RE: Punch in upward-only rent dispute

Firstly of course, everyone knows that pubcos have not been implementing upward only rental clauses in their leases ever since they became 'retail partners' with their tenants in the early 1900's. If there was an application of an upward review here it was purely an oversight on the part of the pubco and Mr Scott only imagined that they were trying to put his rent up well above any imaginable version of an FMT level.

Secondly, what does it matter even if the pubco DID apply an upwards only review because this all happened before the dawning of the 'Pub Industry Age of Aquarius' - as we all like to call it, the new era where transparency and openness entered the pubco lexicon - before the BISC/BEC enquiry of 2008 but after the TISC inquiry of 2004 when pubcos still needed findings to be sent to them in braille, in large print and on audio cassette or else they would not get it. Geddit?

Third so what IF Punch’s representative Mr Green said rent at Mt Scott's pub “cannot reduce” driving this home by underlining to the court that Scott’s lease agreement allowed for an “upwards-only rent review” several times in the court proceedings.

At the hearing at Northampton Crown Court in November 2009, Green also argued the pubco’s Retail Charter (code of practice) was simply a “consumer-friendly document”, which has no “contractual effect” when it comes to rent reviews? What does that amount to? Tittle tattle and hearsay recounted in the notoriously unreliable hick little County Court hearing transcript. One might as well say, as has been previously bandied around following publication of other types of hearings, this was the transcript of a kangaroo court where what the pubco's representative said was simply misinterpreted by everyone present. Including the court stenographer.

Oh the age of transparency and partnership is upon us.