiser conduct a readership poll but neither is interested, maybe through fear of losing advertising revenue, I dont know. If a sufficient body of evidence was compiled it could settle the matter one way or the other, so come on Publican, how about it?

Dan Dan, please tell me more of Trading Standards investigation. p.davies12@homecall.co.uk Thanks

Well talking about buying out if brulines played any part then its unfair. I have had Trading Standards carry out an intensive test on the brulines system that is in my pub and guess what it showed differences in what was poured to what registered. The difference showed that more had gone through than was poured. That indicated a breach???? But there was not one??????

Sha - I'm not really for or against the tie, actually; my support for it comes from the fact that it exists and I believe that if it were to disappear it could potentially be a lot worse for all of those who currently use it. Regarding your desire for an explanation on competitiveness, I'm continually astounded that any business person should need this explaining! Your beer tie has NOTHING to do with competitiveness, you're looking at it from the wrong angle. A freeholder has invested a considerable sum in the property so must expect a return on this investment. Conversely, a lessee hasn't (because their landlord has), so must expect to pay more somewhere else? You should still expect a return but it is folly to expect the same level of return as a freeholder. If you got your beer on the open market then your rent (or something else) would go up instead, because your beer tie forms part of the overall inestment return for your landlord? There's an easy way to resolve it if you're not happy - go and borrow +�500K and buy a freehold (or buy your current pub's freehold if available)? I don't mean that in a rude sense, it's just a plain and simple fact that seems to get lost somewhere in the emotion of all of these tied arguments? The only publicans who can justifiably let emotion get in the way of their business decisions are, for example, those who have a pub that's been in the family for generations (so it has much more value to them than simply a place of business). And before I'm accused of missing the point of being a publican, that statement has nothing to do with passion! I'm passionate about my pub and my customers BUT I'd walk away in an instant and do something else if I couldn't make money from it, because it's a business...

Old-Gov, this story is about Admiral Taverns, not ETI.

There is nothing competitive with pubco charges, I have to pay £60 - £65 extra for a fosters from my pubco, then a freeholder, what is competitive in that. Perhaps Steve W could explain this, as he is so in favour of the tie.

This is the traditional problem. The landlord claims that by the tenant buying out of tie the tenant is effectively stealing their profits [ a Tuppen expression] while the tenant on the other hand is being charged a rent that totally fails the prime principle that the tied tenant should not be worse off financially than if they were free of tie. Could that be construes as the landlord stealing from the tenant. Both are requirements of the lease, the tie and the prime principle and one cannot exist without the other. This begs the question, does two opposite wrongs make it right? Not really because the lease was drawn up by the landlord who should know wha is right and what is wrong while the tenanat, and many advising solicitors will not.

Competitive prices, are they having a laugh, there is noting competitive with the prices charged by Enterprise Inns.

I feel sad, not for the landlord or licensee but for the fact that any situation in our industry can escalate to this sort of level. Surely, to get this far, both parties must be to blame and it's a great shame something can't be worked out amicably...