Thomas Sinclair Jnr and others have now launched a judicial review regarding Pembrokeshire County Council's dubious actions... read all about it here!

To: The Chief Executive
Pembrokeshire County Council
County Hall, Haverfordwest,
Pembrokeshire SA61 1TP
(Defendants)

From:
(1) Thomas Hutton Sinclair Jnr, Flat 5, 11 Hamilton Terrace, Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire, SA73 3AL
(2) Principality Taverns Limited, 75 St Mary`s Street, Cardiff, CF10 1FA
(3) Drink Up Limited, 75 St Mary`s Street, Cardiff, CF10 1FA
(Claimants)

THOMAS H SINCLAIR JNR & ORS
v
PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
LETTER BEFORE CLAIM FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

Reference Details:

Gareth Watts, Principle Officer, Public Protection Division

Sarah Oliver, Licensing Officer, Licensing DepartmentThe detail of the matter(s) being challenged:

1. The Defendants REFUSAL, via it`s Principle Officer in Public Protection, GARETH WATTS, on or around
    31st July 2003 to accept an application by the 1st Claimant for a Sex Establishment Licence pursuant to
    Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 for consideration by committee,
    when there were no legal grounds to refuse such an application.

2. The Defendants INTERPRETATION of the Noise Act 1996 via it`s Principle Officer in Public Protection,
    GARETH WATTS, on 1st July 2003 when a warrant was executed by the defendant to seize equipment
    belonging to the 2nd claimants from a nightclub known as Chequers Country Club, Tenby, Pembrokeshire.
    The claimants challenge the legality of such a seizure.

3. The unnecessary use of FORCE in the execution of the said warrant on 1st July 2003 when such force was
    not required, in contempt of the instructions set out in the said warrant.

4. In CONTRAVENTION of 2(1)a of the Schedule accompanying The Noise Act 1996, the Defendant Authority
    have FAILED, despite repeated requests, to return the seized equipment to the 2nd Claimants who are the
    owners of the property; the maximum time for the retention of the property having now expired.

5. The Defendants REFUSAL, via its Principle Officer in Public Protection, GARETH WATTS, on 28th July
    2003 to accept an application by the 1st Claimant on behalf of the 2nd Claimant, his prospective employer,
    for a Public Entertainment Licence for Chequers Country club and THAT OFFICER`S FALSE CLAIM that
    the defendant authority has a policy of not accepting applications for Public Entertainment Licences until 28
    days have passed from the submission of statutory notice to the authority.

6. The Defendants REFUSAL, via its Senior Licensing Officer, SARAH OLIVER, on 28th May 2003 to accept,
    for consideration by committee, an application made by the 1st Claimant as an employee of the 3rd
    Claimant for a Public Entertainment Licence pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Local Government
    (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 when there were no legal grounds to refuse such an application.

The issues:
In relation to the matters being challenged above:

1. The defendants claim that they are entitled to refuse to accept the 1st Claimants application for a Sex
    Establishment Licence as they feel it was not advertised in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Local
    Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982. The Claimants submit that the advertisement for the Sex
    Establishment Licence was published in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 3 of the Act and
    that the Defendant Authority MUST ACCEPT THE APPLICATION FOR A SEX ESTABLISHMENT
    LICENCE SO IT CAN BE DETERMINED BY COMMITTEE

2. The Defendant Authority has sought to serve noise abatement orders in respect of Chequers Country Club,
    Penally, Pembrokeshire on a number of different parties including the 1st and 3rd Claimant. The 1st
    Claimant being at the time the Chairman of the Evolution Experience Members Club and 3rd Claimant being
    the leaseholders of the said premises. In enforcing these noise abatement orders, which the Defendant
    Authority allege have been broken they executed a warrant on 1st July 2003 and seized equipment
    belonging to the 2nd Claimant. The Claimants submit that before the Defendant Authority could legally use
    S(10) Noise Act 1996 to seize equipment that they should have served warning notices as defined in S(3)
    of the Act, measured sound levels from INSIDE a complainants property S(10) para 1(b), and that in any     event the seizure can only take place in relation to noise emitted from a DWELLING S(10) para 1(b)&2. A
    “dwellingâ€? being defined by S(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, and Chequers Country
    Club, or indeed the alleged complainant caravans, not being dwellings for the purposes of the act. The
    Claimants submit that the the Defendant Authority MUST RETURN ALL SEIZED EQUIPMENT AND PAY
    £500 PER WEEK LOSS OF EARNINGS TO THE 2nd CLAIMANTS PLUS COSTS FOR ANY DAMAGE
    CAUSED TO IT

3. The warrant obtained by the Defendant Authority gave authorisation for the use of force to enter Chequers
    Country Club if “need beâ€?. However, the Defendant Authority made no attempt to contact Mr Carl
    Ryan, the known representative of the lease holding company before breaking into the premises through the
    front doors, and later securing it with a pad lock, in contempt of the said warrant issued. The Claimants
    submit that the Defendant Authority MUST APOLIGISE FOR MISUSE OF THE WARRANT AND PAY FOR
    REPAIRS TO THE DOORS AT THE PREMISES

4. The Defendant Authority are obliged by law to return seized equipment following the statutory 28 days of
    retention, in contravention of 2-(1)a of the Schedule accompanying The Noise Act 1996. (As no legal
    proceedings have been brought against the owners of the equipment.

5. The 1st Claimant made attempts to lodge with the Defendant Authority an application for a Public
    Entertainment Licence for the Chequers club, but was told by Gareth Watts, that he could only submit such
    an application after 28 days statutory notice period had expired, and then a further 28 days were then
    needed to deal with the application. The Claimants submit that the Defendant Authority MUST ACCEPT
    THE APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE FORTHWITH AND APOLOGISE IN
    WRITING FOR MISLEADING THE APPLICANT

6. The Defendant Authority refused to accept an application for a Public Entertainment Licence for Chequers
    Country Club on the grounds that the policy of the Authority is that each and every application must be
    accompanied by (a) a flame retardency certificate (b) a copy of public liability insurance certificate (c) a
    current electrical certificate. However, the Defendant Authority accepted the 1st Claimants application
    heard by committee on 17th December 2002 without such documentation, and the Defendant Authority
    have not demonstrated any change in policy in relation to licensing applications. The Claimants submit
    that     the Defendant Authority MUST ACCEPT THE APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT     LICENCE FORTHWITH AND APOLOGISE IN WRITING FOR ITS NON ACCEPTANCE, AND
    RE-IMBURSE THE APPLICANT FOR RESERVED COSTS IN RELATION TO THE NON ACCEPTANCE
    OF THE APPLICATION.

Dealing with Claim and Service Address:

THOMAS H SINCLAIR
FLAT 5, 11 HAMILTON TCE
MILFORD HAVEN
PEMBROKESHIRE
SA73 3AL

TEL 01646 690536 FAX 01646 695812

EMAIL thomas.sinclair@firenet.uk.com (no service by email)

Details of any information sought:
THE CLAIMANTS SEEK DETAILED EXPLINATIONS AS TO WHY THE ABOVE DECISIONS WERE MADE BY THE PROPOSED REPLY DATE

Proposed Reply Date:
You must reply to this letter before claim by 25th AUGUST 2003 to Thomas H Sinclair at the above address.