Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sheesh - this happened to me a couple of years ago - it's more horrible than your can imagine.


Anybody see who the order was in the name of - suppliers, landlord or local authority?


Anyhoo, best wishes to the good souls at GandB; it might seem like it, but it's not the end of the world, dust yourselves off and start again.

Without knowing the full detail its hard to comment but seems ridiculous to close the place, surely they are more likely to get their money back if they allow it to continue running......unless of course it was running at a loss.


The whole drains problem cant have helped matters, and may even be the cause.

snorky Wrote:

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

> Doesnt forclosure of this type indicate that

> things are pretty advanced ?

>

> I cant imagine landlords doing this as an off the

> cuff decision - unless of course they have another

> victim lined up already


They can move pretty sharpish and without warning in my experience. My girlfriend managed a pub that was visited by Bailiffs after a banking error missed one payment of rent.


Let's hope this is equally a storm in a teacup. Would be a great shame if it went for good.

ClareC Wrote:

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

> Without knowing the full detail its hard to

> comment but seems ridiculous to close the place,

> surely they are more likely to get their money

> back if they allow it to continue

> running......unless of course it was running at a

> loss.

>

> The whole drains problem cant have helped matters,

> and may even be the cause.


I was thinking the same.


This is clearly a business that was very popular and I imagine making a good return. The drains thing may well have precipitated this development, but the business would appear to have a sound long-term future. Which would make the latest development quite shortsighted if the people involved are landlord etc (which we don't yet know).

The landlord would be contractually entitled to its rent when due and if it is in arrears also to seek possession. Can't see what's "greedy" about that - its not as if both parties didn't agree the rent to be paid (and when) in the first place! Landlords don't just impose whatever rent they like you know?!


Beyond that, nobody except the parties and their advisers are likely to know the pertinent details, so I don't see how people on here can (validly) form such opinions.


And I'm speaking as someone who doesn't much care for some landlords. Also, I know nothing about the details of this case. Would be sorry to see the place go though - notwithstanding all the ranting from the owner about the drains issue.

I worked for a large company that had financial difficulties and as part of its cash flow policy didnt pay its bills until 90 days from invoice. Since common payment terms are 30 days, it was a fairly frequent occurance to have a bailiff / sheriff in reception. Our dept would get a call from reception, one of us would go downstairs, said Bailiff / Sheriff would be eyeing up the flat screen TV's / reception sofa's/ even the cars in the car park, we would then check their paperwork and as long as all in order arrange payment. They would go on their merry way happy that payment would be made.........


If this is a reposseion order, either payment hasnt been made, or the landlord is evicting the tenant for other reasons...... maybe they want the premises back etc. Evicting lawful tenants is a slow process, all does seem very odd given the popularity of the business!


Complete speculation but I wonder if rent was witheld due to the drains situation and there is now a dispute with the Landord as result.

  • Administrator

Please can people not mention the drains issue. The forum has previously had a formal request that the drains issue is not mentioned and should it be mentioned it should be curtailed as soon as possible.


Also please respect that this thread is about a legal issue and therefore care should be taken as to what is said.


Thank you.

>

> Also please respect that this thread is about a

> legal issue and therefore be care should be taken

> as to what is said.

>

>FYI I'm a journalist. I write court stories and stories about ``legal isues'' every day of my life. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why the fact that this involves a ``legal issue'' means that any more care need be taken on this thread than any other. Zero. Rien. Not a sausage.


On a slightly different point, thuough, it is never a good idea to make damaging and unsubstantiated allegations about anyone in a public forum, regardless of ``legal issues.''

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...