Licensing archive 2021-2022


Archive has 97 results

  • Transport for London (20 011 144)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 17-Jun-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Authority did not process the complainant’s taxi driver licence application correctly. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority and any injustice is not significant enough to require an investigation.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (19 015 744)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 16-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to act on reports of an unlicensed House of Multiple Occupation and anti-social behaviour. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint because there is no evidence of fault.

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 089)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 10-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council operated a selective licensing scheme. He said as a result of a series of failures by the Council he incurred considerable expense. He also said his property lost value and he lost future rental income. There was fault which caused injustice to Mr B. The Council will apologise where it has not already done so and make a payment.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 968)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 08-Jun-2021

    Summary: the complainant Miss X complained the Council failed to use its legal powers to enforce licence conditions, prevent nuisance or breaches of planning control. The Council said it acted in line with its officer’s professional judgement following up complaints and encouraging the person who changed the use of the neighbouring property, to present a planning application. We find the Council acted with fault and the Council has agreed a remedy.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (20 006 908)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 02-Jun-2021

    Summary: There was delay by the Council in responding to concerns about a licensed premises. This led to an unnecessary period when the amenity of Mr X, who lived directly opposite, was adversely affected. The Council has apologised and resolved the issues with the premises. The Council should make a financial payment of £100 to Mr X to acknowledge his additional time and trouble and inconvenience.

  • Leeds City Council (21 000 316)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 02-Jun-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s inspection of his private hire vehicle. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Leeds City Council (20 014 172)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 27-May-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the wording of the Council’s signage for reserved electric vehicle charging points. We will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice caused to Mr X is insufficient to warrant investigation.

  • Burnley Borough Council (20 012 797)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 25-May-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s application system software for selective licencing for private landlords. He says the system is not fit for purpose and that it could be open to abuse and money laundering by staff. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any personal injustice caused to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

  • Herefordshire Council (20 014 132)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 14-May-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to restrict his contact under its unreasonable behaviour policy. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

  • Manchester City Council (20 014 059)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 12-May-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant cannot apply for a property licence because the Council says he must make an on-line application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant has now applied for a licence.

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