LETTERs

Political solution for tenant benefit

I am sure you are aware of the Government's decision to abandon plans for taxing managers who live at pubs.

I know you're aware of the problems that tenants and leaseholders have in this regard. We are currently dealing with a case where £50 a week taxable benefit has been agreed for a leaseholder (to take into account the so-called benefit of living above the pub to include light, heat and the use of the phone) and the tax inspector in question is seeking for us to agree to an increase that will cost our client an extra £390 per annum in tax.

It's a tragedy that there seems no political way forward on this. After all, there are a lot more tenants (and leaseholders) than managers. The obligations are identical and, if anything, accommodation above pubs for managers is often superior to that provided to the tenant. The conclusion I am drawn to is that "managers" are "union" backed, so "politically" Revenue & Customs feel obliged to take an understanding position.

I really don't know where to turn on this one. I wish someone could help.

David R Jones FFA AIIB

David R Jones & Co, Financial Accountants

More food for thought

I am writing in response to your article, Food not the answer for pubs (MA, 11 October 2007). The trade may be too diverse to say that food is a good or a bad thing - each site is different.

We all know pubs that are run by nice people who have the best intentions, but who are struggling because of blind spots in the way they set out their general proposition, never mind their catering offer.

Previous posts on the MA website have correctly pointed out that this is partly to do with a lack of training and mentoring. When I go into pubs in today's competitive market

I find it unbelievable that the paint is peeling, the unwelcoming staff are unable to serve a drink properly and the loos are dirty; with a little imagination and standard-setting, these things can be put right at a very low cost.

If you don't aim to do food, you need to run the best drinks bar in town with excellent point-of-sale, ambience and staff, but unfortunately we are all to aware that the reality is usually very different.

Food can be profitable - I used to be chef-proprietor at a country pub that had a write-up in PubChef. Without its good food margin, that business would have been dead within a week.

The industry - and this includes the old hands, in particular - needs to get itself better trained and inspired.

Of course, as a training provider myself, I would say that, but I have always found that those businesses that really need help, rarely put themselves forward to be helped.

By the way, there will always be money in food.

Charles Hennell

via morningadvertiser.co.uk

A case for prosecution

I read with interest your article about the karaoke conman on the loose (MA, 4 October 2007).

I am surprised that this scam has only just hit the north of England. In the South we have had all sorts of scams: race-night scams, charity scams, and so on.

The reason these people get away with ripping us all off is that the police do not prosecute often enough -and if they do, the case is thrown out by the Crown Prosecution Service.

You then have to take into account the extremely different reaction if an on- trade licensee is forced to break the law, eg by letting someone smoke, serves someone with a fake ID, allows noise outside the pub caused by smokers who are not even allowed to take their pint with them... the list goes on.

There is such a massive gulf between law and order for on-trade licensees who generally sell alcohol in a controlled manner and small time crooks such as this karaoke conman.

Everyone, or no-one, should be prosecuted - you should not just prosecute people because they own a pub and are a soft target.

DS

via morningadvertiser.co.uk