Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Licensing archive 2018-2019


Archive has 134 results

  • East Lindsey District Council (18 010 720)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not acted to stop a nearby dog breeding business, despite a planning enforcement notice preventing such activity being in force since 2005. We do not uphold this complaint. We consider there is no fault in the Council giving the business a dog breeding license despite the planning enforcement notice. We also consider it reasonable for the Council not to have taken planning enforcement action given all the circumstances of the case.

  • Peterborough City Council (18 017 193)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 21-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X's complaint about the Council's Selective Licensing Scheme for landlords. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

  • Leeds City Council (18 012 003)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 20-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Miss J's complaint against the Council that it did not treat representations about a premises licence application equally. It failed to identify more invalid representations from those in favour of the application than against. It also allowed those who had not made valid representations to address the committee. These faults did not cause her a significant injustice. It failed to redact her name on an attachment to a report published on its website. The agreed action remedies the injustice this caused.

  • Colchester Borough Council (18 014 962)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 20-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide a copy of a refusal letter for a taxi licence plate. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has already taken legal action.

  • North Devon District Council (18 010 360)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 18-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against the landlord of a neighbouring property who was operating a house of multiple occupation without a licence. She says this led to poor living conditions, antisocial behaviour and damage to her home, and has caused her and her family considerable distress. We have found no fault in the Council's actions.

  • Cambridge City Council (18 005 464)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 18-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council will not offer a moorings licence for her boat. The Council is at fault as it has not properly considered if Ms X's circumstances are exceptional enough to warrant a departure from its moorings policy and offer her a licence. The Council will consider Ms X circumstances in its welfare assessment. If the Council decides Ms X's circumstances are exceptional enough not to take enforcement action it should then consider if it they warrant a departure from its moorings policy and offer a licence to her. This is an appropriate remedy for Ms X's injustice.

  • Leicester City Council (18 012 333)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 13-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not deal with his application for street trading consent properly. The Council was not at fault in how it handled his application.

  • Transport for London (18 016 552)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 12-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about Transport for London's refusal to send him copies of his test papers for the taxi driver's topographical examination. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to the office of the Information Commissioner. This is the proper authority to consider complaints about access to information.

  • Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council (18 016 347)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 11-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to suspend his hackney carriage driver's licence. If Mr X felt the decision was flawed it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

  • Gloucester City Council (18 009 423)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 08-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council's street trading fees. They say that they are being overcharged. There is no fault in the way the Council calculated its fees. We do not uphold Mr and Mrs X's complaint.