The Pub Code Adjudicator has agreed on principals to allow decisions on pub code arbitration public if a landlord decides to waive their confidentiality.
The PCA, which regulates the relationship between large pub companies and their tied tenants on drink and rent deals, said it has agreed on principles with the British Beer and Pub Association.
They are due to be published in the autumn following agreement from the BBPA and six major pub companies – Admiral Taverns, Star Pubs & Bars, Punch, Marston’s, Ei group and Greene King.
A spokesperson for the group told The Morning Advertiser they were “satisfied that the approach delivers the level of transparency that all parties have been seeking”.
UKHospitality chief executive Kate Nicholls said “We have been working hard with pub companies, pressing for this, so we are pleased to see progress, with all of the pub companies covered by the code agreeing to a common set of principles to make arbitration decisions transparent.”
However she urged the body to make the details of principles public as soon as possible to make clear how they will work in practice. She also noted there are “still concerns that flaws within the legislation cause delays in concluding MRO cases, putting additional financial pressure on tenants”.
Nicholls added: “The recent PCA compliance report analysis highlighted areas of concern such as the low number of MRO cases and use of section 25 notices. We maintain that the PCA’s key priority should be focusing on fast and effective arbitration decisions, including retrospective rulings, and clearly written guidance with clear precedents, so tenants are not financially disadvantaged.
“Despite the PCA’s welcome efforts to provide clarity on the Pubs Code, it remains an unwieldy piece of legislation which still requires a full review taking into account robust evidence and ensuring it delivers workable and timely solutions for all. “
The PCA has previously been under fire over transparency issues.
The Campaign for Real Ale (Camra) brought the Adjudicator to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s office earlier this year after it refused to release information on the effectiveness of the code.