Seizing control of a pub

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #22564

    I have a claimant appealing against a number of decisions.

    Short history is he went into partnership with his former father in law and took on the tenancy of the pub. (FiL stummped up the necessary £20K capital).

    Claimant then “wrested control” and threw FiL out. Then did a whole lot of other naughties connected with the pub.

    Most areas I am confident about but what about capital…I was originally going to include on the grounds that he was in possession (if not legal ownership) of it and that it could not be disregarded on business grounds but am having second thoughts.

    Any ideas?


    The tenancy itself isn’t capital because he can’t sell it. An outgoing old-style pub tenant always has a substantial interest in stock, kitchen equipment, furniture, goodwill and so forth which he sells on to the incoming tenant, but this would belong to the business.

    Is he claiming HB on the residential element of the tenancy? Do you get to decide how much of his rent is for the accomodation?

    Your best bet is to focus on the business. It may be unprofitable if he’s a bad publican or if his landlord’s predatory (if it’s a pub chain, which one?)

    Do his accounts cover all his business interests, or just the pub? What else is he doing on the side? Illegal activities such as reselling stolen goods should still be included for this purpose. Are they accurate or are they creative? Are you willing to keep asking for more information until your colleagues in Licensing can get him evicted?


    In normal circumstances yes but when I say he seized control I mean just that, FiL was physically ejected and chased away. This has, in effect, ended the partnership with FiL being entitled to all but a nominal share of the worth (on paper) and is evidenced by forfeiture of the tenancy.

    So (I think) we end up with a situation where claimant was running a business he had taken possession of but did not own. If this is correct then the capital value should be calculated but cannot be disregarded. Normally if a person does not own the capital, no problem but on this occassion he is receiving the benefit from it I suspect that it should.

    Income (and a whole lot of other things) is under control

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.