Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Chorley Borough Council (18 016 458)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 12-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council processed her home boarding and dog day care licencing application. The Council was at fault for not telling her she needed to apply for a new licence and for not being clear about the purpose of its visit following an allegation about her. However, it did not delay in processing her licence application. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £150 to remedy the injustice caused to her by its faults and will consider how it sends renewal reminders to licence holders.

  • Telford & Wrekin Council (18 012 154)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 10-Jul-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council revoked her street trading consent without notifying her or explaining why. She also said the Council allowed another vendor who sold similar items to trade near her pitch. The Council was at fault when it did not tell Ms X it had revoked her consent and given it to another vendor but this did not cause her an injustice.

  • Mid Sussex District Council (18 016 822)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 18-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Council followed the correct process to decide a site did not need a caravan site licence. The Council wrongly revoked the licence, for which it has already apologised.

  • Redcar & Cleveland Council (18 017 337)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 04-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council prevented him running a taxi business in 2018 and 2019. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Council. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

  • Great Yarmouth Borough Council (18 013 151)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 14-May-2019

    Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council considered the designation of a selective licensing scheme for privately rented properties. There was no fault by the Council.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (18 002 581)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 13-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault in how it decided not to include a street in its designated list of streets where trading could take place. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council in the matters he investigated and recommended it reconsider including the street where Mr X traded on its designated list. The Council agreed and for this reason the Ombudsman has ended his investigation of this complaint.

  • London Borough of Brent (18 015 190)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 10-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not taken satisfactory action about his report of an unlicensed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) next door. He also complains about the way the Council has handled his complaint. He says the neighbours cause a nuisance which affects his health and work, and cause him ongoing psychological trauma. He says the sale of his house fell through when he told the buyer about the neighbours. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • Hertsmere Borough Council (17 014 811)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 10-May-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr F's complaint that it wrongly revoked his private hire vehicle's licence and the procedures it followed. It failed to keep records, did not give him full details of the allegation and allow him to address it before its decision, and gave him inaccurate and misleading information. There was no fault on his complaint about it delaying hearing his appeal. The Council agreed to apologise to him for the failures, review procedures, and pay him £550.

  • North Hertfordshire District Council (18 011 664)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 08-May-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's handling of a licensing application and hearing. She complained the Council failed to appropriately respond to, or learn from her complaint about these matters. The Council dealt appropriately with Ms X's complaint about its handling of this matter and a related councillor issue. We have not investigated the Council's decision to award the license because Ms X had a right of appeal at the magistrates court. Her concerns about the process are indivisible from the merits of that decision. Ms X could have appealed against the licensing decision.

  • Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (17 017 267)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 29-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains that officers repeatedly assured him that the process was in place to redesignate the area from which he had long operated a trailer selling food, so that it would no longer be prohibited for street trading. He says without these assurances, he would not have incurred significant costs applying for a late-night premises licence which he then could not use when the street was not redesignated. The Ombudsman considers that Mr B was led to believe that the redesignation of the street was in hand, and it was likely that this that led him to apply for and incur the cost of a late-night premises licence. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that this has caused Mr B injustice which would warrant a financial remedy, because the cost of applying for a late-night licence was more than outweighed by the Council having allowed him to trade unlawfully from the site for 18 months while in discussions with him.