The Scottish Tied Pubs Adjudicator's Investigation Policy

Campaign for Pubs

This is not a level of data we hold.

In our view, it is a key part of the job of the SPCA to have and maintain a list of all tied pubs and pub companies and owners operating tied agreements must supply that information, or be fined.

Our big concern from reading through this is that the only course of action seems to be a formal investigation, with considerable cost and time implications. What about if a tenant has a simple complaint that needs resolving, for example works promised but not done? That doesn’t need a formal investigation, it just needs action i.e. the Adjudicator to insist on the works done and insist on compensation where this is impacted trade/profit. We want to hear how issues like this will be resolved.

There also needs to be an ongoing important role of accepting evidence about what is happening (including from tenants and tenants organisations, without there having to be an actual complaint/request for information, so that the Adjudicator can see patterns of behaviour and identify if the principles of the Code are not being upheld. The legislation is clear that the role includes to oversee and also to enforce the Code and this is crucial to success (at least as much as actual formal investigations, which will only be for issues that fulfil the criteria). The Adjudicator role has soft power and must use it to issue statements that identified unacceptable/unfair behaviour or agreements must cease/be changed, as well as then enforcing this if the Code principles continue not to be followed.

The third key principle of the Code is ensuring a fair share of pub profits, to rebalance risk and reward. This is vital as the biggest single problem with tied agreements is that due to high tied prices and rents that do not compensate for this, there in in many/most cases, a very unfair split of profit. Tenants should must be allowed to have this looked at, must be allowed to ask for an assessment of the split if they believe it is not fair. It’s not clear if this would trigger or need an investigation, but it certainly would need an examination of the facts and split of profit. If this is not done, then principle three of the code will be completely ignored and not delivered (rendering the entire legislation a failure). This needs clarifying (including whether this would involve a formal investigation or not; either way the principle MUST be upheld as it is in the legislation. We wish to hear further information and clarification on how it will.

Once a formal investigation is launched, then arbitration should cease in place of a decision by the Adjudicator (if the arbitration is about the same issue/case as the investigation).

We are very concerned at the suggestion about this statement: "For isolated or inadvertent suspected and/or alleged breaches, the Adjudicator may discuss the matter with the relevant pub-owning business initially".

We fundamentally disagree with this. It is like getting a complaint from a sub-postmaster and then speaking only to the Post Office about it!

In any/all cases, the Adjudicator must speak properly and equally to both parties and ask for written information from both parties.

Many pub sector experts (surveyors, lawyers and some arbitrators) have commercial links with pub-companies and this must be taken into account. There must be full transparency about all past work, cases, roles and this must be available to tenants and their representatives.

There needs to be more clarity on outcomes and whether tenants will be properly compensated for loss/detriment as well as costs.

There needs to be more clarity on outcomes and whether tenants will be properly compensated for loss/detriment as well as costs.

The whole point of the Code is to stop the abuse of tenants, so therefore there needs to be greater clarity
of how they will be compensated when they have been victims of unfair dealing and unfair split of risk and reward.