The association said it would be writing Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the BIS committee to "set out the facts".
The move follows the publication of a report last week, from the All-Party Parliamentary Save the Pub Group which accused the BBPA of issuing misleading data to BIS.
Its chair MP Greg Mulholland said the Government must admit it has been duped by the pubcos and their “discredited” lobbying body, the BBPA.
However, the BBPA has hit back claiming it has never published any false or misleading data on pub closures.
In its rebuttal the BBPA said:
- Net figures for pub closures, including transfers in and out of different parts of the sector, give the truest picture of the relative rate of closures. While any data is open to differing interpretation, discounting transfers from the tied, to the free-of-tie, sector cannot sensibly be used to demonstrate a lower closure rate for the free-of-tie sector, as the vast majority of such pubs are sold as a going concern.
- The problem of pub closures cannot reasonably be presented as a problem caused by tied pubs, however the figures are interpreted. It clearly affects the wider pub sector and is caused by a complex range of factors – as is the closure of many retail businesses throughout the economy.
- The accusation that the BBPA claims the free-of-tie sector has seen many more net closures is false. "We have always been clear that we take account of transfers in and out of different categories, in our assessment of the figures" the BBPA said.
- Pub transfers are not logged in the ‘BBPA’ figures is a false accusation. It said: "The last time the BBPA published all figures we had (which only go back to 2009) we showed clearly the net and gross figures in an analysis published on our website with a news release in November 2011.
- Tied pubs are closing in larger numbers that free-of-tie pubs. BBPA figures refer to closures since January 2009 while the Save the Pub Group report has added data going back to 2005.
- The BBPA confirmed that the figures do not record tenancy of leasehold ‘churn’ as closures as "it would not be sensible for this data to do so".