logo
The ‘real' drinking pubs serving £5 pints and no fancy food

The ‘real' drinking pubs serving £5 pints and no fancy food

Telegraph25-07-2025
The Pocket is a tiny pub in north London. Inside, you'll find dark wooden floorboards and panels, an upright piano and a mahogany bar flanked by several stools. It feels as if the pub has been here for years, but it opened in April. There's an impressive range of beers including eight cask lines, but the food offering is minimal: Scotch eggs, sausage rolls, pasties and pickled eggs.
It's a boozer, a proper pub, an old-man's pub if you will. You might have another name for them, but wet-led pubs (which no-one ever calls them, though it's the industry term for places whose primary source of revenue is drink rather than grub) are back. This year, London has seen a plethora of openings, mostly refurbishments of previously shuttered pubs. As well as The Pocket in Islington there's The Hand & Marigold in Bermondsey, the Blue Maid in Borough and the Coach & Horses in Stoke Newington. They follow the launch in 2023 of the diminutive and atmospheric Macintosh Ales, also in Stoke Newington, and The Robin in Crouch Hill.
Beyond the capital you'll find the Horseshoe in Chipping Sodbury, the Duchess of Kent in Erith, Kent, the Goats Head in Abbots Bromley, Staffordshire, The Vine in Peterborough. I could go on. All have reopened since the pandemic without offering an extensive food menu.
It is a tough time for pubs. The British Beer and Pub Association has warned a pub a day will close this year, citing punishing business rates. It estimated that £1 in every £3 taken on beer went to the Treasury. Increasingly, pubs are run by large chains.
For decades publicans have turned to food for profit, and most openings these days are gastropubs. Now a swathe of operators, many free of ties to pubcos, are bucking the trend, opening drinking pubs where the food menu boils down to cheese sandwiches, pork pies and pickled eggs – and the beers are the real draw.
The Pocket's owner, Pete Holt, has owned two much-loved London boozers, The Cock Tavern and the Southampton Arms, for years, as well as the Howling Hops brewery. His pubs are all drinking pubs. 'They're simple, no nonsense,' he tells me. 'We focus on one thing, which is beer and cider from small independent breweries, and try to do that well. I don't like dealing with chefs: I think they interfere with it being a pub.'
Holt reckons the drive for food has been partly driven by the need for tied pubs to buy beer from big breweries at high prices, reducing profit on drinks. He buys beer and cider solely from independent breweries, and The Pocket's beers start at £5.29, a reasonable price for the area. 'People are a bit tired of homogenous chains. Beer-led pubs hark back to a time before gastropubs,' Holt says.
Ali Von Lion documents London's pub scene on the London Pub Explorer Instagram page and runs walking tours of the city's boozers. He has noted a long-term decline in local pubs, with chains now dominating the scene. Post Covid, many pubs removed bar stools, enabling them to serve drinks quicker but reducing conviviality. 'To see wet-led pubs coming back is really good,' Von Lion says, citing the Hand & Marigold, which opened on the site of a pub he once frequented. 'They've done a really good job – it's got character and soul, the beer selection is second to none.'
The Kings Head in Bristol is a historic pub, open since the 1600s. It boasts an attractive back bar dating from the 1860s and, like the Southampton Arms, was recently named one of the best 500 pubs in England by the Telegraph. Since 2022, it has been run by a local independent brewery, Good Chemistry Brewing.
Its co-owner Kelly Sidgwick says the previous iteration 'wasn't really doing itself justice' and closed during lockdown. After taking on the lease, Sidgwick wanted to 'show its beauty and history'. The team painted the ceiling, changed the lighting, pulled up carpets and made 'the beauty of the pub shine'. It now focuses on independent British beers. 'We want it to be somewhere people can feel comfortable just having a drink,' Sidgwick explains. 'Lots of pubs can make you feel like if you're not eating you're not welcome. That's not what pubs are about.'
There's no kitchen at the Kings Head, just cheese and onion sandwiches on the bar and a weekday meal deal offering a pint of cask, a roll and a packet of crisps for £7.50 – excellent value in this day and age. Recently, the team added an extra cask line – a renewed interest in cask beer is partly behind the return of the boozer.
For Von Lion, boozers offer something more authentic and less sanitised than a glitzy gastropub. He has noticed younger generations flocking to old-school pubs like the Army & Navy in London, where the floors are carpeted and the beer prices aren't extortionate.
Simon Cereda, who runs the Simon's Pub Tour Instagram account, agrees: 'There's been a post-Covid fetishisation of old-man pubs, the Guinness wave and all that. I think it speaks to people wanting a place where spontaneous socialising happens, with lower barriers to going out, where bookings aren't required.' He argues that wet-led pubs generally provide a better atmosphere. Punters share tables and converse – although sitting in the corner with a newspaper is just fine.
There are, of course, downsides to not serving much food. Holt says by 8pm ravenous drinkers leave in search of dinner; Sunday lunchtimes can be quiet. But with three beloved boozers, the benefits outweigh the downsides. And he's found a solution: all of his pubs, and those run by Good Chemistry, allow guests to bring their own food. 'Food does bring people in and make them stay longer,' admits Sidgwick. But for now, her boozers are running just fine.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The 37 taxes you pay and why it now takes £3.1m to feel 'wealthy' - This is Money podcast
The 37 taxes you pay and why it now takes £3.1m to feel 'wealthy' - This is Money podcast

Daily Mail​

time34 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

The 37 taxes you pay and why it now takes £3.1m to feel 'wealthy' - This is Money podcast

While the average household pays £16,700 in direct tax on income, our audit shows this is just the tip of the iceberg. We all pay a multitude of other taxes, from air passenger duty to environmental levies on our energy bills. Lee Boyce, Simon Lambert and Georgie Frost discuss what the total sum is - and that our tax rate is more like 57 per cent. And tax rises don't always bring in more cash for the Treasury coffers. As the Government weighs up introducing yet another tax - this time a wealth tax - we explore why despite the allowance being slashed the capital gains tax take is down and what it means for the Chancellor's plans. How much you need to feel wealthy in different areas of Britain? Does £1million still cut it? The six burning questions everyone is asking financial advisers right now… and their expert answers And we answer a reader query: Could I give £250 gifts to 400 people who then pay them to my daughters to beat inheritance tax on £100,000? Listen to the This is Money podcast We publish the podcast every Friday on This is Money and at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music and more. Search for it at your favourite podcast platform. To download Apple Podcasts go to the App store. On Android devices, go to the Google Play store to download the podcast app of your choice. You can press play to listen to this week's full episode on the player above, and wherever you get your podcasts please subscribe and review us if you like the podcast. You can also listen to the latest episode, find the archive and join in the debate in reader comments on the This is Money podcast page.

Lenders do not owe millions compensation over car finance, Supreme Court rules
Lenders do not owe millions compensation over car finance, Supreme Court rules

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Lenders do not owe millions compensation over car finance, Supreme Court rules

Sign up to our free money newsletter for investment analysis and expert advice to help you build wealth Sign up to our free money email for help building your wealth Sign up to our free money email for help building your wealth Email * SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our Privacy notice Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers, after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes, but some motorists may still receive payouts. The UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest. The decision comes after two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments, paid by buyers to dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found that three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. On Friday, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest, and that the Court of Appeal was wrong. But they said that some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it will confirm by Monday whether it will consult on a redress scheme, while one of the three drivers said he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling. Handing down the judgment, Lord Reed said the car dealer 'was at all times pursuing its own commercial interest in achieving a sale of the car on profitable terms'. He continued: 'In reaching the opposite conclusion, the Court of Appeal failed to understand that the dealer has a commercial interest in the arrangement between the customer and the finance company. Get a free fractional share worth up to £100. Capital at risk. Terms and conditions apply. Go to website ADVERTISEMENT Get a free fractional share worth up to £100. Capital at risk. Terms and conditions apply. Go to website ADVERTISEMENT 'The court mistakenly treated the dealer as acting solely in the interests of the customer once the customer had chosen a car and agreed a price.' The FCA, which intervened in the case, previously said it would set out within six weeks whether it would consult on a redress scheme. But a spokesperson said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday 'to provide clarity as quickly as possible'. Lord Reed said the Supreme Court had decided to deliver its ruling on a Friday afternoon, outside of trading hours and after the markets had closed for the weekend, to avoid the risk of 'market disorder'. The three drivers involved in the case, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars worth less than £10,000 before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, the car dealers made a profit from the sale of the car and received commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, and the three drivers took legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission because of the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error', while the FCA claimed the ruling went 'too far'. In their 110-page judgment, the five Supreme Court justices found that 'an offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically'. They said: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.' However, the judges upheld a claim brought by Mr Johnson under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair'. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid the £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. The Supreme Court ruled he should receive the commission and interest, which Mr Johnson told the PA news agency totalled 'just over £3,000'. Mr Johnson said that he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling, which he said 'does not sit right with me'. He said: 'I am obviously happy that my case was successful, but for so many other people that were also overcharged, I just don't like the message it sends to the UK consumer.' He said the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. A Treasury spokesperson said it would work to 'understand the impact for both firms and consumers'. They said: 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. 'These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Close Brothers said it was 'considering' the judgment and 'will make any further announcements as and when appropriate'. Kavon Hussain, founder and lawyer at Consumer Rights Solicitors, which represented Ms Hopcraft and Mr Wrench, said it was 'disappointing' the Supreme Court did not fully uphold the Court of Appeal's ruling. He said: 'The Supreme Court ruling supports our view that lenders had acted unfairly in millions of car finance deals. 'This should now pave the way for the biggest compensation payout to motorists in British legal history. 'We will fight to get consumers the money they are owed by these lenders.'

Drivers should be ‘very pessimistic' over car finance claims, say lawyers
Drivers should be ‘very pessimistic' over car finance claims, say lawyers

The Independent

time2 hours ago

  • The Independent

Drivers should be ‘very pessimistic' over car finance claims, say lawyers

Drivers should be 'very pessimistic' about getting any compensation for taking out a car loan after a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, experts have warned. Industry analysts also said on Friday that banks will 'breathe a sigh of relief' after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Nevertheless, the financial watchdog has said it is still considering whether to launch a redress scheme for consumers who potentially receive compensation. Lawyers have also indicated that some consumers should still consider pursuing their claims over 'unfair' treatment. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers in agreements before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent were unlawful. The ruling last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation. But in a decision on Friday, justices at the UK's highest court overturned the Court of Appeal, though some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April the decision was an 'egregious error', while the Financial Conduct Authority intervened in the case and claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. However, the judges upheld a claim brought by one driver under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair', awarding him the commission amount of £1,650.95 plus interest. Lizzy Comley, chief operating officer of consumer law firm Slater and Gordon, said the ruling still reinforces the right of many consumers to pursue claims. She said: 'This landmark ruling is positive news for the millions of people who have lost money due to the car finance mis-selling. 'The court confirmed that for years, consumers have potentially been unfairly overcharged on car finance agreements, and this ruling reinforces their right to pursue justice and recover the compensation they deserve.' However, others have said that the ruling will make it harder for most claims. Nicola Pangbourne, partner at Kennedys law firm, said: 'If I was a driver, I would be very pessimistic about getting compensation. There's now quite a few hurdles they've got to get through.' Industry experts have suggested the ruling will be broadly seen as a success for lenders, who had been preparing for significant compensation payments. Caroline Wayman, global head of financial Services at PA Consulting, said: 'Lenders will breathe a sigh of relief at the ruling, but it should still be a wake-up call for firms to scrutinise any large, undisclosed commissions in their business. 'Firms should ask themselves whether it still feels justifiable or could be considered unfair, particularly if they haven't disclosed commercial ties to the broker and it won't be enough to expect customers to have read and understood the fine print.' On Friday, a spokesperson for the Financial Conduct Authority said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday. They said: 'We want to bring greater certainty for consumers, firms and investors as quickly as possible.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store