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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • Transport for London (20 004 702)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 30-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr Y complains about the way Transport for London handled his report about injuries he sustained when travelling in a licensed taxi. We find the authority delayed in escalating some parts of Mr Y's report and caused confusion when it corresponded with Mr Y. The Authority will pay £200 to Mr Y in recognition of the avoidable time and trouble caused by fault and undertake the service improvements listed at the end of this statement.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 006 940)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 01-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave him incorrect information about his private hire vehicle licence renewal. Mr X says this negatively affected his finances. The Council was at fault for giving Mr X incorrect information. It caused Mr X avoidable frustration. The Council has appropriately remedied the injustice Mr X experienced.

  • Folkestone & Hythe District Council (20 003 335)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 26-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr F complains about the Council's refusal of his application for a licence to use his electric boat on a canal owned by the Council. He complains about its inconsistent approach, as it has granted a licence for one electric boat. There was no fault by the Council. It has valid reasons why it wants to restrict use of the canal to non-motorised boats. And it has given reasons why its view is it can make an exception for a Council owned boat.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (19 019 963)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 25-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q's complaint that the Council lied to us to make us change our decision on an earlier complaint about private hire and taxi driver training. This is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Nor will we investigate Mr Q's related complaint about the Council's decision, in March 2019, not to accept BTEC courses for licensed drivers. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, nor has it caused injustice to the Association making the complaint, or its members.

  • Transport for London (19 020 837)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 18-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by Transport for London on Mr W's complaint of it delaying processing his application for a private hire driver's licence. It should have sent his driver's badge along with the replacement licence when told he had not received its previous letter or taken steps to clarify whether he had received it. It delayed sending the replacement badge by a further 3 months. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Southwark (19 019 659)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 09-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's handling of his street trading licence applications. He also complained that the Council failed to respond to his complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure. We do not uphold Mr B's complaint.

  • Dorset Council (20 001 204)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 09-Feb-2021

    Summary: There was fault by the Council in its handling of a park home site licence, because of a single potential licence breach which it did not properly follow up. This has caused an injustice to the complainants, which it has agreed to remedy. However, there is no evidence of fault in the other numerous issues raised by the complainants about site licensing. The Council was also at fault for wrongly telling the complainants it had not identified any breaches of the site licence, but this did not cause a significant injustice.