{"id":763,"date":"2020-01-22T18:50:17","date_gmt":"2020-01-22T18:50:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/?p=763"},"modified":"2020-01-22T18:50:19","modified_gmt":"2020-01-22T18:50:19","slug":"pubs-code-adjudicator-update-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/2020\/01\/22\/pubs-code-adjudicator-update-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Pubs Code Adjudicator update"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Readers will recall that in last month\u2019s edition we listed the questions that CAMRA\u2019s National Executive had put to Paul Newby, the Pubs Code Adjudicator (PCA). Mr Newby\u2019s written response duly arrived but it wasn\u2019t as informative as was hoped for. Here are two examples of his replies: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q<\/strong> Did you see the Pub Code changing the industry?
A<\/strong> We can see evidence of behavioural and cultural change for the better in the regulated pub sector, but this remains a work in progress and there is still much more to be done in both embedding and enforcing the Code. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q<\/strong> Do you think you could have done things better?
A<\/strong> Much good work has been done by the PCA team in challenging circumstances. But there is more work to be done to bring about the sustainable and lasting changes that Parliament intended. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you wish to read the answers in full, you can find them here <\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

PCA TENANTS\u2019 SURVEY <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before Christmas, the PCA released the results of his 2019 Tenants Survey. The survey was conducted by polling company Ipsos MORI who contacted 400 pub tenants by \u2018phone and followed up with selected personal interviews. Only 78% of tenants were aware of the Pubs Code, much the same as in 2017. 31% said that they had no confidence in the way that their pub owning business (POB) managed their tenancy while 44% felt that repairs and dilapidations were badly handled. The starkest result however was that 55% felt that the Market Rent Option (MRO), the main device for freeing tenants from their tie, was not a genuine choice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of the POBs, as reported in the Morning Advertiser<\/em>, \u2018almost half of Punch tenants did not expect to be running their\npub in five years\u2019 time\u2019 and \u2018Ei Group tenants expressed the highest levels of\ndissatisfaction\u2019. Credit where it is due however: \u2018Admiral Taverns\u2019 tenants\nshowed high levels of satisfaction with the company, with more than five out of\nsix claiming they would be likely to remain with Admiral for the next five\nyears\u2019. Admirable Admiral! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

OVER A BARREL\u2026 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On a positive note, the PCA has issued a ruling to stop a particularly devious practice. When set or reviewed, the rent for tenanted pubs is calculated on their projected beer sales, based on how many firkins (9 gallon casks) they will sell. Marston\u2019s used a formula of 72 saleable pints, less 2.5% ullage. This means that a tenant is expected to sell 70.2 pints out of 72. Edward Anderson, the tenant of the Railway Inn in Gloucester, thought that this was wrong and asked the PCA for arbitration. While the PCA did not take any regulatory action or fine Marston\u2019s for breaching the Pubs Code, Mr Newby said, “I am not persuaded by the respondent (Marston’s) that its approach to wastage does not have any material impact on the rent calculation, nor that the claimant (Mr Anderson) is not disadvantaged by this approach.” <\/em>Technically, the offence was failing to supply Mr Anderson with accurate information. The full ruling is available on the PCA\u2019s website as above. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mr Anderson has now gone free of tie. Marston\u2019s have declined to\ncompensate him and he is considering his position accordingly. According to the Times<\/em>, Marston\u2019s say that the\nfinding will have \u2018no consequence across the\nindustry<\/em>\u2019. It is not clear as to\nwhether other POBs use a similar system but it would seem likely. The Pubs\nAdvisory Service, which campaigns for tenants\u2019 rights, wonders if this could be\nas damaging for the POBs as the PPI scandal was for the banking industry. There\ncould be implications beyond tenancies. What if a pub manager\u2019s bonus scheme\nwas based on this calculation? It might not be covered by the Pubs Code but he\nor she would equally be being ripped off all the same. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAMRA\u2019s Chief Executive, Tom Stainer, commented, \u201cWe welcome this arbitration ruling from the Pubs Code Adjudicator.\nCAMRA has always maintained that supplying cask beer to tenants based on the\npremise of 72 saleable pints per cask is a bad business practice used by pub\ncompanies to extract extra profit from their tenants. This ruling also\nrecognises the realities and skill involved in keeping cask ale in excellent\ncondition. Pressure on licensees to sell as many pints as possible from a\nbarrel of cask beer can result in a bad quality pint for the consumer. Pub\ncompanies of all sizes need to ensure that they take notice of this ruling when\ncalculating tied rents from now on. This will go some way to further redressing\nthe imbalance between tied tenants and their pub companies, and also improving\nthe quality of cask ale served across the UK<\/em>.\u201c <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are, of course, still waiting for the outcome of the review of the Pubs Code.
Tony Hedger<\/em><\/strong>\u0011 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Readers will recall that in last month\u2019s edition we listed the questions that CAMRA\u2019s National Executive had put to Paul Newby, the Pubs Code Adjudicator (PCA). Mr Newby\u2019s written response… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":764,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/763","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=763"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/763\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":765,"href":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/763\/revisions\/765"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/764"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/londondrinker.camra.org.uk\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}