The owners of Beghins have said they are in “active negotiations” to bring an affiliated shoe shop back to Channel Island high streets, as more details about the business’s sudden closure emerge.
But the new store is unlikely to come under the 177-year-old 'Beghins' name, they said.
The company had been operating in Jersey and Guernsey since 1842, but this month suddenly closed its stores in both islands, followed by an announcement that it was going into liquidation.
Pictured: Beghins suddenly closed its stores in Jersey and Guernsey earlier this year.
Managing Director of the chain, Stuart Paver, explained that Beghins became the “local trading entity of Jones Bootmaker”, which was also bought out by Pavers in 2018 when it went into administration.
Mr Paver told Express that “while the local Beghins entity has been placed into liquidation due to existing building dilapidations, Jones Bootmaker is in active negotiations with a number of local landlords regarding reopening on the island through a new local operating entity".
The Managing Director confirmed that Jones is looking at returning to both Jersey and Guernsey.
When asked about the nature of the “existing dilapidations” that reportedly caused Beghins to go into liquidation, Mr Paver said “the existing dilapidations were down to the previous owners of the business having not spent any money on the properties in years. To bring the stores back to current regulations Beghins would have needed to find over £600,000 for the building works.”
Pictured: Pavers blame "existing dilapidations" to the premises as causing the liquidation of the local business.
However, the Planning and Building Enforcement Department told Express that they had never had any issues with the King Street premises.
When Pavers’ claim was put to the building’s landlords, Jazit Ltd., they issued the following statement: “The property has been let on a full repairing lease since the 90s to Beghin Shoes Ltd.
"Under a full repairing lease, the tenant is liable to keep the whole property in a good state of repair, which they did not do. The landlord, to try to keep the tenant in occupation, spent in excess of £100,000 on the property as a gesture of goodwill."
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.