Archive has 61 results
-
Oxfordshire County Council (19 014 028)
Statement Not upheld Licensing 21-Aug-2020
Summary: Mr B complains the Council refused his application to work as a taxi driver and a passenger assistant on Council contracts and did not issue him with a Council approved identification badge. Mr B says the Council’s rejection of his application has prevented him from working and put him in financial difficulty. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council.
-
Colchester City Council (20 001 473)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 11-Aug-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to revoke the complainant’s taxi driver licence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant appealed to the court.
-
Hastings Borough Council (19 016 074)
Statement Upheld Licensing 31-Jul-2020
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to charge him £1000 for the renewal of his house in multiple occupation (HMO) license. He says the Council sent letters which contained information about the new licensing scheme to his old address. This meant he was not aware of when he could renew his HMO license. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for sending letters to an incorrect address. We found this caused Mr X an injustice and have made recommendations.
-
Transport for London (19 002 417)
Statement Upheld Licensing 20-Jul-2020
Summary: Mr Y complained Transport for London delayed in processing his taxi license renewal. Mr Y said the delays meant he could not work for two weeks and lost income. Transport for London delayed assessing Mr Y’s application and he was unable to work for nine days. It has agreed to pay Mr Y £150 to acknowledge his lost opportunity to work and to refund the remaining £124 license fee to remedy the frustration caused to Mr Y.
-
Northumberland County Council (19 017 451)
Statement Not upheld Licensing 10-Jul-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman discontinued the investigation of Mr D’s complaint of the Council making inconsistent decisions on applications for licences to carry out street collections. He claimed it allowed more than one charity to collect at one location at any one time, despite refusing a previous application he sent for a licence on that ground. There was not enough injustice to him to justify our further involvement.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 10-Jul-2020
Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to act against 2 employees over an alleged misconduct in 2017. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is too late, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.
-
Great Yarmouth Borough Council (20 000 736)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 08-Jul-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a fine the Council issued under the selective landlord licensing scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
-
London Borough of Camden (19 015 340)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 06-Jul-2020
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action against his landlord over disrepair in his private rented flat. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
-
London Borough of Islington (19 016 253)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 06-Jul-2020
Summary: Mr X complains the Council has fined him for not carrying out repairs to an HMO property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because Mr X had appeal rights against the issuing of the fine and because the case is now the subject of legal proceedings.
-
London Borough of Ealing (19 005 647)
Statement Not upheld Licensing 01-Jul-2020
Summary: There is no fault by the Council leading up to its decision to refuse an application for a street trading licence. Mr B complained that the Council issued fines after it refused the application. There was no fault by the Council in doing this, even though the complainant continued to correspond with the Council on the issue.