Licensing archive 2021-2022


Archive has 97 results

  • Leeds City Council (21 006 967)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 13-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant’s car could not be approved as a taxi. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (21 007 569)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 13-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to take enforcement action against businesses which the complainant says are breaching the conditions on pavement licences. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to the complaints.

  • North Lincolnshire Council (21 001 207)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 07-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about delay in the Council issuing his taxi license renewal. He also says the Council delayed in issuing his license after he passed the safeguarding course. We find fault with the Council for providing Mr X with incorrect information in its complaint response. However, the fault did not cause Mr X any injustice. We do not find fault with the Council’s other actions.

  • Canterbury City Council (21 006 703)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 03-Oct-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of an email written by a Council officer. This is because there is no evidence that the complainant has suffered a significant injustice.

  • Elmbridge Borough Council (21 004 436)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 28-Sep-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a taxi licence renewal. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. We would also be unable to achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

  • London Borough of Brent (20 014 423)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 28-Sep-2021

    Summary: The Council served Ms Y with a notice requiring her to abate statutory nuisance in a House of Multiple Occupancy. Ms Y complains she faced unnecessary expense when appealing the notice because the Council withdrew it without her knowledge. We do not find fault because there is evidence the Council told Ms Y of its decision to withdraw the notice. We have discontinued our investigation into the other parts of Ms Y’s complaint because she has already used an alternative legal remedy.

  • London Borough of Camden (21 007 279)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 28-Sep-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a licence application for premises near the complainant’s home. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would find fault by the Council or provide a different outcome.

  • Milton Keynes Council (20 005 787)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 16-Sep-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to maintain her anonymity when she reported concerns about a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) where she lived. We found there was no fault by the Council in this respect. However, we found the Council could have followed up an application for a HMO licence sooner, which was fault. However, we did not find this delay caused injustice to Ms X.

  • Luton Borough Council (21 008 474)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 16-Sep-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X’s application for a taxi licence. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right to appeal to court.

  • City of York Council (20 009 040)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 16-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council was at fault for not awarding him a hackney carriage taxi licence, failing to follow its own policy and guidelines and for proposals to place conditions on vehicles that licences could be released to in the future. Mr C also said that the Council did not follow its own timescales when dealing with his complaint. We find no fault with the Council’s decision not to award a licence to Mr C and related matters.

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.

Privacy settings