Retailers threaten to quit working group

A LARGE retail lobbying organisation, Retail Excellence Ireland, has threatened to quit a Government working group in a row over…

A LARGE retail lobbying organisation, Retail Excellence Ireland, has threatened to quit a Government working group in a row over rent reviews in the commercial sector. The lobby group is seeking more radical reforms.

In a letter to Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern, seen by The Irish Times, the group's chief executive, David Fitzsimons, accused the Government of "not addressing our concerns in a meaningful way", and warned that the lack of progress could force the group to "withdraw from the working group".

He added he would “publicly explain our reasons for this”.

Mr Ahern set up the group in early March, following the abolition last December of upward-only rent reviews on all commercial leases agreed after February 28th – a move that drew sharp criticism from the property sector, which saw it as unnecessary intervention.

READ MORE

Retail lobby groups were also dissatisfied because the legislation was not retrospective, leaving the situation for tenants in pre-existing leases unchanged.

In response, Mr Ahern hoped to achieve an industry-wide consensus in the area of rent reviews and arbitration, a major bugbear for retailers who claim the system is unfair, lacks transparency and is often biased in favour of landlords.

The group was ordered to examine these problems and report to the Minister by the end of June. That deadline was extended to the end of July.

In its letter to Mr Ahern, the group claimed the draft of the new code of conduct “does not address any of the issues raised” over the past 18 months, and in the absence of these reforms it concluded “the group is a window-dressing exercise which lacks any substance”.

It outlined four key objections to the guidelines. These included a lack of necessity for full disclosure, an absence of any definition of market rent, no provision for a register of lease interest, and an ineffective response to the issue of arbitrator bias.