[Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Warin]

A liquidator will try to maximalise money returned.
This could/should mean sale of fixtures and fitting of leased premisses 
and then terminating leases.



  On 25/09/19 22:03, Edward Bainton wrote:
> Legal situation of leases, fixtures and fittings as far as I'm aware:
> - Lease continues and rent continues to be payable.
> - Liquidator can disclaim the lease, bringing all obligations to an end OR
> - Once in arrears/other breach of covenant (such as keeping open for 
> trade), landlord can deem the lease forfeit: property returns to them
> - Once owed 7 days' rent (which could be many months hence if paid 
> quarterly in advance), landlord has right to impound and liquidate 
> fixtures and fittings to offset their losses, after some procedural 
> safeguards.
>
> But as SK53 says, eyeballs must be best.
>
> Not a lawyer, just a geek who read this up as a charity trustee. 
> Corrections gladly received.
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:07, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com 
> <mailto:sk53.osm at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I suspect the fixtures & fittings will be cleared out fairly
>     pronto, although not the fascia signage. As the firm has been
>     liquidated I presume all leases on retail property are now in
>     default, and consequently null and void. Landlords will be anxious
>     to get new tenants as quickly as possible, and are likely to clear
>     the shops for that reason. (A certain amount of speculation on my
>     part as I don't know what the actual legal situation with
>     ownership of fixtures & fittings is in these circumstances). Ether
>     way we can learn more by some on-the-ground surveys.
>
>     Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014, and their
>     shops were cleared out of fittings pretty rapidly, although they
>     remained as visible 'ghosts'  on high streets for a long time
>     afterwards.
>
>     A nice refinement of the shop=X => shop=vacant;disused:shop=yes
>     would be to only go from name=Y to old_name=Y when the signage
>     disappears. Frederic Rodrigo talked about pedestrian navigation by
>     landmark at SotM, and prominent closed shops (and also pubs) are
>     often useful landmarks. However, I think this is still a luxury
>     for the average mapper trying to keep somewhere up-to-date.
>
>     Jerry
>
>     On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:54, Chris Hill <osm at raggedred.net
>     <mailto:osm at raggedred.net>> wrote:
>
>         Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the
>         public today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in
>         the future and that may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if
>         the administrator sells some or all of them to another
>         company. In the mean time they are still branded and still a
>         landmark of sorts.
>
>         If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change
>         that one otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see
>         what happens.
>
>         cheers
>         Chris Hill (chillly)
>
>         On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>>         I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself
>>
>>         You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe
>>
>>         On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell,
>>         <t4dc4n at gmail.com <mailto:t4dc4n at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             I changed the three shops in N.I to
>>             disused;shop=travel-agent since I wasn't sure what the
>>             best practice was in this case. Not all of them had the
>>             wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?
>>
>>
>         ______
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20190926/9b664e5c/attachment-0001.html>