Licensing


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Erewash Borough Council (16 015 920)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 03-Oct-2017

    Summary: There was fault by the Council in managing its market traders, as it did not apply the rules consistently. This meant the Council wrongly suspended and then permanently excluded Mr B from trading at the market. The Council has made a payment to Mr B to remedy the injustice caused, although it has not been possible to obtain evidence of the exact financial loss incurred.

  • Wolverhampton City Council (17 008 624)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 02-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about alleged bullying and oppressive behaviour by the Council in the way it has inspected his HMO and told him of improvements he needs to make. The Council's action so far has not caused him significant injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate and it would be reasonable for Mr B to use his appeal rights and the courts to challenge any formal action the Council decides to take in due course.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (17 000 472)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 29-Sep-2017

    Summary: There was some fault in the way the Council dealt with a report that Ms X was operating House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) illegally. The Council apologised, corrected the local land charges register and agreed to consider how processes could be improved to avoid confusion. This was a reasonable remedy to the complaint.

  • London Borough of Camden (16 002 743)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 28-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman considers that the Council's proposal to pay Mr B a further £166.77 in addition to the £150.00 it has already paid him is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to him by the mishandling of his application for a market pitch last year.

  • Stafford Borough Council (17 004 734)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 22-Sep-2017

    Summary: Mr Y is a taxi driver and complains the financial information the Council has supplied him with does not tally. As such, Mr Y complains the way the Council calculates taxi licence fees is not transparent. We will not investigate as we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y seeks which is an audit of the taxi accounts. Mr Y can raise this concern with the Council's own auditor and then possibly the National Audit Office.

  • Manchester City Council (17 008 938)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 21-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint the Council delayed and made administrative mistakes in processing his private hire driver's licence application. It would be reasonable for him to use his appeal right to remedy any fault he sees in the way the Council handled and refused his application.

  • London Borough of Newham (16 016 785)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 20-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it handled Mr C's application for a security licence. So, I have ended my investigation.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (17 008 068)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 20-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not prevent information about the complainant's personal licence to sell alcohol appearing in Google searches. The Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault by the Council has caused the complainant significant injustice and the Information Commissioner is best placed to deal with issues of data protection.

  • Waverley Borough Council (17 008 007)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 18-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to suspend the complainant's taxi licence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have disclosed his health problem in 2016. In addition, the complainant could have used his appeal rights.

  • Stafford Borough Council (16 013 624)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 16-Sep-2017

    Summary: the Council was not at fault in the way it dealt with Mr B as a licensed taxi driver. There was some fault in the way the Council applied its policy on unacceptable actions by complainants, and a recommendation is made to remedy the limited injustice caused to Mr B as a result of this.

;