June 3rd will be the last day of The Palmerston

[EDOldie]

DulwichFox Wrote:

> I used the Palmy for many many years before the

> Owner Reg decided to turn it into a Restaurant.

>

> The Long term much loved Tenant Landlord Keith (No

> longer with us) and his two boys were evicted.

> People lost their jobs too. A much loved busy

> local Pub was lost to make way for an expensive

> eatery for the wealthier residents of East Dulwich

> and turists.

>

>

> So NO its NOT just about me.

>

>

> DulwichFox.

Yes, but it wasn't making any money, I've used the pub since my teens and in the eighties and nineties things were changing. More people were drinking at home and the pubs had to evolve. If Reg was anything he was very foresighted and saw the writing on the wall. The Palmeston, along with Franklins, really paved the way for the Lordship Lane we know today.

[JoeLeg]

EDOldie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I think that Jamie and his pal (Freeholders) do

> own the freehold but I'm guessing there is also a

> long lease to Enterprise Inns (Leaseholders) and a

> thirty year sub lease to the restaurant (Tenant).

> The leaseholders could oppose the granting of a

> new lease to the tenants on the basis that they

> need the premises for their own use. There are a

> pub company so it can't really be opposed by the

> tenant. So it's goodbye much loved and valued

> local restaurant and pub, albeit with not very

> good beer in it but probably not the fault of the

> pub as they may be tied in to buying beer from the

> leaseholders, and hello to another pubco in

> Lordship Lane. In France they have laws against

> this sort of thing but I expect the authorities

> are powerless to anything about it.

I?m not doubting anything you say, as it sounds like you know far more about the issues concerned than I do, but I?m confused at to him someone can own a freehold but also somehow be leasing it back to Enterprise?

Surely a freehold trumps everything?

All ?layman?s terms? explanations welcome! Like I say, not doubting you, just clueless as to how that works legally.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Because it was a sale and leaseback deal. Sounds rather complicated!

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> EDOldie Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > I think that Jamie and his pal (Freeholders) do

> > own the freehold but I'm guessing there is also

> a

> > long lease to Enterprise Inns (Leaseholders) and

> a

> > thirty year sub lease to the restaurant

> (Tenant).

> > The leaseholders could oppose the granting of a

> > new lease to the tenants on the basis that they

> > need the premises for their own use. There are

> a

> > pub company so it can't really be opposed by

> the

> > tenant. So it's goodbye much loved and valued

> > local restaurant and pub, albeit with not very

> > good beer in it but probably not the fault of

> the

> > pub as they may be tied in to buying beer from

> the

> > leaseholders, and hello to another pubco in

> > Lordship Lane. In France they have laws against

> > this sort of thing but I expect the authorities

> > are powerless to anything about it.

>

> I?m not doubting anything you say, as it sounds

> like you know far more about the issues concerned

> than I do, but I?m confused at to him someone can

> own a freehold but also somehow be leasing it back

> to Enterprise?

>

> Surely a freehold trumps everything?

>

> All ?layman?s terms? explanations welcome! Like I

> say, not doubting you, just clueless as to how

> that works legally.

[cella]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> EDOldie Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > I think that Jamie and his pal (Freeholders) do

> > own the freehold but I'm guessing there is also

> a

> > long lease to Enterprise Inns (Leaseholders) and

> a

> > thirty year sub lease to the restaurant

> (Tenant).

> > The leaseholders could oppose the granting of a

> > new lease to the tenants on the basis that they

> > need the premises for their own use. There are

> a

> > pub company so it can't really be opposed by

> the

> > tenant. So it's goodbye much loved and valued

> > local restaurant and pub, albeit with not very

> > good beer in it but probably not the fault of

> the

> > pub as they may be tied in to buying beer from

> the

> > leaseholders, and hello to another pubco in

> > Lordship Lane. In France they have laws against

> > this sort of thing but I expect the authorities

> > are powerless to anything about it.

>

> I?m not doubting anything you say, as it sounds

> like you know far more about the issues concerned

> than I do, but I?m confused at to him someone can

> own a freehold but also somehow be leasing it back

> to Enterprise?

>

> Surely a freehold trumps everything?

>

> All ?layman?s terms? explanations welcome! Like I

> say, not doubting you, just clueless as to how

> that works legally.

Suppose it's a bit like owning the freehold on your flat - you still have to go by the lease requirements.

[mrwb]

Does seem a very odd situation and also that it will stay a pub?

Article from above post is here:

https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2011/02/17/Exclusive-Host-turns-tables-on-Enterprise-Inns

[Sue]

EDOldie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

>

> > I used the Palmy for many many years before the

> > Owner Reg decided to turn it into a Restaurant.

> >

> > The Long term much loved Tenant Landlord Keith

> (No

> > longer with us) and his two boys were evicted.

> > People lost their jobs too. A much loved busy

> > local Pub was lost to make way for an expensive

>

> > eatery for the wealthier residents of East

> Dulwich

> > and turists.

> >

> >

> > So NO its NOT just about me.

> >

> >

> > DulwichFox.

>

> Yes, but it wasn't making any money, I've used the

> pub since my teens and in the eighties and

> nineties things were changing. More people were

> drinking at home and the pubs had to evolve. If

> Reg was anything he was very foresighted and saw

> the writing on the wall. The Palmeston, along with

> Franklins, really paved the way for the Lordship

> Lane we know today.

Agreed, EDOldie.

The Lord Palmerston could not have stayed as it was in the location it was given the changing demographic of the area.

The pub changed at a time when so called gastropubs were becoming (or already were) a thing.

I remember friends of mine from outside the area being really keen to come to ED specifically to go to The Palmerston.

ETA: And they were by no means "posh".

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

https://www.hot-dinners.com/201902088087/Gastroblog/Latest-news/the-palmerston-in-east-dulwich-is-closing-after-its-lease-wasn-t-renewed

https://london.eater.com/2019/2/8/18216716/palmerston-pub-east-dulwich-best-restaurants-closure

[Jellybeanz]

This is a real shame and will be a big loss to the area. Another business closure, esp unexpected after huge kitchen revamp!

[spark67]

From What I've heard its being taken over by the same people who own The Actress & the Bishop (Metropolitan/Greenking)

Could be just a rumour... but sounds plausible.

[Sue]

spark67 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> From What I've heard its being taken over by the

> same people who own The Actress & the Bishop

> (Metropolitan/Greenking)

> Could be just a rumour... but sounds plausible.

But then what would be the point of not letting the current leaseholders continue there?

Have I missed something? (probably)

[rendelharris]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> spark67 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > From What I've heard its being taken over by

> the

> > same people who own The Actress & the Bishop

> > (Metropolitan/Greenking)

> > Could be just a rumour... but sounds plausible.

>

>

> But then what would be the point of not letting

> the current leaseholders continue there?

>

> Have I missed something? (probably)

Presumably because the current leaseholders pay themselves a share of the profits, a large company can turf them, take the share of the profits and only have to pay a manager's wage. Possibly, of course, the current leaseholders were offered a chance to stay but, knowing the big pubcos, on such disadvantageous terms they'd rather quit?

[Flick_Flack]

This has been set up...

https://www.change.org/p/enterprise-inns-save-the-palmerston-east-dulwich-se22

[tiddles]

So jamie does not own the freehold? I am confused. Does seem wrong that a good

Local pub co is being turfed out.

[JohnL]

tiddles Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So jamie does not own the freehold? I am confused.

> Does seem wrong that a good

> Local pub co is being turfed out.

It seems (from what I can see) that he does own the freehold but a 2nd party owns a long term lease and that was sublet to the tenant on a lease (30 years?) that expires this year.

I may be wrong.

[JoeLeg]

What I know about property law could fit on the back of half a stamp, but doesn?t a freehold trump everything else?

Or is it that Jaime owns the land that the pub stands on, but somehow the business itself is separate?

I need someone to explain it to me slowly using brightly coloured crayons...

[Sue]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What I know about property law could fit on the

> back of half a stamp, but doesn?t a freehold trump

> everything else?

>

> Or is it that Jaime owns the land that the pub

> stands on, but somehow the business itself is

> separate?

>

> I need someone to explain it to me slowly using

> brightly coloured crayons...

I think I still couldn't understand it even with the brightly coloured crayons ....

[Stockport67]

Just in case you were in any doubt about Enterprise Inns, this video explains it if you have a few minutes. Shared from a friend who works in the trade.

[James Barber]

Perhaps we should club together and seek it be listed as a Community Asset....

[mikeb]

that's a strange video, not least because it appears to have been filmed on his commute.

I think his main issue is that tenants were missold when they entered into the lease. If so then he will need more evidence about the marketing that went on at the time. Otherwise it looks like a landlord exercising their rights at the end of the tenancy; if tenants don't like that (and I can see why they wouldn't) then they shouldn't enter into the 5-year lease.

[tiddles]

But now it seems enterprise are not taking it over - and i thought they were

The people turfing them out?

Whoever takes it over - they will have to pay rent to the freeholder.

I think i need crayons and pie charts.....

[goldilocks]

I think that Jamie owns the freehold but entered into a long lease (lets call this the primary lease) with Enterprise Inns.

EI agreed to grant a sub lease for a term back to Jamie to run the pub. This secondary lease has now expired, but the primary lease is still running and during the time of that primary lease, EI 'control' the pub. The situation is made more complex with beer ties in terms of whether its more economically viable for EI to sub let to a different tenant.

This might not be the whole story, but thought it might help!

[Penguin68]

There are 3 ways of legally occupying a property - freehold, where you own the property and land outright and can sell or give away those rights, leasehold where you buy access to a property for a given term (normally over 70 years initially for domestic property, although I have known as little as 25 years, and frequently much less for commercial property). You can sell or give away your leasehold to a third party. A leaseholder will normally be required to pay for the upkeep of the property, and it is normal to pay up front for the leasehold (a full negotiated price, as for purchase of a property outright) and additionally pay the freeholder some form of annual rental for that freehold.

Finally there is rental. As a renter you may have a fixed term (common in commercial agreements) or it may be open ended - but you cannot sell on or give away your rights and the rental agreement is with you alone. Rental agreements allow you, or your landlord, to terminate the rental agreement under certain, stipulated, circumstances. You will pay monthly (commercially often quarterly) rental and may additionally (often in commercial rentals) take on some repairing or maintenance liabilities. Commercial leases, (but they are not quite like domestic leasehold as such) may have break points or points where the rentals can be reviewed.

Where the commercial lease has time-terminated the freeholder has no requirement to extend the lease or offer the leaseholder a new lease.

A leaseholder can offer their property to tenants, so you could have a property where the freehold is owned by entity A, a lease by entity B and is being rented by B to entity C.

3 separate entities can thus have an interest in one property, with different obligations and rights. Unless it is covered by a specific agreement in the leasehold, a freeholder cannot interfere in the relationship between a leaseholder and their tenant - even where the freeholder and tenant are the same entity!

[tiddles]

Thx goldilocks - that actually makes sense!

[Abe_froeman]

Greene King would not buy a sub lease though.

They would buy a freehold pub with no lease at all on it - i.e. no lease to enterprise and no sub-lease to the pub manager.

That seems to be the most likely scenario here. If the lease with Enterprise expires in June and the sub lease also expires the whole operation could be sold as one. I would guess that might be worth about ?5m.

If I could cash in for that (after 15 years of hard work!) then personally I would let my lease expire and take no action to 'save' the pub.

[JoeLeg]

mikeb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> that's a strange video, not least because it

> appears to have been filmed on his commute.

>

> I think his main issue is that tenants were

> missold when they entered into the lease. If so

> then he will need more evidence about the

> marketing that went on at the time. Otherwise it

> looks like a landlord exercising their rights at

> the end of the tenancy; if tenants don't like that

> (and I can see why they wouldn't) then they

> shouldn't enter into the 5-year lease.

There?s a lot of (former) tenants of Emterprise who allege that they were outright lied to, both during the application/negotiations and subsequently. A pub in Balham took them to court claiming that Enterprise had tampered with equipment designed to measure how much beer they were selling. They won.

What I would say is that no one should touch Enterprise with a barge pole.