# Brixton's Kaff Bar to close in July, as landlords triple the rent



## editor (Jun 23, 2015)

I am so pissed off about this. Gentrification strikes again. 







Read the full story here. 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/06/kaff-bar-in-brixton-to-close-as-landlords-triple-rent/


----------



## Belushi (Jun 23, 2015)

Triple?!   FFS


----------



## leanderman (Jun 23, 2015)

Who is the  landlord? Billy Ocean?

He is said to own much of that strip of Atlantic rd.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2015)

You can just bet that some posters will defend the landlord's right to sweat their asset.


----------



## brixtonblade (Jun 23, 2015)

Sad news...  hope they find another place they can rent.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 23, 2015)

No - WTF?


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2015)

The guy built this up from nothing. Every bar/restaurant had failed on that site before, and he was there every day there for years making a success of the place. It makes me so fucking angry.


----------



## BigMoaner (Jun 23, 2015)

36 pager


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> Sad news...  hope they find another place they can rent.


There's almost no chance of that happening. It's all well heeled "independents", well connected crowdfunders and corporate cash buying up the rents now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Triple?!   FFS



Problem is that unless a business has a long lease (and few do,nowadays), you've got absolutely no protection legislatively to stop your landlord tripling,quadrupling or quintupling your rent if they think the traffic will bear it.


----------



## brixtonblade (Jun 23, 2015)

editor said:


> There's almost no chance of that happening. It's all well heeled "independents", well connected crowdfunders and corporate cash buying up the rents now.



Any chance the landlord is just chancing his arm?  Seems a massive hike - is anyone going to want to pay that?

I'll miss their cabbage :-(


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 23, 2015)

It used to be a struggle to get a new place going in brixton not so long ago, now it's triple the rent?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jun 23, 2015)

What a load of old shite


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2015)

editor said:


> There's almost no chance of that happening. It's all well heeled "independents", well connected crowdfunders and corporate cash buying up the rents now.



Tsk. The usual suspects will take you to task over that "crowdfunding" reference, and say it's anti-New Zealand prejudice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> 36 pager



It *should* be a long thread. There *should*be some record of how people feel.


----------



## BigMoaner (Jun 23, 2015)

I liked the place. 

Trippled? What on earth could generate that sort of revenue?????


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> Any chance the landlord is just chancing his arm?  Seems a massive hike - is anyone going to want to pay that?
> 
> I'll miss their cabbage :-(


No - I've got a (very long!) follow up piece from the manager at Kaff which explains that this has happened after a long fight by him to stay there. I'll publish it tomorrow.


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> Any chance the landlord is just chancing his arm?  Seems a massive hike - is anyone going to want to pay that?
> 
> I'll miss their cabbage :-(


The manager has made a huge success of the place - it's even packed on a Monday night - and with Brixton's new demographic being able to afford much higher prices than what's he's charging, I'm sure a chain/trendy independent will be along soon to cash in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> Any chance the landlord is just chancing his arm?  Seems a massive hike - is anyone going to want to pay that?
> 
> I'll miss their cabbage :-(



Problem is, it's not difficult for a landlord to check out the current rental yield for similar commercial properties, and think "I'm going to chance my arm". What a lot of them don't ponder is that it's best to have a steady lower income than a patchy higher income, a lot of the time.


----------



## BigMoaner (Jun 23, 2015)

Nailed on some rustic artisan craft pop up bar or something.


----------



## BigMoaner (Jun 23, 2015)

So what ever it'll be will need three times the revenue of the kaff. Waitrose???


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 23, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> So what ever it'll be will need three times the revenue of the kaff. Waitrose???


Not if the new leaseholders are trustafarians who are just doing it to fill in time "til they cop for the family fortune.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 23, 2015)

1'35" in:

"Because we're bringing investment and money into this place, we're partly to blame. But I think this is a good thing."


----------



## Smick (Jun 23, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Problem is, it's not difficult for a landlord to check out the current rental yield for similar commercial properties, and think "I'm going to chance my arm". What a lot of them don't ponder is that it's best to have a steady lower income than a patchy higher income, a lot of the time.


Not if you are doing pop up shite. Burgers for two weeks, then some prick from the Home Counties who thinks his two week holiday in Cancun positions him ideally to do Mexican street food, then home made Christmas decorations in the run up to December. God, I hate pop ups.


----------



## T & P (Jun 23, 2015)

That's a damn disgrace, and shameless landlord profiteering and greed at its worst.


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2015)

It's like everything I liked about Brixton is slowly getting squeezed out and replaced with characterless, here-today-gone-tomorrow fluff and ruthless cash-in merchants. It's so depressing.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 23, 2015)

can you name the landlord editor ?
this smells of golfrate as CH1 said elsewhere ?


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> can you name the landlord editor ?
> this smells of golfrate as CH1 said elsewhere ?


I believe it was a consortium of three landlords, not the extra evil Golfrate.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 23, 2015)

The landlords should be named and shamed.

Their ownership of the building is a matter of public record.


----------



## Kevs (Jun 23, 2015)

Such bad news. Love kaff. I hope they find a new place if this happens.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 23, 2015)

Fucking awful... If they open another Cafe there never frequent it.  Stealth flyer and sticker their windows...reminding them what they are complicit in.

It reminds me what they did to Spirit on Broadway Market, amongst others.

Increased his rent, community rallied to help and raised money, the whole thing dragged out, Spirit lost his fishmongers/grocers' shop which was everything he had...his livelyhood, his place in the local community etc. and he had a near breakdown...the bastards that moved in and took over the shop have made it into a fishmongers selling overpriced, ponsy fish. I can't believe they had no idea what happened before them. Insult to fucking injury.  I will NEVER ever buy from them. I walk past and I feel punchy.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 23, 2015)

That's a real shame. Tripling the rent is having a laugh though, royally, wonder if something supposedly more lucrative has been lined up and the landlord has let greed get the better of them.

As has been said, better to have regular income at a reasonable level rather than erratic higher payments.


----------



## blameless77 (Jun 23, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> I liked the place.
> 
> Trippled? What on earth could generate that sort of revenue?????



That's the rub. The only businesses that will be able to pay nu brixton rents are those that charge over the odds. I brought this up on another mailing list and was called naive for hoping that a community should support all of it's members. Sad day indeed.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 23, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> That's a real shame. Tripling the rent is having a laugh though, royally, wonder if something supposedly more lucrative has been lined up and the landlord has let greed get the better of them.
> 
> As has been said, better to have regular income at a reasonable level rather than erratic higher payments.




It is the MO...It's happening everywhere. It's the way to get the long standing local shopowners out and cash in on _Hipsterism_ which basically means more money then fucking sense or a social conscience


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 23, 2015)

Rutita1 said:


> It is the MO...It's happening everywhere. It's the way to get the long standing local shopowners out and cash in on _Hipsterism_ which basically means more money then fucking sense or a social conscience


I've lived in Glasgow for nearly six years, and during that time part of the district where I live has been gentrified. The area closest to the university is worst, there's been a glut of private student accommodation buildings, including a monster nine story one (planning appear to be ignoring the non compliance as the planning application was only for six or seven stories). There were over 50 objections lodged against the development however most were dismissed or ignored by the planners as they were NIMBY objections rather than substantive.

I ended up moving into a slightly different part of town as my landlord wanted yo put the rent up by more than 10%, for a property in need of maintenance with a damp problem.

More hipster places have opened up, but they're not all doing great.

There's a real shortage of social housing including family housing, everything is becoming geared towards rich students who can afford the private halls.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 23, 2015)

same here in Cardiff, more and more


----------



## boohoo (Jun 23, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> Sad news...  hope they find another place they can rent.



lots of ace places outside of Brixton.


----------



## boohoo (Jun 23, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> I liked the place.
> 
> Trippled? What on earth could generate that sort of revenue?????



I think if you pop over to Kaff and put in a good word about The Heath, then we might be able to persuade them to open up there?


----------



## thatguyhex (Jun 23, 2015)

I can't fucking believe this.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 24, 2015)

Rutita1 said:


> I can't believe they had no idea what happened before them.



That's one of the characteristics of the gentrifier, swan into a neighbourhood and act as if it's a blank canvas.


----------



## tompound (Jun 24, 2015)

Absolutely gutted for Steve if this goes ahead. The success of Kaff hasn't been given to him through riding a popular wave, I remember him telling me that he didn't have a day off for the first couple of years. When TIme Out ranked it as one of the best places to go in London, the easiest thing would have been to court this kind of attention further, jack up prices, and generally go the way of the unwelcoming, could-be-anywhere cafe. But it's remained the best value place in Brixton and always willing to try out something new or get involved with supporting a local cause. 

Can only see this being replaced by a loss-leader chain/brand looking for a Brixton site, I find it hard to believe that there's the possibility to generate enough revenue to pay triple the rent.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 24, 2015)

tompound said:


> I find it hard to believe that there's the possibility to generate enough revenue to pay triple the rent.



Exactly. This question should be put directly to the unholy trinity of landlords.


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2015)

Something of a heartbreaking update on Kaff's Facebook page:



> A quick message regarding our recent news. We appreciate all your kind words and support. Kaff has been an epic journey and we thought we were doing alright.
> 
> Unfortunately we can't afford the new rent proposals by our landlords. Sadly we've been dealing with this for almost a year now and there's not really much more we can do.
> 
> Thank you again to everyone's support and more importantly being part of a true Brixton venture. With all due respects we can't answer or respond to all messages straight away it's all a bit emotional but thank you again.


----------



## innit (Jun 24, 2015)

This is really fucking sad. That site had a hideously high turnover for years and Kaff have done brilliantly to make such a success of it as it doesn't really have passing trade. The food at lunchtime is delicious and you can get a good feed for a fiver which is great for brixton these days

I'll really miss it.


----------



## Ms T (Jun 24, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Exactly. This question should be put directly to the unholy trinity of landlords.


This. I don't go to Kaff much, but a rent hike of this magnitude is outrageous.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 24, 2015)

Ach, that's sad news.


----------



## Choc (Jun 24, 2015)

that is terrible!


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jun 24, 2015)

tompound said:


> ....Can only see this being replaced by a loss-leader chain/brand looking for a Brixton site, I find it hard to believe that there's the possibility to generate enough revenue to pay triple the rent.


Sadly, I suspect you are right. And if it is another chain, boycotts need to be the order of the day.
Terrible news


----------



## Winot (Jun 24, 2015)

Ms T said:


> This. I don't go to Kaff much, but a rent hike of this magnitude is outrageous.



Interesting also that they say they've been negotiating about it for a year - so not a response by the landlord to very recent events.

I'm struck in this by how removed and faceless landlords are (can be) from the location they own properties in.  We see the people running and using local businesses yet often have no idea who the landlord is and have no way of interacting. Yet they (and how they choose to run their businesses) are key to how an area is to live and work in.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jun 24, 2015)

Crazy. What the fuck is the landlord thinking of? Curious to see what type of new tenant takes over. Chain? Surely the wrong location? Wagamama? Pizza Express? Big enough to cover the cost but seems odd to me.


----------



## Peanut Monkey (Jun 24, 2015)

Very shit news. Gutted for them.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 24, 2015)

Never really spent a huge amount of time there but feel sorry for the owners, obviously.  When did Kaff start up? 2008ish?


----------



## Belushi (Jun 24, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Never really spent a huge amount of time there but feel sorry for the owners, obviously.  When did Kaff start up? 2008ish?



Think it was a couple of years after that, 2010ish


----------



## Rushy (Jun 24, 2015)

I'm sorry to see it go. I can't have been there more than once or twice in the past year but it's somewhere I always recommended to people for a friendly and lively night out.

Is it three landlords because it is three premises (three shop fronts) knocked together? That would be horribly messy to negotiate.

I'm actually not surprised that new tenants might be prepared to pay three times what these places were going for 5 yrs ago. It was a ghost street as far as retail and leisure were concerned. And we were in recession. Brixton has since overflowed into it making it far more viable as a location. I'm more surprised that there isn't protection for small businesses against rises of this magnitude over such a short period.


----------



## aussw9 (Jun 24, 2015)

The rent rises in the area are astronomical compared to 2010. It is truly fucked. 

Proper fucked off.


----------



## aussw9 (Jun 24, 2015)

Looking forward to Pizza Express trying to hustle in on Brixton


----------



## teuchter (Jun 24, 2015)

The irony is that the success of the bar must be in some part down to the gentrification of the last five years and the custom it has brought for that kind of place. 

For the landlords to raise the rent so much that the business is no longer viable is pretty harsh though.


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2015)

It's more than just "pretty harsh" in my book. I'd call it fucking disgusting.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 24, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/24/which-london-neighbourhoods-will-disappear-next


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2015)

Kaff was one of the very few affordable cafe/bars of its kind in Brixton. It was laid back and relaxing in the daytimes, and coffee was just £2 so it was great for freelancers looking for a space to work  (where else can replace it?). Beer and cocktails could be as low as £3 in the evenings and a fiver would get you a tasty feed.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 24, 2015)

Very keen to find out who these shameless, and so far faceless, landlords are. 

Does anyone have (free) Land Registry access?


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Very keen to find out who these shameless, and so far faceless, landlords are.
> 
> Does anyone have (free) Land Registry access?


I've suggested that some banners bearing their name might be a nice addition to Saturday's Reclaim Brixton Assembly.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jun 24, 2015)

Was this the first Rent Review on the current lease?


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Was this the first Rent Review on the current lease?


I've got a huge piece to post up soon which describes the background in_ vast_ detail! Let me get on it...


----------



## 299 old timer (Jun 24, 2015)

A pdf of the lease would make interesting reading


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2015)

Here's the full story from the manager's perspective. It's a long read but an interesting one. 
The end of Brixton Kaff: a diary from the front line of gentrification

He told me that he's reluctant to name the landlords right now as the final legal details are still being sorted.


----------



## Winot (Jun 24, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Is it three landlords because it is three premises (three shop fronts) knocked together? That would be horribly messy to negotiate.



Sounds like you were spot on with this comment.  That and some bad advice.  A sad tale.


----------



## Winot (Jun 24, 2015)

Anyone know where small businesses go for decent commercial advice these days?  It used to be provided by a business manager at their bank - is that still offered?


----------



## Dan U (Jun 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Here's the full story from the manager's perspective. It's a long read but an interesting one.
> The end of Brixton Kaff: a diary from the front line of gentrification
> 
> He told me that he's reluctant to name the landlords right now as the final legal details are still being sorted.


Probably the most useful thing I've read on what this all actually means for people running small businesses in a changing area. 

Real shame.


----------



## brixtonblade (Jun 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Here's the full story from the manager's perspective. It's a long read but an interesting one.
> The end of Brixton Kaff: a diary from the front line of gentrification
> 
> He told me that he's reluctant to name the landlords right now as the final legal details are still being sorted.



Really sad


----------



## prunus (Jun 24, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Very keen to find out who these shameless, and so far faceless, landlords are.
> 
> Does anyone have (free) Land Registry access?



It's three different registrations by the look of it (one for each of 64,66,68). Hence consortium of three landlords I guess. Hang on, I'll get the details to this thread.

e2a: this info is not correct in fact, having got the titles.  But not saying anything more until a few days have passed (see below).


----------



## prunus (Jun 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Here's the full story from the manager's perspective. It's a long read but an interesting one.
> The end of Brixton Kaff: a diary from the front line of gentrification
> 
> He told me that he's reluctant to name the landlords right now as the final legal details are still being sorted.



In light of this should I not put the details here then?  Although the information is in the public domain, for anyone willing to spend £9, anyway (the registered title-holders, at least, who might not be the actual operating landlords of course, but likely are).


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2015)

prunus said:


> In light of this should I not put the details here then?  Although the information is in the public domain, for anyone willing to spend £9, anyway (the registered title-holders, at least, who might not be the actual operating landlords of course, but likely are).


Do you mind just waiting a day or two? From what I gather it may potentially cause a few problems right now - but, as you say, it's in the public domain so it's up to you.


----------



## Ms T (Jun 24, 2015)

What's interesting (to me) is there are two vacant lots just opposite Kaff, and the clothes shop never seems to have any customers. I'm not sure the landlords realise that it's still a tricky site.


----------



## uk benzo (Jun 24, 2015)

there is also the juice bar that has been empty for years (the one next to ex-Sitifis).


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2015)

Ms T said:


> What's interesting (to me) is there are two vacant lots just opposite Kaff, and the clothes shop never seems to have any customers. I'm not sure the landlords realise that it's still a tricky site.


Art Nouveau's struggles are going to get worse after a new neighbour lodged another noise complaint.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2015)

innit said:


> This is really fucking sad. *That site had a hideously high turnover for years and Kaff have done brilliantly to make such a success of it *as it doesn't really have passing trade. The food at lunchtime is delicious and you can get a good feed for a fiver which is great for brixton these days
> 
> I'll really miss it.



Sadly, Kaff's having made a success of the site has probably contributed to the landlord's cuntery.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 24, 2015)

From his Buzz piece it seems that the owners were from the outset only ever prepared to enter into a 5 year lease and that that has come to an end. Is that right?

That's not a very typical lease structure. Very insecure with a single landlord, let alone three separate ones. Indeed, he does seem to imply that it rang alarm bells at the time. 

Are the landlords multi unit professional landlords or are they are they the owners of the previously failed restaurants?


----------



## prunus (Jun 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Do you mind just waiting a day or two? From what I gather it may potentially cause a few problems right now - but, as you say, it's in the public domain so it's up to you.



Certainly don't want to cause any potential problems, so will watch the thread for your (their) 'ok' before posting any details.


----------



## Effrasurfer (Jun 24, 2015)

Farewell, hot ginger.


----------



## Theo Wallis (Jun 25, 2015)

.


----------



## Twattor (Jun 25, 2015)

This is horrendous in every direction you look at it. I know very little about commercial leases but from what i recall from college many years ago they are typically 15? years with 5 year reviews, upwards only rent reviews, full repairing and insuring, and tenant is liable for any dilapidation. Any review is based on local commercial rates, and i believe there ought to be a review dispute structure.  

This sounds like a disaster - a bunch of landlords unable to make a satisfactory return signed-up someone desperate for a site for a short term lease on god knows what terms and now appear to be about to profit from the expiration of the lease and uplift of local values.  The rent must have been very low and the tenant very trusting/naive/poorly advised to go near a tenancy split across three landlords - triple the risk, and the bargaining strength is with them; any one could ask for excessivlely increased rent at the end of the term and exert undue influence on the tenant through the necessity of retaining all leases. Essentially the tenant is open to blackmail on three fronts.

Best of luck to them and i hope they find somewhere else, but in the longer term they are better out of this situation.


----------



## oryx (Jun 26, 2015)

aussw9 said:


> Looking forward to Pizza Express trying to hustle in on Brixton



Or Gail's Breads (£7 a loaf last time I looked) or Paul, Starbucks, Costa, Caffe Nero or another chain able to pay the level of rent that a small business cannot.

There ceased to be rent control in the residential sector years ago and there has never been AFAIK any rent control in the commercial sector. This is very worrying for small businesses, who all political parties claim to want to help. I don't know how they propose to help. There's no help for small businesses priced out by rent hikes, another famous example (not Brixton obv) being Gaby's in Charing Cross Road.

It's all about greed and getting the utmost price in rent, of course. My area (in SE London) is about five years behind Brixton in terms of gentrification and I really dread the places I eat and drink in being closed due to rent hikes.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

Twattor said:


> Best of luck to them and i hope they find somewhere else, but in the longer term they are better out of this situation.


Sadly they're almost certainly out of Brixton, and quite likely out of business.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 26, 2015)

oryx said:


> Or Gail's Breads (£7 a loaf last time I looked) or Paul, Starbucks, Costa, Caffe Nero or another chain able to pay the level of rent that a small business cannot.
> 
> There ceased to be rent control in the residential sector years ago and there has never been AFAIK any rent control in the commercial sector. This is very worrying for small businesses, who all political parties claim to want to help. I don't know how they propose to help. There's no help for small businesses priced out by rent hikes, another famous example (not Brixton obv) being Gaby's in Charing Cross Road.
> 
> It's all about greed and getting the utmost price in rent, of course.



Seems just as likely that the landlord(s) want to use the site themselves. 

The trebling being a cynical way of achieving this.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 26, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Seems just as likely that the landlord(s) want to use the site themselves.
> 
> The trebling being a cynical way of achieving this.


Or possibly just one or two of them does.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jun 26, 2015)

I'm not a lawyer, but a lot of legal documents do pass my desk. 5 year leases do happen, but the scenario of 3 landlords is most unusual. I asked one of the legal team if a 3 times rent hike is usual, he looked puzzled (as in not really) and answered "only if they can get away with it".


----------



## Rushy (Jun 26, 2015)

Useful and clearly written overview about renewing a commercial lease here:

http://www.taylorwessing.com/synapse/ti_renewinglease.html


----------



## Rushy (Jun 26, 2015)

Twattor said:


> This sounds like a disaster - a bunch of landlords unable to make a satisfactory return signed-up someone desperate for a site for a short term lease on god knows what terms and now appear to be about to profit from the expiration of the lease and uplift of local values.  The rent must have been very low and the tenant very trusting/naive/poorly advised to go near a tenancy split across three landlords - triple the risk, and the bargaining strength is with them; any one could ask for excessivlely increased rent at the end of the term and exert undue influence on the tenant through the necessity of retaining all leases.



You also need to consider the scenario in which one or more of the landlords was owner of the previous business on that site which ran into trouble and closed during the recession. (Steve does mention that the landlords had tried and failed to run a business in the past and he concludes that they aren't up to the task - not clear whether it was that site).

 It would be perfectly reasonable for them to try to find a tenant after their own business failed. And perfectly reasonable for them to offer only a short lease so long as they did not falsely offer otherwise. He does say that they absolutely refused to offer a longer lease from the outset.

As sad as the whole scenario is, this does not appear to be at all clear cut. I'd certainly try getting some clarity before putting individual people's names on banners along side Network Rail's.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jun 26, 2015)

whisper of an 'All Bar One' but it might be just a rumour.


----------



## Twattor (Jun 26, 2015)

There goes the neighbourhood...


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jun 26, 2015)

All Bar fucking Humanity


----------



## 299 old timer (Jun 26, 2015)

oryx said:


> Or Gail's Breads (£7 a loaf last time I looked) or Paul, Starbucks, Costa, Caffe Nero or another chain able to pay the level of rent that a small business cannot.
> 
> There ceased to be rent control in the residential sector years ago and there has never been AFAIK any rent control in the commercial sector. This is very worrying for small businesses, who all political parties claim to want to help. I don't know how they propose to help. There's no help for small businesses priced out by rent hikes, another famous example (not Brixton obv) being Gaby's in Charing Cross Road.
> 
> It's all about greed and getting the utmost price in rent, of course. My area (in SE London) is about five years behind Brixton in terms of gentrification and I really dread the places I eat and drink in being closed due to rent hikes.



Another example is Food For Thought in Covent Garden, closing after 40 odd years. As a veggie I often popped in for a cheap meal

http://www.theguardian.com/business...-iconic-vegetarian-restaurant-set-for-closure

London is getting blander by the second I'm afraid


----------



## Rushy (Jun 26, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Another example is Food For Thought in Covent Garden, closing after 40 odd years. As a veggie I often popped in for a cheap meal
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/business...-iconic-vegetarian-restaurant-set-for-closure
> 
> London is getting blander by the second I'm afraid


That's a shame. I used to eat there a couple of times a week as it was a few yards from my office. Almost 20 yrs ago, mind.


----------



## steeeve (Jun 26, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Another example is Food For Thought in Covent Garden, closing after 40 odd years. As a veggie I often popped in for a cheap meal
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/business...-iconic-vegetarian-restaurant-set-for-closure
> 
> London is getting blander by the second I'm afraid



The Mercers' Company own the freehold to the vast majority of that block, their ethos isn't particularly cut-throat.  Not sure if that particular unit is their's


----------



## Belushi (Jun 26, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> London is getting blander by the second I'm afraid



Really does feel like that atm


----------



## Peanut Monkey (Jun 27, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> whisper of an 'All Bar One' but it might be just a rumour.



Aaargh, surely a wind up?

I'm gutted at how the city and area I was born and bred in has become a place that doesn't feel for me anymore. Who the fuck is London for these days?


----------



## madolesance (Jun 28, 2015)

What a great one sided discussion! I believe the entire truth is not being revealed here.


----------



## prunus (Jun 28, 2015)

Twattor said:


> This is horrendous in every direction you look at it. I know very little about commercial leases but from what i recall from college many years ago they are typically 15? years with 5 year reviews, upwards only rent reviews, full repairing and insuring, and tenant is liable for any dilapidation. Any review is based on local commercial rates, and i believe there ought to be a review dispute structure.
> 
> This sounds like a disaster - a bunch of landlords unable to make a satisfactory return signed-up someone desperate for a site for a short term lease on god knows what terms and now appear to be about to profit from the expiration of the lease and uplift of local values.  The rent must have been very low and the tenant very trusting/naive/poorly advised to go near a tenancy split across three landlords - triple the risk, and the bargaining strength is with them; any one could ask for excessivlely increased rent at the end of the term and exert undue influence on the tenant through the necessity of retaining all leases. Essentially the tenant is open to blackmail on three fronts.
> 
> Best of luck to them and i hope they find somewhere else, but in the longer term they are better out of this situation.





299 old timer said:


> I'm not a lawyer, but a lot of legal documents do pass my desk. 5 year leases do happen, but the scenario of 3 landlords is most unusual. I asked one of the legal team if a 3 times rent hike is usual, he looked puzzled (as in not really) and answered "only if they can get away with it".



Just to be clear - there are not 3 landlords. The whole of the ground floors of 64, 66, and 68 (plus basements below, and a bit more) are under one lease (125 years,120 remaining). This lease is owned by three people (one of the original 3 has been bought out by someone else in the past 5 years by the looks of it), but that's not three landlords, not three sets of negotiations. Thy may argue amongst themselves as to what they want to do but they present one face to the sub-leaseholder. The freehold (to the whole block) is owned by someone else (a company; not cross-referenced for common ownership with the lease yet).


----------



## 299 old timer (Jun 28, 2015)

prunus said:


> Just to be clear - there are not 3 landlords. The whole of the ground floors of 64, 66, and 68 (plus basements below, and a bit more) are under one lease (125 years,120 remaining). This lease is owned by three people (one of the original 3 has been bought out by someone else in the past 5 years by the looks of it), but that's not three landlords, not three sets of negotiations. Thy may argue amongst themselves as to what they want to do but they present one face to the sub-leaseholder. The freehold (to the whole block) is owned by someone else (a company; not cross-referenced for common ownership with the lease yet).



Thanks for the clarification. Still sounds like a complicated mess though. So the Kaff owner is a sub-tenant then?


----------



## prunus (Jun 28, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Thanks for the clarification. Still sounds like a complicated mess though. So the Kaff owner is a sub-tenant then?



Yes, in the same way a tenant in a buy-to-let flat is: they rent off the leaseholder, who has bought the lease (typically a long one 100+ years) from the freeholder (or, more likely, from the previous holder of the lease, but ultimately at some point in the past it was sold by the freeholder).  It's pretty standard for both residential and conmercial property rental.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2015)

prunus said:


> Thy may argue amongst themselves as to what they want to do...


That's what I heard. They didn't all get on and had different plans about the venue.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 28, 2015)

prunus said:


> Just to be clear - there are not 3 landlords. The whole of the ground floors of 64, 66, and 68 (plus basements below, and a bit more) are under one lease (125 years,120 remaining). This lease is owned by three people (one of the original 3 has been bought out by someone else in the past 5 years by the looks of it), but that's not three landlords, not three sets of negotiations. Thy may argue amongst themselves as to what they want to do but they present one face to the sub-leaseholder. The freehold (to the whole block) is owned by someone else (a company; not cross-referenced for common ownership with the lease yet).


Thanks for that. Adds some clarity although I'm not sure it makes the hugest difference in practical terms. Although they are legally one entity there is no duty on the landlords to present one face to the tenant, I don't think. If they can't agree amongst themselves then that is unfortunately also the tenants problem. That said, he does not automatically lose any rights he has just because the landlords can't agree with each other.

Do you know whether the sub tenancy was expressly exempted from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954? (This would effectively take away automatic rights of renewal, I believe). And what reason was stated in the eviction notice referred to by the Kaff owner?


----------



## 299 old timer (Jun 28, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Do you know whether the sub tenancy was expressly exempted from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954? (This would effectively take away automatic rights of renewal, I believe).



Looks like that is the case, you are correct. If it is the case, then the 5 year unsecure tenancy is coming to an end and the landlord is doing what landlords do. A look at the lease would clarify everything.


----------



## Kevs (Jun 30, 2015)

Hi - does anyone know when it's the last night at Kaff? I want to get one last meal in.


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2015)

The closing party for the staff is on the 18th.


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2015)

Last night was the venue's final party. It closes its doors to the public this afternoon.





















I'm going to REALLY miss the place.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/07/...road-as-gentrification-claims-another-victim/


----------



## BigMoaner (Jul 18, 2015)

that sucks. Very sad, especially when it sounds like they could have gone on and on. 

Anyone know what it'll be replaced with?


----------



## madolesance (Jul 19, 2015)

editor said:


> Last night was the venue's final party. It closes its doors to the public this afternoon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Such a shame but it's disappointing the full story has not been reported.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 19, 2015)

madolesance said:


> Such a shame but it's disappointing the full story has not been reported.



So you hinted at earlier… so why not _actually say something?_


----------



## madolesance (Jul 19, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> So you hinted at earlier… so why not _actually say something?_



Cause I ain't no journalist! One side of this has been reported but no effort has been made to find out the other side.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jul 19, 2015)

Did the sub tenant have security of tenure?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/56

The 1954 Act is quite specific.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 19, 2015)

I would like the landlords to explain themselves.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2015)

madolesance said:


> Such a shame but it's disappointing the full story has not been reported.


They've had every opportunity to put forward their side of their story, but they have elected to stay quiet. If you have some amazing insights into the affair, please share it.


----------



## madolesance (Jul 20, 2015)

editor said:


> They've had every opportunity to put forward their side of their story, but they have elected to stay quiet. If you have some amazing insights into the affair, please share it.



I am not going to say anything as I feel there had not been any investigated journalism carried out by others supporting 'Kaff' but not reporting entire story.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2015)

madolesance said:


> I am not going to say anything as I feel there had not been any investigated journalism carried out by others supporting 'Kaff' but not reporting entire story.


Did the rent triple or not?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2015)

madolesance said:


> I am not going to say anything as I feel there had not been any investigated journalism carried out by others supporting 'Kaff' but not reporting entire story.



So basically you're just going to come across as some snide no-mark tapping the side of their nose and winking.
Rather you than me.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2015)

I went to the final staff party on Saturday night. The party was amazing and there was an awful lot of love going out to Steve for all his hard work. It was a very bittersweet night. I'm going to miss Kaff. It was one of the most friendly, laid back and affordable places for people like me looking to do a bit of work in the afternoon.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2015)

Some pics from the staff party. Dam, I'm going to miss the place. 































http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/07/brixtons-much-loved-kaff-bar-closes-down-after-an-almighty-party/


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2015)

On Saturday afternoon, there was the excellent Green River Band bluegrass outfit playing and they were giving out free pancakes...


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2015)

Heartbreaking scenes as Brixton’s Kaff bar holds its clearout sale


----------



## alcopop (Jul 22, 2015)

editor said:


> Did the rent triple or not?



Did you ask them?


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2015)

alcopop said:


> Did you ask them?


I asked the person who's just had to give up on four years of his hard work and lay off all his staff, and he seemed pretty sure that's what happened.

But if you can locate these mystery landlords, please feel free to present their side of the story.


----------



## alcopop (Jul 22, 2015)

With respect, I would think that his view could hardly be called objective.

I should have thought that as a journalist one would ask them for a comment before publishing? 

How are they mysterious?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 22, 2015)

I'm finding this all rather bizarre. Three posters hinting or agreeing that there may be another side to the story, yet seemingly have either no evidence of such, or are choosing to not say. Ed says he's already tried to get a comment from the landlords and hasn't had any luck (which doesn't surprise me tbh) and yet he's not supposed to write a piece about its closure for what it clearly a much loved place (and the reasons as he understands them) unless he's managed to get a comment from the landlords first.

Sorry, very dubious indeed.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 22, 2015)

well someone has to protect the interests of capital!


----------



## alcopop (Jul 22, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> . Ed says he's already tried to get a comment from the landlords and hasn't had any luck (which doesn't surprise me tbh)



I don't think he said he tried to get a quote did he?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 22, 2015)

surely you've done your research before dishing out allegations?!


----------



## leanderman (Jul 22, 2015)

Kaff is a real loss.

I suppose the landlords are entitled to their building back but it is a dirty trick to demand tripled rent.

If they want to set up their own bar there - as has been suggested - why couldn't they just be honest about it?

If they don't want to set up a bar, they are being greedy.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 22, 2015)

alcopop said:


> I don't think he said he tried to get a quote did he?



Well I've no idea to what extent Ed may or may not have tried. But I suspect, that it would prove incredibly difficult to get anything out of them anyway - if my experience of trying to track and get responses from landlords to sort out problems (especially with empty businesses/problems/contracts) is anything to go on. And if its for a blog/media outlet, then the outcome might be 'no comment' or 'speak to our solicitors' from them anyway. Not that Ed actually has any obligation to do that if he wants to run a piece based on the information he has.

Not that's really the point - it's the repeated snide accusation on this thread that 'there's another side to this' which is then met with absolutely no evidence to the contrary being forwarded by those people doing so. And then to try and place some kind of blame or emphasis on Ed to do that work? Nah, put up or shut the fuck up.


----------



## alcopop (Jul 22, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Well I've no idea to what extent Ed may or may not have tried. But I suspect, that it would prove incredibly difficult to get anything out of them anyway - if my experience of trying to track and get responses from landlords to sort out problems (especially with empty businesses/problems/contracts) is anything to go on. And if its for a blog/media outlet, then the comment is likely to be 'no comment' or 'speak to our solicitors' from them anyway. Not that Ed actually has any obligation to do that if he wants to run a piece based on the information he has.
> 
> Not that's really the point - it's the repeated snide accusation on this thread that 'there's another side to this' which is then met with absolutely no evidence to the contrary being forwarded by those people doing so. And then to try and place some kind of blame or emphasis on Ed to do that work? Nah, put up or shut the fuck up.



But if the information he has is incomplete, because he hasn't tried to ascertain if there is another side to it then isn't that relevant? 

Saying that you shouldn't try because it probably wouldn't work or that it would be difficult seems a bit defeatist.

I'm not suggesting that he should spend an inordinate amount of time on it but he could have emailed them maybe?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 22, 2015)

alcopop said:


> But if the information he has is incomplete, because he hasn't tried to ascertain if there is another side to it then isn't that relevant?
> 
> Saying that you shouldn't try because it probably wouldn't work or that it would be difficult seems a bit defeatist.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that he should spend an inordinate amount of time on it but he could have emailed them maybe?



Load of snidey bollocks. Put up or shut up.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 22, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> I'm finding this all rather bizarre. Three posters hinting or agreeing that there may be another side to the story, yet seemingly have either no evidence of such, or are choosing to not say.



Surely, where more than one person is concerned, there are usually two or more sides to a story?



leanderman said:


> Kaff is a real loss.
> 
> I suppose the landlords are entitled to their building back but it is a dirty trick to demand tripled rent.
> 
> ...




I understood the implication to be that they had originally refused to renew the lease because one of the three landlords had said they wanted to start up their own business again, after it had failed in the recession. Kaff owner suggested he didn't believe they were up to it, although didn't say why. I'm not sure that's relevant anyway. 

There is no clarity as to why things then changed to the triple rent scenario but there are several reasons this could be, including, just as a for instance, the possibility that he was effectively bidding against one of the three landlords (who would not have to pay his own share of the rent); or that he was refusing to leave and a rent rise was simply the easiest/cheapest/most effective way to achieve that (both speculation).

What Kaff owner did say is that the landlords were quite straight with him about not wanting to sign a longer lease at the outset. He asked, they refused, but he went ahead anyway. I think he said in his account that in retrospect that he probably should have thought harder about whether to go ahead. To me, this is the most important thing. What were the reasonable expectations at the outset when contracts were first signed.

I do recall when the place was on the market in the middle of the recession that I was surprised at just how cheap it was given is size and how low the premium was, if indeed there even was one. It was clearly a pretty desperate situation. Because of the price, I was almost tempted to give it a go myself. I'm not surprised if what people are prepared to pay for it has tripled since the middle of the recession when everything down that way was failing or closed. 

So, I don't feel that I know what has happened. But I think that there is plenty of evidence in Steve's own account that we do not have the whole story. No one owes us that story. But neither do we have to accept the only account we do have as full and final.

Whatever the reasons, it's clearly pretty tragic for Kaff and everyone who worked there. Even though I don't buy into all the "real affordable community cocktail bar" stuff I did think it was a great bar and I think is a real shame that it has gone. I always recommended it to people looking for a good relaxed night out. It'll be missed for sure.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 22, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Surely, where more than one person is concerned, there are usually two or more sides to a story?



Well indeed but until someone offers up some evidence to that effect. As I say, I just found the tone and somewhat snidey and repeated questioning that 'there was another side to the story' and the implication that somehow Ed was either not telling it all, not trying hard enough to find out, or that he somehow shouldn't write a story on a blog (and he's not a newspaper journo FFS!) about a place he loved and based on the information he had to hand unless he also tracked down the landlords and got a comment from them too, was, well dubious.

It's not like its unheard of for landlords to be cunts pushing for the $, especially in areas going through gentrification (and more aggressively so under the current state of neo-liberalism and the backdrop of austerity).


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 22, 2015)

God forbid anyone is unfair to the poor old landlords.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 22, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> God forbid anyone is unfair to the poor old landlords.



Won't somebody please think of the landlords


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 22, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Won't somebody please think of the landlords



I bet they're raising the rent to pay for operations for lepers. And look at the thanks they get for it.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 22, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Well indeed. As I say, I just found the tone and somewhat snidey and repeated questioning that 'there was another side to the story' and the implication that somehow Ed was either not telling it all, not trying hard enough to find out, or that he somehow shouldn't write a story on a blog (and he's not a newspaper journo FFS!) about a place he loved and based on the information he had to hand unless he also tracked down the landlords and got a comment from them too, was, well dubious.
> 
> It's not like its unheard of for landlords to be cunts, especially in areas going through a period of gentrification.


It's not unheard of, I agree. Its also not unheard of for businesses to go under and offer stop gap leases. I don't know what the truth is here. I'm just not convinced that there wasn't a little bit of over optimism when setting up the lease.

I went to see a friend's shop mid fit out today. Looked good but I noticed a couple of "missed opportunities" design wise. He agreed but said he only had a guaranteed lease for two years (he was sub letting and his landlord's own head lease was due to expire so there was no negotiation to be had in the time frame) and, although he felt confident he would be able to renegotiate at the end, he had to plan for the possibility that he could be turfed out.

As it happens in his case, the head lessee (his landlord's landlord) is a charity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2015)

alcopop said:


> With respect, I would think that his view could hardly be called objective.
> 
> I should have thought that as a journalist one would ask them for a comment before publishing?
> 
> How are they mysterious?



And if you ask, and no comment is forthcoming?
I'll clue you into what editors great and small told journalists in those circumstances;
"They had their chance, and they chose not to take it".
And off the story would go to the compositors.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2015)

alcopop said:


> But if the information he has is incomplete, because he hasn't tried to ascertain if there is another side to it then isn't that relevant?



I do hope you're not a journalist, because you display a very poor knowledge of just how tightly any journo, be they print, broadcast or web, has to be able to justify a story before publishing. You can't just slam up any old blarney. You have to be able to *prove* reasonable steps were made to fact-check. This is just as incumbent on one-man-and-his-horse publications as on national dailies.
You don't publish until you've taken all reasonable steps.



> Saying that you shouldn't try because it probably wouldn't work or that it would be difficult seems a bit defeatist.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that he should spend an inordinate amount of time on it but he could have emailed them maybe?



What makes you think he didn't?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2015)

Read Kaff owners piece on BB



> Maybe we shouldn’t be looking at plastic and short-term, so-called community schemes like ‘Pop Brixton’ or relying on meaningless forced improvement districts like ‘Brixton BID’.  They are not helping the current businesses with legal powers or security and not empowering the new or the local on a long term strategy.
> 
> We had our fate in the hands of landlords who got greedy. And truth be told, why not make a few extra quid whilst everyone else around them is.



This is the problem- landlords . And things like Pop and the BID are not the answer whatever Cllr Hopkins says. 

Its affecting independent business. I know one who is struggling with increases from landlord and reckons might have to move out of Brixton.

What are needed are controls on rents and better safeguards in leases ( for tenants not the evil landlords)


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Even though I don't buy into all the "real affordable community cocktail bar" stuff ..


Why not, exactly? Pricing was very important to Steve, and they served up the cheapest cocktails in town.  They were also the first to sell the Brixton Buzz beer (and not make a single bean on sales), and they kept on selling everything we could send their way - and often gave us a bit cash on top. 

They were also the first to offer up a prize for the striking Ritzy workers when I organised a raffle. And that's just my own experiences - several other organisations/individuals all have their own tales of how the place helped them out.


----------



## alcopop (Jul 23, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> ! do hope you're not a journalist, because you display a very poor knowledge of just how tightly any journo, be they print, broadcast or web, has to be able to justify a story before publishing. You can't just slam up any old blarney. You have to be able to *prove* reasonable steps were made to fact-check. This is just as incumbent on one-man-and-his-horse publications as on national dailies.
> You don't publish until you've taken all reasonable steps.
> 
> 
> ...



I agree completely. That's my point! All he did was talk to the one person who is likely to give a biased (conscious or unconscious) opinion.


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2015)

alcopop said:


> I agree completely. That's my point! All he did was talk to the one person who is likely to give a biased (conscious or unconscious) opinion.


Feel free to try and get a statement from the landlords rather than whining here. I failed but perhaps you can show me how it's done.


----------



## Tolpuddle (Jul 23, 2015)

On a purely practical point, I hope the owner has surrendered the licence, this would reduce the value of the premises as a new operator would have to re-apply and under the new policy might find it harder to get a late licence (assuming they had a late licence that is)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2015)

alcopop said:


> I agree completely. That's my point! All he did was talk to the one person who is likely to give a biased (conscious or unconscious) opinion.



And you know that's "*all* he did"...how exactly?
You're making suppositions based on your own bias.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 23, 2015)

Tolpuddle said:


> On a purely practical point, I hope the owner has surrendered the licence, this would reduce the value of the premises as a new operator would have to re-apply and under the new policy might find it harder to get a late licence (assuming they had a late licence that is)


Along those lines, their use was always contrary to the conditions in their planning permission anyway - A3 conditioned not to operate past midnight or be audible from neighbouring premises. Any new venture should bear that in mind when setting up. They would need to prove the breach had been operating for at least 10 years unbroken to be safe from enforcement. Which a) it hasn't and b) would probably need Kaff's assistance to evidence.

That will have little bearing on whether they can get a licence, mind you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Read Kaff owners piece on BB
> 
> 
> 
> This is the problem- landlords . And things like Pop and the BID are not the answer whatever Cllr Hopkins says.



What *ALL* of us need to bear in mind is that very little of what happens is motivated by the concern of councillors for the long-term "health" of Brixton and its many communities.
A lot of it is motivated by box-ticking in order to access funding, and by political careerists attempting to make their mark. bear in mind that the likes of Hopkins, Bennett and Pete "no seat" Robbins are here in Lambeth as an unfortunately-necessary (for them and us) stage in their rise to sitting in the Commons. We might think or know that Brixton BID is a near-worthless imposition on local traders, but to them it's another bullet point on the CV.

These things are a solution to nothing. At best they function in some areas as a revival of the old Chamber of Commerce, and at worst as an unnecessary financial drain on the traders they're imposed on.



> Its affecting independent business. I know one who is struggling with increases from landlord and reckons might have to move out of Brixton.
> 
> What are needed are controls on rents and better safeguards in leases ( for tenants not the evil landlords)



Which is exactly why they won't happen.That need would put a brake on regeneration and gentrification,and that's something that isn't welcomed by the Town Hall, nor by most of those who sit in Westminster, especially Treasury ministers.


----------



## alcopop (Jul 23, 2015)

editor said:


> Feel free to try and get a statement from the landlords rather than whining here. I failed but perhaps you can show me how it's done.


You didn't fail. You just didn't try


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2015)

I've just been told about a much loved local business that is packing up in September. The owner is telling the staff this week.


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2015)

alcopop said:


> You didn't fail. You just didn't try


Right, I've had enough of this sniping bullshit. Back this up or shut the fuck up with your groundless slurs and accusations. I tried several avenues to get a statement from the landlords. They didn't get back to me.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jul 23, 2015)

Rushy said:


> What Kaff owner did say is that the landlords were quite straight with him about not wanting to sign a longer lease at the outset. He asked, they refused, but he went ahead anyway. I think he said in his account that in retrospect that he probably should have thought harder about whether to go ahead. To me, this is the most important thing. What were the reasonable expectations at the outset when contracts were first signed.



This is it essentially. 1954 act is quite specific - unsecure tenancy returns to the landlord after the duration of the lease, they can renew if they wish, in this case they either did not want to renew or did want to renew but with a rent hike.


----------



## alcopop (Jul 23, 2015)

editor said:


> Right, I've had enough of this sniping bullshit. Back this up or shut the fuck up with your groundless slurs and accusations. I tried several avenues to get a statement from the landlords. They didn't get back to me.



I know them. At no point have you tried to get in touch with them by email, phone or letter.

What other avenues did you try? Telepathy? Smoke signals?


----------



## Belushi (Jul 23, 2015)

alcopop said:


> I know them.



What's their side of the story?


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2015)

alcopop said:


> I know them. At no point have you tried to get in touch with them by email, phone or letter.


Yes, that's correct, and that's because they seemed to have made a point of remaining anonymous. As earlier posts in this thread prove, there appears to be no publicly available details detailing who they are - no names, no addresses, no email address - _nothing -_ so it was impossible for me to directly contact them.

However, I discovered some mutual friends and asked them to pass on my message and I was told that they were fully aware of the articles on Buzz. And under each one of them, there's a nice big comments box and a link to this thread. They chose not to respond.

Seeing as you've suddenly declared yourself to be pals with all of them and know all about their personal affairs regarding correspondence with Buzz, please be sure to once again pass on my invitation for them to present their side of the story. Lord knows they've kept quiet long enough.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 23, 2015)

alcopop said:


> I know them. At no point have you tried to get in touch with them by email, phone or letter.



I knew that was coming


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jul 23, 2015)

editor said:


> I've just been told about a much loved local business that is packing up in September. The owner is telling the staff this week.



(((landlords)))


----------



## ddraig (Jul 23, 2015)

alcopop said:


> I know them. At no point have you tried to get in touch with them by email, phone or letter.
> 
> What other avenues did you try? Telepathy? Smoke signals?


do they want to put their side or not? do they feel wronged as responsible community minded landlords?

they could even do it anon through you as a keen conduit to keep everything balanced?
no? wonder why...


----------



## leanderman (Jul 23, 2015)

ddraig said:


> do they want to put their side or not? do they feel wronged as responsible community minded landlords?
> 
> they could even do it anon through you as a keen conduit to keep everything balanced?
> no? wonder why...



They should be able to rouse themselves to at least put together a statement of sorts.


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2015)

leanderman said:


> They should be able to rouse themselves to at least put together a statement of sorts.


It's not like they haven't had lots of time to carefully consider a statement or gauge the local opinion on Facebook, Twitter, bulletin boards and websites etc.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 23, 2015)

leanderman said:


> They should be able to rouse themselves to at least put together a statement of sorts.


Also Kaff could clarify a couple of things raised on here as a result of their statement. I shouldn't think either Kaff or the landlords wants to get further involved in the hanging out of dirty laundry though. Who can blame them.


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Also Kaff could clarify a couple of things raised on here as a result of their statement. I shouldn't think either Kaff or the landlords wants to get further involved in the hanging out of dirty laundry though. Who can blame them.


Franky, given that he's just lost his job and his business after four years of hard work, I don't expect Steve has much time to peruse these boards, but feel free to contact him via the Kaff email if you have anything really important to 'clarify.' I'm pretty sure he'd answer.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 23, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Also Kaff could clarify a couple of things raised on here as a result of their statement. I shouldn't think either Kaff or the landlords wants to get further involved in the hanging out of dirty laundry though. Who can blame them.


Kaff did their account, a long heart felt one
there has been none from the landlords
the landlords have got what they want as they always will
kaff and staff are probably recovering and working hard on what they can do next to survive
the landlords are most likely breathing a sigh of relief and hiding behind their money all snug with the though of oodles more to come

see the fucking difference??


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2015)

alcopop said:


> You didn't fail. You just didn't try



Q: How would you know (not suspect,but *know* that, unless you were either one of the owners, a friend of same, or a paid shill for them?

A: You wouldn't. So, given you're so sure, do you have an interest that you'd like to admit to?

E2A: Ah, I see that you have. Now wasn't *that* a surprise!


----------



## 299 old timer (Jul 23, 2015)

editor said:


> It's not like they haven't had lots of time to carefully consider a statement or gauge the local opinion on Facebook, Twitter, bulletin boards and websites etc.



Do they have to? The lease expired and they didn't renew it, standard commercial property business.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Jul 23, 2015)

The landlords (well one of them at least) are planning to give a statement after Kaff's vacated on Monday.


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Do they have to? The lease expired and they didn't renew it, standard commercial property business.


Of course they're under no compulsion to say anything at all, but at least one individual here seems to be using that silence as a means of attacking my journalistic credibility.

Mind you, rent tripling is - thankfully - not standard commercial property business. Or at least I hope it isn't.


----------



## Twattor (Jul 23, 2015)

I'd be interested to hear their side. It is easy to jump to conclusions and blame the greed of the landlords, but at the moment I've seen nothing to indicate that greed is the sole driver behind the current situation.

I've read somewhere that the landlords had a failed business on the premises pre-Kaff. We've heard from the proprietor that the rent was low enough to make his start-up viable, and that he wanted a longer term but that the landlords refused; we've heard that he had misgivings about this.

Without ulterior motive, could it not simply be a case that the landlords were in dire financial straits at the time and needed a regular income, and always intended to have another go once they had sorted themselves out?  Given that the market was pretty low at the time Kaff started out, Kaff would have been able to negotiate a reasonably low rent perhaps even below market rate if the landlords were desperate enough.

From the information currently in the public domain, I've seen nothing to indicate that the landlords don't simply want to have another go at running their own enterprise taking advantage of the better market conditions and the influx of monied food tourists? If this is the case then the rent increase may just be a means to force Kaff to surrender so they can regain the use of the units.

Of course on the other hand it may just be cynical greed and a desire for higher rent from a wealthier tenant, but who am I to judge... 

There are two sides to every story and I'd like to hear theirs before forming an opinion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2015)

Twattor said:


> There are two sides to every story and I'd like to hear theirs before forming an opinion.



I'd like to hear theirs too, but aside from their shill (who's spent their time pooh-poohing any attempts to communicate with the landlords, and fuck-all else), there's no-one presenting their story, and even what alcopop has said, has had no informational value.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 24, 2015)

it was posted earlier that one of the landlords will be publishing an account soon iirc
e2a only a few posts up 



DietCokeGirl said:


> The landlords (well one of them at least) are planning to give a statement after Kaff's vacated on Monday.


----------



## elmpp (Jul 25, 2015)

ddraig said:


> Kaff did their account, a long heart felt one
> there has been none from the landlords
> the landlords have got what they want as they always will
> kaff and staff are probably recovering and working hard on what they can do next to survive
> ...


Simplistic tosh


----------



## ddraig (Jul 25, 2015)

elmpp said:


> Simplistic tosh


sneering tosher


----------



## cesare (Jul 26, 2015)

Knowing the driver for the landlords' motivations doesn't help the staff that have lost their jobs. The landlords have put their own individual concerns before that of a business employing staff and the staff have lost their jobs as a result.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

elmpp said:


> Simplistic tosh



You're the expert in that. Just about everything you post is simplistic whining criticism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

cesare said:


> Knowing the driver for the landlords' motivations doesn't help the staff that have lost their jobs. The landlords have put their own individual concerns before that of a business employing staff and the staff have lost their jobs as a result.



I'm (unfortunately) sure that some posters will believe that property rights must always take precedence over such quotidian concerns as employment.


----------



## alcopop (Jul 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm (unfortunately) sure that some posters will believe that property rights must always take precedence over such quotidian concerns as employment.



Yeah, bloody legal rights of property owners.


----------



## Twattor (Jul 26, 2015)

cesare said:


> Knowing the driver for the landlords' motivations doesn't help the staff that have lost their jobs. The landlords have put their own individual concerns before that of a business employing staff and the staff have lost their jobs as a result.



This particular set of staff at this particular enterprise, yes. But if the landlords set up an equivalent enterprise then there will be other employment opportunities and depending on the enterprise then maybe the current staff could even find employment there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

alcopop said:


> Yeah, bloody legal rights of property owners.



So you are, in fact, in favour of property rights over-riding any moral concerns or social benefits?
Landlord, by any chance?


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2015)

Twattor said:


> This particular set of staff at this particular enterprise, yes. But if the landlords set up an equivalent enterprise then there will be other employment opportunities and depending on the enterprise then maybe the current staff could even find employment there.


What on earth makes you think any of the former Kaff staff would want to work in the landlord's new business?


----------



## Twattor (Jul 26, 2015)

editor said:


> What on earth makes you think any of the former Kaff staff would want to work in the landlord's new business?



i didn't say they would.  I was responding to a post about loss of employment due to the landlords' actions.  At the moment we don't know their plans, so we can't make assumptions about the future use.

I gather from the DietCokeGirl post above that we're expecting a statement from the landlords tomorrow.  I'll be interested to hear their side and hopefully also some indication of their future plans.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2015)

Twattor said:


> i didn't say they would.  I was responding to a post about loss of employment due to the landlords' actions.  At the moment we don't know their plans, so we can't make assumptions about the future use.


I got to know a lot of the people who lost their jobs at Kaff, and some of them are absolutely devastated.


----------



## Twattor (Jul 27, 2015)

editor said:


> I got to know a lot of the people who lost their jobs at Kaff, and some of them are absolutely devastated.



That is entirely understandable.  A lot of effort will have been invested in building the business up over the last few years and it has obviously been reciprocated by the community as there is clearly a great deal of goodwill towards them.  I sincerly hope that they are able to find another suitable venue not too far away (assuming they have the will to start again from scratch).

I also feel that although easy to rail against the greed of the landlords, to do so without having heard their side could be to do them an injustice.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2015)

I feel most sorry for the old lady who used to supply the place with delicious cakes.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2015)

Twattor said:


> I sincerly hope that they are able to find another suitable venue not too far away (assuming they have the will to start again from scratch).


They've got just about no chance of finding anywhere. With Brixton now proving a $$$ honeypot to big chains, millionaires, well connected former public schoolboys and pretend 'independents,' there's just about nowhere remotely affordable for small local businesses to go. 

A decent council would help out on that score, but then you've only got to look at what's happened at the arches and elsewhere.


----------



## cesare (Jul 27, 2015)

Twattor said:


> This particular set of staff at this particular enterprise, yes. But if the landlords set up an equivalent enterprise then there will be other employment opportunities and depending on the enterprise then maybe the current staff could even find employment there.


If the landlords have any intention of giving them preference and/or continuity of employment I expect they'll say so in their statement tomorrow.


----------



## cesare (Jul 27, 2015)

No statement yet?


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2015)

Steve - the departing owner of Kaff posted this photo, and added this comment:

"And that was that. RIP Kaff. I feel as empty inside as you now"


----------



## happyshopper (Jul 27, 2015)

editor said:


> With Brixton now proving a $$$ honeypot to big chains, ...



Which "big chains"?


----------



## Winot (Jul 27, 2015)

happyshopper said:


> Which "big chains"?



M&S, Argos...


----------



## rover07 (Jul 27, 2015)

Fuck the landlords. Spineless, work-shy wankers who have been milking their ownership of these properties for generations.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2015)

happyshopper said:


> Which "big chains"?


Starbucks, Caffe Nero, Costa, Sainsbury's, H&M, the recent pile of major High Street phone stores, Premier Inn, Foxtons, TK Maxx etc etc etc. Are they big enough for you?

All opened up in the last five years or so.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 27, 2015)

editor said:


> Steve - the departing owner of Kaff posted this photo, and added this comment:
> 
> "And that was that. RIP Kaff. I feel as empty inside as you now"



Unlike 

But tell him to look at the other end of the Victoria Line, he'd get a warm welcome in the hipster free streets of Tottenham


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Unlike
> 
> But tell him to look at the other end of the Victoria Line, he'd get a warm welcome in the hipster free streets of Tottenham


His Facebook feed has been full of people imploring him to move Kaff to their neighbourhoods!

I could be proved wrong of course, but I'm pretty confident that whatever replaces Kaff will be shit by comparison.


----------



## rover07 (Jul 27, 2015)

I bet the landlord is a descendant of some fucking Lord who made his money from slavery. No wonder their mates on here don't want to reveal their identities.


----------



## Angellic (Jul 27, 2015)

happyshopper said:


> Which "big chains"?



Wahaca


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Wahaca


I forgot about them. And then there's the recently arrived Colombo Group who have just scooped up Plan B and Electric Social.

And of course, Franco Manca, Joy and Honest Burgers have all turned into multi million chains now too... 

And then there's the ever growing Antic (guffaw) 'Collective' (not to be confused with multi million property developers The Collective who have got their paws all over Pop Brixton).


----------



## BigMoaner (Jul 27, 2015)

it's like a pop up middle class town now. or getting that way. middle class shit popping up all over the place. What's the opposite verb of popping up? fucking off? Maybe with the great recession of 2048 or the Great Crack Epidemic of 2067, all the middle class stuff will fuck off instead of pop up.


----------



## BigMoaner (Jul 27, 2015)

All very sad. Rent caps would help. but what are the chances of that, a billion to one.


----------



## happyshopper (Jul 27, 2015)

What was said was 





editor said:


> With Brixton now proving a $$$ honeypot to big chains, .... ,' there's just about nowhere remotely affordable for small local businesses to go.



So when I asked which "big chains" I was clearly asking, in the context of this thread, which big chains are taking up affordable places for small local businesses?

Obviously I know there are big chains in Brixton; there always have been since it became a major shopping centre. But I also know that almost all the businesses mentioned in reply to my question are in premises that were previously occupied by big chains. For example, Starbucks = Dorothy Perkins; Sainsbury's = Seven Eleven; H&M = F W Woolworth; O2 = Burtons; TKmMaxx = John Lewis. So I don't think any of the premises mentioned were ever occupied in the longer term by small local businesses.

So we come to Wahaca. This is undoubtedly a chain that is now fairly big. But the premises it occupies was previously part of the Brady's chain of pubs.

And what's interesting about Franco Manca, Joy and Honest Burgers is that none of them were chains when they came to Brixton, because that's where all of them started as small local businesses.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2015)

happyshopper said:


> Obviously I know there are big chains in Brixton; there always have been since it became a major shopping centre. But I also know that almost all the businesses mentioned in reply to my question are in premises that were previously occupied by big chains. For example, Starbucks = Dorothy Perkins; Sainsbury's = Seven Eleven; H&M = F W Woolworth; O2 = Burtons; TKmMaxx = John Lewis. .


I'm not sure it's entirely fair to dance around the decades quite so selectively with your examples there!

For example, Plan B was indeed once a Wimpey but it was the independent Plan B for many, years until recently being swallowed up by the Colombo Group (who also swallowed up the non-chain Electric Social).

And it didn't go straight from John Lewis to TK Maxx - most recently it was a small boozer called the Rest Is Noise. 

But the point I was making is that big money is now being attracted into Brixton and what appears to be a small independent start up is often generously backed - and it's those kind of businesses that are making it impossible for the small local start ups to get a foothold.

What is this Brady's pub chain, btw?


----------



## T & P (Jul 27, 2015)

TBF blame should be laid squarely at greedy landlords rather than the occupiers of the units, IMO at least.


----------



## gdubz (Jul 27, 2015)

happyshopper said:


> Which "big chains"?


Antic...


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2015)

gdubz said:


> Antic...


Just one shy of 40 pubs in the 'collective' now, with six more on the way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2015)

happyshopper said:


> What was said was
> 
> So when I asked which "big chains" I was clearly asking, in the context of this thread, which big chains are taking up affordable places for small local businesses?
> 
> ...



Brady's was never a chain. AFAICR the landlord had an interest in one other pub (in Stockwell, I believe), but otherwise it was one of a dying breed - the independent free house.


----------



## happyshopper (Jul 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Brady's was never a chain. AFAICR the landlord had an interest in one other pub (in Stockwell, I believe), but otherwise it was one of a dying breed - the independent free house.



Brady's was a chain owned by Brady Luke Ltd. wine and spirit merchants. I learnt the hard way, in the days before mobile phones, that when you agreed to meet someone at Brady's you had to specify which one. 

I drank regularly in Brady's in Brixton Road (aka The Russell Hotel) and occasionally drank in Brady's Atlantic Road (aka The Railway Hotel). There were also Brady's in Shepherds Bush, Maida Vale, and the Euston Road. There may have been others but I think 5 is enough to make it a chain.

It was, or rather to my surprise, still is a family owned company and you can see their website here. This explains that they sold out to Courage's in the 1980s and are now running a fish and chip shop in Wandsworth.


----------



## Twattor (Jul 28, 2015)

Any news on the landlords' statement alcopop DietCokeGirl ?  We're waiting with bated breath here.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2015)

happyshopper said:


> Brady's was a chain owned by Brady Luke Ltd. wine and spirit merchants. I learnt the hard way, in the days before mobile phones, that when you agreed to meet someone at Brady's you had to specify which one.
> 
> I drank regularly in Brady's in Brixton Road (aka The Russell Hotel) and occasionally drank in Brady's Atlantic Road (aka The Railway Hotel). There were also Brady's in Shepherds Bush, Maida Vale, and the Euston Road. There may have been others but I think 5 is enough to make it a chain.
> 
> It was, or rather to my surprise, still is a family owned company and you can see their website here. This explains that they sold out to Courage's in the 1980s and are now running a fish and chip shop in Wandsworth.


Interesting! Do you know if it was still owned by Bradys when it became the Russell Hotel?


----------



## uk benzo (Jul 28, 2015)

happyshopper said:


> Brady's was a chain owned by Brady Luke Ltd. wine and spirit merchants. I learnt the hard way, in the days before mobile phones, that when you agreed to meet someone at Brady's you had to specify which one.
> 
> I drank regularly in Brady's in Brixton Road (aka The Russell Hotel) and occasionally drank in Brady's Atlantic Road (aka The Railway Hotel). There were also Brady's in Shepherds Bush, Maida Vale, and the Euston Road. There may have been others but I think 5 is enough to make it a chain.
> 
> It was, or rather to my surprise, still is a family owned company and you can see their website here. This explains that they sold out to Courage's in the 1980s and are now running a fish and chip shop in Wandsworth.



From that website I have learnt that there is a Jews Row in Wandsworth. I'd love to know the history of that street.


----------



## Hoss (Jul 28, 2015)

uk benzo said:


> From that website I have learnt that there is a Jews Row in Wandsworth. I'd love to know the history of that street.



There's a Jews Walk in Sydenham. A piece in the Telegraph attempts to explain the origins:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/4810864/Inside-story-7-Jews-Walk.html


----------



## alcopop (Jul 28, 2015)

Twattor said:


> Any news on the landlords' statement alcopop DietCokeGirl ?  We're waiting with bated breath here.



Dunno. Sorry


----------



## rover07 (Jul 28, 2015)

alcopop said:


> Dunno. Sorry


Well ring em up and ask them.


----------



## alcopop (Jul 28, 2015)

rover07 said:


> Well ring em up and ask them.


Cant be bothered


----------



## happyshopper (Jul 28, 2015)

editor said:


> Interesting! Do you know if it was still owned by Bradys when it became the Russell Hotel?



It was always the Russell Hotel but most people I know who drank there in the late 70's and the eighties referred to it as Brady's because, like the Railway, it had Brady's on the facia. Hence the confusion.


----------



## rover07 (Jul 28, 2015)

alcopop said:


> Cant be bothered


Is that their statement... bunch of cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2015)

alcopop said:


> Cant be bothered



Interesting.
You can "be bothered" to spend time and energy having a pop at people about not trying hard enough to contact your mates, but you can't stir yourself when your mates mislead people about making a statement.
You're a rat-fink shill cunt, sunshine.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Jul 29, 2015)

Twattor said:


> Any news on the landlords' statement alcopop DietCokeGirl ?  We're waiting with bated breath here.


Pass. Maybe they decided not to.


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2015)

DietCokeGirl said:


> Pass. Maybe they decided not to.


Well, at least we know where we stand with them now. They don't give a shit.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jul 30, 2015)

Walked past yesterday on the way back from Herne Hill. It was very sad to see it all gutted. 

Also the empty space now looks quite awkward and I think will be hard to make a go of something else in there. Kaff was very unique when you think of it. 

Besides the Canterbury and to a lesser extent the Trinity it was the only place I spent any regular time in and I miss it already. That coffee shop up from it is ok but no substitute.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2015)

It's always been a bugger of a place to get right, but Steve did a great job. And I'm already missing it massively.


----------



## Kevs (Sep 3, 2015)

Kaff have posted something tantalising on Facebook:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1137312512965104&id=214156148614083


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2015)

Kevs said:


> Kaff have posted something tantalising on Facebook:
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1137312512965104&id=214156148614083


I know the details and it is good


----------



## 299 old timer (Sep 4, 2015)

editor said:


> I know the details and it is good



Got a unit at Pop with concessionary rates?

*runs for cover*


----------



## Belushi (Sep 4, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Got a unit at Pop with concessionary rates?
> 
> *runs for cover*


----------



## Hoss (Sep 4, 2015)

I get a 'content not found' error message from that FB link. Is it only available to those with a Facebook account?


----------



## happyshopper (Sep 4, 2015)

It just says "We'll be back in Brixton in the next couple of weeks. Keep posted for updates! ‪#‎letsgooutside"

The hashtag is odd.


----------



## salem (Sep 4, 2015)

toilet?


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2015)

salem said:


> toilet?


It won't be inside a building. It'll be, err, outside


----------



## salem (Sep 4, 2015)

editor said:


> It won't be inside a building. It'll be, err, outside


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2015)

happyshopper said:


> It just says "We'll be back in Brixton in the next couple of weeks. Keep posted for updates! ‪#‎letsgooutside"
> 
> The hashtag is odd.



Not if you're a street bpisser!


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 17, 2016)

There finally seems to be a bit of activity taking place in the units. The shutters have been up for the past few days.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2020)

I see their story is documented in this book:

Handbook of Gentrification Studies
edited by Loretta Lees, Martin Phillips








						Handbook of Gentrification Studies
					

It is now over 50 years since the term ‘gentrification’ was first coined by the British urbanist Ruth Glass in 1964, in which time gentrification studies has become a subject in its own right. This Handbook, the first ever in gentrification studies, is a critical and authoritative assessment of...



					books.google.co.uk


----------

