Lost Login Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 D's Leasure, the outfit that has the Liverpool Arms, won just about all the the tenders for the 'heritage'sites over the last year or so: Niarbyl, Manx Museum,The Sound, The Grove. Unfortunatly in my opinio they are not in general an improvement on the previous tenants. There has been a tremendous amount of critisism about the standards at the Sound since they took over about a year ago and twice I have been down there this year to eat and walked out again due to the state of the place. Nirabyl they have basically tried to turn into a restaurant, maybe fine for evenings but as part of the visitor attraction it does not really complement & encourage visitors who are walking or spending time in the area and who might generally want just a coffee and a cake or a sandwich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 I have had 3 disappointing and expensive meals courtesy of D's Leisure. Shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Of course they could have applied to Court to have their tenancy extended, whatever the result of the tender, as they had been there for more than 5 years. This is under the Tenancy of Business Premises Act. All they would have had to do would have been to offer to pay the rent of the highest tenderer. Shoe in! They clearly decided not to do that and concentrate on other business activities. Business decision, no oppression by Government. All services and tenancies should be by tender to get the best price and service, low price if buying in and highest price if letting out. Good Luck to Nicky and Nigel at St Johns I shall miss the vegetarian restaurant option, but whilst the atmosphere was great, and I had taken my staff there for parties when I ran an office, it was a bit stuck in a "Cranks" 1980's time warp. Is it possible that the provisions of this act had been excluded in the lease? Such a shame it is going, really liked that place - I wonder who the new tenant will be? Any skeet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisse Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 before saying its a scandal, do we actually know if the current tenant wanted to renew now they have the new place opened in st Johns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 before saying its a scandal, do we actually know if the current tenant wanted to renew now they have the new place opened in st Johns? Yes, they did and they were shocked when they didn't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buggane Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 before saying its a scandal, do we actually know if the current tenant wanted to renew now they have the new place opened in st Johns? Yes they did, half the comments above wouldn't be relevent if they hadn't applied for the lease, if you have a look in Greens there is a statement from the owners about it Still no news on who got the contract - surely someone knows ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 D's Leasure, the outfit that has the Liverpool Arms, won just about all the the tenders for the 'heritage'sites over the last year or so: Niarbyl, Manx Museum,The Sound, The Grove. Unfortunatly in my opinio they are not in general an improvement on the previous tenants. There has been a tremendous amount of critisism about the standards at the Sound since they took over about a year ago and twice I have been down there this year to eat and walked out again due to the state of the place. Nirabyl they have basically tried to turn into a restaurant, maybe fine for evenings but as part of the visitor attraction it does not really complement & encourage visitors who are walking or spending time in the area and who might generally want just a coffee and a cake or a sandwich I am with you on that one, all I can say for that componies quality of food and service is they have set them selves a very low standard and have yet to achieve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buggane Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 D's Leasure, the outfit that has the Liverpool Arms, won just about all the the tenders for the 'heritage'sites over the last year or so: Niarbyl, Manx Museum,The Sound, The Grove. Unfortunatly in my opinio they are not in general an improvement on the previous tenants. There has been a tremendous amount of critisism about the standards at the Sound since they took over about a year ago and twice I have been down there this year to eat and walked out again due to the state of the place. Nirabyl they have basically tried to turn into a restaurant, maybe fine for evenings but as part of the visitor attraction it does not really complement & encourage visitors who are walking or spending time in the area and who might generally want just a coffee and a cake or a sandwich I am with you on that one, all I can say for that componies quality of food and service is they have set them selves a very low standard and have yet to achieve it. Therein lies the problem with the governments policy of awarding contracts to the cheapest, irrespective of quality, provision of unique service etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guilty Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Of course they could have applied to Court to have their tenancy extended, whatever the result of the tender, as they had been there for more than 5 years. This is under the Tenancy of Business Premises Act. All they would have had to do would have been to offer to pay the rent of the highest tenderer. Shoe in! They clearly decided not to do that and concentrate on other business activities. Business decision, no oppression by Government. All services and tenancies should be by tender to get the best price and service, low price if buying in and highest price if letting out. Is it possible that the provisions of this act had been excluded in the lease? You can't exclude statutory rights by putting a clause in a lease. Nor would the current tenant have to offer to pay the rent of the highest tenderer. It doesn't work like that. Greens would have been offered a renewal of the lease at a (perhaps) re-valued rental. If Greens didn't like the proposed rental they could go to Court for an arbitration. DCCL can't force them out by unreasonably increasing the rental, and they can't go out to tender without negotiation with Greens. Greens 'shocked'? I doubt it. What's the real story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 You can't exclude statutory rights by putting a clause in a lease. Nor would the current tenant have to offer to pay the rent of the highest tenderer. It doesn't work like that. Greens would have been offered a renewal of the lease at a (perhaps) re-valued rental. If Greens didn't like the proposed rental they could go to Court for an arbitration. DCCL can't force them out by unreasonably increasing the rental, and they can't go out to tender without negotiation with Greens. Greens 'shocked'? I doubt it. What's the real story? I wonder if this is commonly known as there have a lot of changes in tenancies in recent years and I would have thought that some of would have tried to take advantage of the provisions. Alternatively is it costly or slow to resolve ans so puts people off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guilty Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 **Loud squealing of tyres as sudden U-turn is performed** I've just read the Act. This Act shall not apply to property vested in a Department. So, seems like they can do whatever the hell they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Some official comment http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=49045 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Of course they could have applied to Court to have their tenancy extended, whatever the result of the tender, as they had been there for more than 5 years. This is under the Tenancy of Business Premises Act. All they would have had to do would have been to offer to pay the rent of the highest tenderer. Shoe in! They clearly decided not to do that and concentrate on other business activities. Business decision, no oppression by Government. All services and tenancies should be by tender to get the best price and service, low price if buying in and highest price if letting out. Is it possible that the provisions of this act had been excluded in the lease? You can't exclude statutory rights by putting a clause in a lease. Nor would the current tenant have to offer to pay the rent of the highest tenderer. It doesn't work like that. Greens would have been offered a renewal of the lease at a (perhaps) re-valued rental. If Greens didn't like the proposed rental they could go to Court for an arbitration. DCCL can't force them out by unreasonably increasing the rental, and they can't go out to tender without negotiation with Greens. Greens 'shocked'? I doubt it. What's the real story? Thanks for your legal advice - It is quite possible to exclude some statutory terms in a lease (for example those within the Tenancies (Implied terms) Act 1954) so I am afraid your broadly worded statement is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 This is a classic Manx Forums thread. Starts out well, expressing disappointment a popular eaterie is closing, then swiftly descends into an exchange of half-baked legal opinions which largely ignore the input of the one legally-trained poster, then creates a fact out of a suggestion and immediately turns into an attack on a company which, as far as anyone knows, has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. All we need now is a debate about whether shoplifting is right or wrong, whether God is real or not and PK telling us how much better the UK would have done it all and it'll be the perfect thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guilty Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Thanks for your legal advice - It is quite possible to exclude some statutory terms in a lease (for example those within the Tenancies (Implied terms) Act 1954) so I am afraid your broadly worded statement is incorrect. Ooooh! Picky! I shall consider myself duly chastised. Arrgg, eechhh, gggggnnnf - that's the sound of me falling on my own sword. (BTW I don't provide legal advice, and if anyone relies in court on anything anyone says on Manx Forums they deserve everything that comes to them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.