Caterer letters

Time to adopt stricter laws on property deals
Nine years ago we started to look for a small property that would be the first step towards our dream of owning a small hotel. We sold our house, released the equity and went into rented accommodation, believing this would put us in a good position to move quickly.

After about six months we found our ideal property. An offer was accepted and the necessary finance raised. At the last minute some "expats" from Hong Kong came along and a contract race got under way. We could not compete with their cash-in-hand offer and we lost out at the final hurdle.

Feeling very bruised, we continued for a couple of years but couldn't find anything to compare with the first property, and so we put our plans on the back burner until the start of 2002.

Since then, through no fault of our own, we have had two more disappointments. The first time we came unstuck on the structural survey. The second time the vendor simply changed his mind just before exchange.

We have wasted thousands of pounds and valuable time in our fruitless attempts to buy. Surely it is about time we took a leaf out of Scotland's book, where the acceptance of an offer becomes a binding contract. This would protect both parties and only serious contenders would put themselves forward in the first place.

By the way, if anyone has a lovely hotel to sell, why not get in touch?

Sara Coverley, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, By e-mail

Seeing stars over grading schemes for hotels
I see Alan Britten is the latest to be passed the poisoned chalice of reviewing hotel-grading schemes (Caterer, 8 May). Can he really have done such a rotten job at the English Tourism Council to deserve this?

I recall people talking about sorting out this issue back in 1979. Britten may care to consider an approach which has not yet been tried, so far as I know.

The problem is that the various "grading" schemes attempt to do two things: to classify accommodation according to the type and extent of facilities and services, and to grade the quality of those facilities and services.

The AA has a good way of combining the two, by awarding red stars to hotels which offer exceptional quality within their classification. Take your pick: bog-standard three-star or really good two-star.

The problem with the AA approach, however, is that it blurs the distinction between classification and grading. So why not separate them completely? Use stars to classify hotels into categories - and ensure that all the organisations publishing guides work from the same set of standards.

Alongside that, publish a percentage score to grade the quality of the accommodation. That being a subjective matter, it can be scored independently by the scheme's inspectors, and ratings for the same outlet may therefore differ among various guides.

If benchmarks were to be created for classification, to be followed by all guides, it would also make sense to introduce compulsory registration of hotel and guesthouse accommodation, so that we have a complete picture.

Well, I did say this was a poisoned chalice.

David Goymour, Editor and Journalist, London

Seeing red over colour of chopping board
I was shocked to see (Caterer, 8 May) that a Michelin-starred chef such as Sat Bains would use a red chopping board to prepare vegetables, when it is common knowledge that the red board is for raw meat.

This seems unprofessional, both of him and of you, to publish such a picture.

Jason Simpson, by e-mail

Well spotted, Jason. We've spoken to Sat and asked him why he apparently used a red chopping board for one of his dishes and the reason is that he covers the board with raw chicken mousse as a sticking agent to help bind the filo pastry, which he omitted to tell us - Ed.

Inland Revenue should take a fairer approach
Forbes Mutch's Comment on tronc schemes (Caterer, 15 May) struck just the right balance. I have a lot of dealings with the Inland Revenue Special Projects Office and have suggested that its approach will not easily bear fruit.

What tends to happen is that the restaurant owner answers a few apparently innocent questions from the Inland Revenue. He is then told that the tronc scheme is not being operated properly and the Inland Revenue is going back six years to raise assessments for unpaid national insurance contributions, interest and penalties. For a typical restaurant that will mean a bill of at least £200,000.

The owner is devastated. He hasn't got £200,000, and so he phones his accountant. His accountant is immediately on his guard because he fears he might be sued by the restaurant owner because he probably should have known more than he did about tronc schemes.

As a result, the Inland Revenue meets an extremely hostile restaurant owner and accountant and it often takes weeks or even months to break through the barrier which the Inland Revenue has effectively put up and to start discussing the issues sensibly.

I've tried to get it through to the Inland Revenue that it might be more productive if it agreed with the restaurant owner how the tronc scheme was going to be operated in the future and administered some kind of financial penalty on the restaurant dependent on the degree of abuse that has taken place.

Unfortunately, the Inland Revenue just can't think like this and immediately comes on strongly to extract as much as it possibly can.

It's ridiculous really, especially when the Inland Revenue is supposed to be what is euphemistically called an "enabling department".

Steve Wright, Wheawill & Sudworth, chartered accountants and registered auditors, London

Many readers may be alarmed by the article on gratuities and tax (Caterer, 15 May) as it highlighted that 300 London restaurants could be under the Inland Revenue microscope for investigation into the treatment of tipping.

If you are confused or worried, you should contact the British Association of Hospitality Accountants (BAHA).

One of our founding members, Howard Field, was sponsored by consultant PKF to write a booklet called Tips on Tax, a practical guide to the treatment for income tax, VAT and national insurance of tips, gratuities and service charges.

BAHA has also started to distribute a free Guide to Tronc Schemes, published by Wheawill & Sudworth. For £7.50, plus postage and packaging, these two booklets can clarify where you stand before the Inland Revenue calls.

Contact Jackie Best at BAHA on 01423 781498, or e-mail jbest@thebaha.demon.co.uk.

David Wood, chief executive, BAHA