Punch due in court over false barrelage claims

Or.....................it could just be that the plaintiff didn't have a case. Of course that couldn't possibly happen if a Pubco was involved could it?
Ken Nason

If I was a cynic I MIGHT THINK THAT Punch HAVE MADE A DEAL. The nice man goes away, and we do not have any baddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd publicity.

Don't speak too soon, there is something that has not be disclosed, but you know how things happen, leave it a little while and the real truth will come out.

Apparently a deal was struck last week, punch are trying to spin that they were in the right, but there is somthing going on that makes no sense. More investigating needed!

I understand that all allegations have been withdrawn and Punch have been paid an out-of-court settlement.

Whoops. That all went a bit wrong for the We Cant Lose brigade!

BRM, no not saying that at all. I did all of my investigations that I was able to do and because of my position with the company I had faith in their figures. Actually got copies of delivery notes for the two months before I took over and matched them to the MAT and helped me with product stocking. I was in the position of knowing the district manager personally at the time which was why I knew there was another reason for the discrepency other than subterfuge by the brewery.

Yes I have made many mistakes during my time in the trade which is what qualifies me to point them out to others not as critisism but as constructive critisism of where they can go wrong.The help is there people can take it or leave it, their choice
Ken Nason

Can anybody out there with the knowledge give an update on the outcome of the case? It should be finished by now

Mr Nason, are you saying that you did not do your homework on your first pub and did not investigate thoroughly the information presented to you by the brewery. Something that I believe you constantly criticise others about?

Ken never the less an extremely interesting one, would you say!

Media girl unfortunately not a hope in hell. Just because an MP (even a minister) recommends it doesn't make it law. Even after, or if, it becomes required it will only be from the date designated. There will of course be a run up period where all systems installed have to be brought up to standard and after that date it will become an offence. So your whishful thinking will have to remain just that I'm afraid.
Ken Nason

Just read the actual press release on the Robin Hood site and one salient point was left out of the report here in that the pub was previously a spirit managed pub.

A very interesting case as they say they based their calculations on the barellage figures quoted on the agents pariculars(which of course are not guaranteed indeed specifically stated as such and required to be verified)

A multi faceted case rather than the straight forward Punch is guilty one portrayed by some
Ken Nason

Hopefully today should see the end of this case, now that the government have stated that Brulines has to be properly monitered , will this affect todays findings, one wonders? Ant thoughts?

I feel sure that this sort of thing happens on a regular basis. The difference this time is that there seems to be written evidence to support the claim of falsified barrelage figures. Good luck to you Mr Sambell. Mr W Smith, Devon

Hopefully tomorrow we should know what the outcome is. The transcript should prove interesting reading.

Scooby, time will tell whether they do or not.
Ken Nason

Gubgadin, ok scooby is in possession of two apparent pieces of evidence. One is the mat of what is supplied to the pub the second is the vat return of the outgoing tenant.

The vat shows less sales than the mat therefore the mat is wrong, its the conclusion drawn by you all. Why? Because you want it to be that way. You have a preconceived idea and fit the evidence to match your conclusion can you not see than?

Can you not see that is the conclusion drawn by everyone regarding the ongoing case against Punch without hearing any of the evidence for goodness sake.

It could be just as conceivable that the tenant was fiddling his vat return and under declaring sales is it not?

In my first tenancy I was given barellage figures by the brewery and after the first month these numbers were not matching up despite customers telling me that the pub was never busier. I took this up with the brewery rep who assured me the supply figures were correct. On further investigation I found that they were true but only when I was given the information that the previous tenant entertained in the pub until 4am most nights, most of the local hunt who he was a member of, did the reason for the discrepancy come to light.No one was lying or deceiving or commiting fraud just not all the facts were known to me.

Do you see why these matters need investigation before conclusions are drawn?
Ken Nason

Ken I'm not assuming anything of that kind. It's been stated on here that Scooby is in possesion of two pieces of evidence. An barrelage statement provided by the pub co and also VAT returns/barrelage figures from the previous leaseholder. If the MAT figures provided by the pubco are wildly over what was actually bought/sold by the previous leaseholder then who are we to believe? Bloody hell Ken, I'm all for taking into account both sides of a story and I'm not daft enough to think that the pub co is to blame in every single situation but there's that much smoke then I bet there's also one heck of a fire somewhere. If the court rules against Punch in the current ongoing court case will you accept that they are not whiter than white?

No, it's not outside of tradeing standards remit at all, this is exactly what tradeing standards are supposed to be doing, they usually avoid takeing on such big companies though. It's all about fraud and deception, they are finally seeing how big this problem is and how long this scam has been going on!

Scooby, I find it very interesting that trading standards would be involved in this matter as it surely is outside their remit. Surely you way forward is with litigation in court as with the ongoing case at the moment shows. As this is a civil matter the onus is for you to show that you were induced to sign the contract based on figures provided. This will of course be difficult and for lawyers to do as any figures supplied will have come with the aforementioned caviets as to decisions not being based on them.
>br> So please keep us all posted as to trading standards progress in this matter.
Ken Nason

Gungadin, it is interesting to note that the only reasons you can find for the new tenants turnover being less than supplied to the previous tenant is that the figures were wrong. It couldn't even be considered that the new tenant might trade differently from the previous one or that trading i the area could have changed. It is rather a closed minded assumption based on pre-conceived ideas
Ken Nason

Ken I qoute you "Presumably then you will have received a written copy of the supplied MAT barellage prior to taking the pub with notice that this was what had been supplied via the supply agreement to the pub.over the preceeding 12 months(min). You will have also received notice that this should not be taken as proof of sales and that you must ascertain the potential turnover yourself" Surely if this MAT statement was supplied by Punch and relates to goods bought from them then surely that should be a tablet of stone? There are only 2 other things it could be 1) This is what has been bought from the pubco and the previous licensee had been buying out of tie? This means that if Scooby did his/her figures based on the pubco figures then he/she is a winner as the pub has actually being doing more that this? 2) These figures are actually 'fabricated' and have no truth in them whatsoever?

ken, thank you for your help, but this is being investigated by Tradeing Standards now, it has become absolutely clear that false tradeing figures were applied here and there are now several other cases which have come to light, according to tradeing standards we have more than enough evidence to convict the pub company concerned, this looks like a very large can of worms, tradeing standards are saying that there is also a case of "Modus Operandus" that has been applied here, so prison sentence's are looking very likely.

Scooby you can call me ken as it is my given name.

Presumably then you will have received a written copy of the supplied MAT barellage prior to taking the pub with notice that this was what had been supplied via the supply agreement to the pub.over the preceeding 12 months(min). You will have also received notice that this should not be taken as proof of sales and that you must ascertain the potential turnover yourself.

Barellage figures however accurate are only a statement of what has been supplied and not a guarantee of sales. There could be reasons why the sales in the pub were short of previous years supply figures and false figures is the least likely.
Ken Nason

Publican do you have news on this case yet? how is it going?

Colin I have read it.

Mr Nason, I bought my lease from the pub company, they assured me that the previous leaseholders had failed because they were lazy and they under-invested in the business, apparently, this also happened to all of the previous leaseholders going back to 1994. The pub company also assured me that the barralage figures they qouted me were a conservative qoute. I am a little annoyed with the way things have turned out.

good luck at present my partner and I are taking our pubco to court for mismanagement of our account, I hope you succeed. it is costing us a fortune but we wont back down because we have all the proof and they keep changing their accounts to match whatever figures suit them

Scooby, did you buy the lease from the Pubco or from the outgoing tenant?
Ken Nason

I am also involved in a court battle with my pub company, They actually put the barralage they were declareing to me in writing, but after taking on the lease, i soon found that the figures were realistically below half of what they qouted me,(though i did get the takings up substantially) I also now have the ex-leaseholders on board, who have shown me figures which completely clash with the pub companies claims,(and VAT returns) I cannot see how they are going to get out of these court cases, there is simply no defence.

Tilly, read it, understand it and then get back to me with specifically why you think that.

All eyes on this case, I hope the Publican are able to report day by day on this, as it is a major case. Anyone can go along, but for those not in the area, we will rely on the Trade papers.

Oh Dear ! Punch bit on the ar** by their own guard dog ! Hilarious! Good luck guys .

Colin Matlock I would suggest that in relation to the 2006 Fraud Act, some members of certain pubcos might fall under this act.

Tied tenant, no they are not, they are weighing up the evidence before them and making a judgement. Unless of course you are saying that they are viewing cases with pre-conceived judgements in which case they are derelict in their duty and must be brought to account.
Ken Nason

Mary the word was used as a descriptive basis of behaviour (based on frenzied uninformed posts on this matter) rather than an offensive adjective, but I am sure you know this. And yes the mire that come to court to be decided the less Pubcos will be inclined to push the boundaries of what they feel acceptable behaviour

The only way to stop what others call abuse and bullying and I call hard business tactics is to present a wall of resistance to that behaviour and for tenants to use their rights under the contract as Pubcos have done for years.
Ken NAson

Tied Tenant, sorry but the Court's job is to apply the law of the land without bias, fear or favour. Try not paying your rent and see how they "see things in a positive light for tenants,"

The very idea of Punch being caught out by Brulines data is hilarious. Simply hilarious!!

Della I agree with you, the courts are starting to see things in a positive light for tenants, times are changing.

Ken- I am too old in the tooth to take offence at you referring to tenants as a mob. You are right in that this will not in itself be all damning but it does raise the issue to a higher platform. Lets see what the courts have to say before commenting further, after all thats what they are for.

Ken, oddly enough I can't find a reference on any Court file schedule up to the end on March to anything other than the Sambell case and a number of possession hearings, aka evictions. Now it could be that by some fluke they're "all" geared to fire off simultaneously on April 1st, someone else can comment on how appropriate that might be.

Ken, there are around 30 cases that I am involved in, others come to light each day, I stand to be corrected on these figures.

Smithers just how many are in the pipeline that we have to look at?
Ken Nason

Della Howells, well said, It is worth remembering that the Pubcons are very easy to beat in court at the moment, I think this case will go all the way and I feel your friends will win. Times are changeing rapidly, the boot is firmly on the other foot, though some PUBCON HUGGERS on here will continuosly SPIN propaganda suggesting otherwise. You only have to look at how few HAPPY LEASEHUGGERS there are on this forum to see how many court cases are in the pipeline against pubcons! frankly, the more, the merrier!

Karl, you DO come up with the most inane waffle at times. You applaud the Sambell case, but it begs the question WHY didn't Fairpint financially support a similar case two years ago? Is the misrepresentation of barrelage figures a new phenomenen? Personally I think that caveat emptor also applies to donating money to a campaign for action. "Have a look at the Fraud Act 2006"? I know it chapter and verse Karl, so don't tempt me.

psalvadori. That has always been my whole point! Individuals who feel wronged should take their cases to Court. This is not the first to make it that far, nor will it be the last. It is the correct and peoper way to do things and if he has been misled, I sincerely hope he does win his case.

smithers. Apology for what?

Mary the operative word being IF and it all has to be proven. The fact that any case comes to court does not mean that the claim is found only that there may be a case to answer. That case must be proven.Which correct me if I am wrong is why we have courts.

Unfortunately even if found that there was misrepresentation and the case goes against Punch that does not open the floodgates to claims by all. It means that in this one case they were guilty as charged and there is no basis to assume that in all cases they did the same.

So the mob can put away their flags of celebration as they can only be used in this case.
Ken Nason

This should make for a very interesting case. Not too long ago Punch would have settled this out of court, one must wonder why not this time? Are they confident that they will win or do they simply not have the money to settle any more? Who knows. One thing that is evident and that is that there are multiple court cases and other actions being reviewed and proposed. This case shows that competant experienced operators have potentially been misled and looks set to be explosive. What chance do inexperienced operators have in being successful if their so called business partners are found to have acted in the manner?

Ken, this appears a black and white case, and the implications are potentially hilarious, hence my irony in what was intended a humorous post. Colin, irony seems completely lost on you. HL, peoples issues are different and it takes time to consider the best route with so many different grievances and so many potential court cases. At the moment defence is the best form of attack. Regarding the subject of this thread, a deal will be done and sadly detail will be suppressed.

Media girl and others, isn't justice great. Seems you have already decided this case before it has even got to court so why bother?

No need to provide evidence or offer a defence or have someone sit in learned judgement, the mob has already decided.I really wish you could all hear yourselves.
Ken Nason

Just a wild guess but you might find that Punch form part of their defence around the fact that the equipments provided by Brulines is inaccurate and can't be relied upon. Of course that is true and the equipment is not fit for purpose. Some people, such as Chris Roberts/Colin Matlock who regularly post here who seem to misunderstand the law. They sit back on caveat emptor as though it has more meaning that it has in reality. The principle, and that's all it is, suggests that when buying you should ask the right questions. Of course, if you ask the right questions and are given highly misleading answers then there may be an offence, or a breach of contract that ought to be challenged. Have a look at the Fraud Act 2006. Its good to see Mr Sambell pushing the point. I'd expect Punch to cave in at some point and settle.

Punch make my blood run cold!These are three decent guys who have a fantastic thriving pub thanks to them working really hard! As for Phil being a lemming i can tell you know he is one of the most intelligent articulate blokes I know they deserve their day in court and if there is any justice in this world they will win and hopefully give some hope to all the other tennents who have been screwed by punch!

Happly Leaseholder, there are more in the pipeline. There are other tenants making history, all being in the back ground at present, when the time is right, there will be a lot more for certain pubcos to worry about.

I take it that is as near as colin / HL could ever manage at an apology. Incidently colin, I am a publican, that's why I comment on this forum, You however are not a publican, so please share the reason for your presence on here with us ????

Mediagirl. Nothing like a little pre-judging! The case has not yet hit the Courts, but you and the normal anti-tie spouters, have Punch hung already. Sweeping, silly statements such as yours, smithers, psalvadori really do nothing for your cause in the eyes of many lease holders! Let us all wait and see.

Smithers. I wasn’t mis-sold anything! Your sweeping statements are as usual total tripe. I did not care what Punch said the barrelage figures where, I worked it all out for myself. It is not that hard, anyone trusting any seller 100pct is a fool!

Smithers, there is seemingly no end to your quite ludicrous drivel. No, you didn't allude to this Court case and there are very good reasons why you wouldn't have had any knowledge of it. 1. The PRM is not involved... 2. The GMB are not involved... 3. You do not have a pub and are not connected with the trade in any way... Of course, feel free to post details of any other cases before they appear in the news, we'd all be glad to hear of them.

Psalvadori. This guy is just doing what Colin, Ken and myself have said should be done; doing battle in Court!

What a terrible state of affairs, How can anyone trust Punch Taverns? this case hopefully will let the courts see just what the modern day pubcos are like, how they operate, tenants have been seeing this side of the pubcos for quite a while, it is time that the courts and the media are also aware of the shoody practices that go on.

Colin this is not the only case being heard in the courts, all will be reveiled in good time. You know that it is better not to speak until you have something to speak about. There are a lot of people doing it the right way through the courts.

Paul you seem to be spouting rubbish. Any comments that I have made regarding contracts is in respect of tenants knowing and abiding by those terms and not complaining about them after knowingly signing.

I have always advocated that if a pubco has not kept to the terms of the contract then it is up to the tenant to take legal action against them (as the pubco would do to the tenant) All this brings is "I can't afford it".

Contracts are two sided and any breaches are equally wrong and accountable.

In this case we have someone prepared to do what every tenant is entitled to do but moans rather than does. It will be worth watching and I hope Publican report it for the landmark action it could turn out to be.
Ken Nason

Incidently, you will be hard pushed to find any lease that has been sold honestly, as far as i am aware, all our leaseholders have been misled over the "qouted barrelage" by various Pubcons and agents.

Ken, Colin, HL and other PUBCON HUGGERS, I did try to tell you about this court case and the long list of others that are in the pipeline, at the time you Rubbished me, So i shall look forward to your Grovelling Apologies! You really should listen to Smithers in future!

Paul, as to "Sambell you are a lemming you cannot challenge a contract" I can only hope that your level of naivete is not indicative of the whole of GMB/PRM but I have an awful feeling that it is. Contracts are LEGAL documents and if you need to challenge it, guess where you do it? Well done, the COURT and not with some irrelevant rubber sabre rattling from an irrelevant union. Do yourself a favour and in contract law look up "bad faith contract" and "unconcionable bargain". Those are good places for a novice to start. At LAST we have some sanity surfacing, just a shame that Sambell and Co haven't had the support or benefit of all those donations appropriated elsewhere. Nice piccies though.

So Brulines figures do not match Punches barrelage figures. Come on Punch who screwed up? BRULINES RIGHT OR PUNCH TAVERNS RIGHT, I would think it amounts to the same thing! Not very good publicity for Punch is it.

We will all be watching this story next week, as we know what some pubcos are capable off. In fact, I think it is an open court so anyone who wants can attend can, it should make for a very interesting case and may have wide reprecusions.

As I have always said the only place that any battle against Pubco "bad practice" will be fought and won is in the courts, not by witholding rents or turning off brulines.

Which again brings up the question why have none of the so called "trade groups" supported tenants in actions against their landlords if there are so many cases of "malpractice" by Pubcos?
Ken Nason

At LONG last someone has the wit to take this where it always should have gone, the Court. No PR, no jollies to Europe, no nice piccies, no union, just the pleasant cold confines of an English Court of Law. We can but hope that all of the hangers on and pontificators who have achieved nothing whatsoever will learn from this and hang their heads in shame. Maybe they'll even offer a mass refund to finance another Court case vital to the process of sorting out the ills of this trade.

He signed a contract he must stick to it even until penury. He signed a tied lease he deserves all he gets. I am very happy with my lease but I am cleverer than other operators. Ken, Colin, HL, saved you time, I posted for you. And for all of you, Sambell you are a lemming you cannot challenge a contract. But at least you are doing it in a legal manner unlike the GMB who....er....er....havent done anything illegal to date.

"Sambell, who has 30 years experience in the trade which includes running property company County Estate Management’s pub division, aims to prove that they were misled into signing a lease that was based on false figures." Well if it can happen to someone of this background what chance do those who are relatively naive in comparison to the operations of the pubco's stand? It will be interesting if they win and i'd also be interested to know the grounds that they got released from the noose, sorr i meant tie.

I hope punch will be found guilty and its directors put to jail, to make them understand that they can not go round misleading innocent people, who are just out to make a living! The exploitation must be stopped.

Dear me punch making headlines yet again for all the wrong reasons. I hope the trio win their case and teach the big boys what running a pub is all about :)