Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 023 170)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 24-Jun-2025

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to resolve Mr X’s complaints about residents of a nearby housing association property since 2022. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We have no discretion to investigate complaints about the management of tenancies by social housing landlords.

Lancaster City Council (24 015 140)

Statement Upheld Licensing 16-Jun-2025

Summary: Mr B complained the Council misled him about what he had to do to meet the licensing requirements and lied to him about what was required. The Council gave Mr B only one option to meet the licensing requirements despite the fact there were other options available. That is fault and leaves Mr B with some uncertainty about whether some of his costs could have been avoided. A payment of 50% of Mr B’s costs, a payment to him for distress, an apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Transport for London (24 018 791)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 16-Jun-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about private hire vehicle licensing because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking and it is reasonable for Mr Y to use his right of appeal to go to court.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 000 384)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 15-Jun-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about licensing because it is late without good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Cambridge City Council (25 000 800)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 15-Jun-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi licensing. This is because the complaint is late, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Westmorland and Furness Council (23 015 689)

Statement Upheld Licensing 09-Jun-2025

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow procedure when considering an application for a premises licence. The Council granted the licence. Mr X says the new pub creates a noise nuisance. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault for failing to consult with the responsible authority for planning. It is unlikely the planning authority would have objected to the application; the result would have been the same. There is therefore no injustice to Mr X.

Liverpool City Council (24 005 070)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 09-Jun-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take sufficient action against an ice cream van operator for breaches of their licence conditions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused the injustice Miss X claims.

Transport for London (24 019 880)

Statement Upheld Licensing 09-Jun-2025

Summary: Mr X complained that Transport for London (TfL) has delayed processing his Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) Driver’s Licence application. I have found TfL at fault for a two-month delay once Mr X’s application was completed. This has caused Mr X distress. I have recommended TfL apologises to Mr X and makes a financial remedy.

Birmingham City Council (24 017 074)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 21-May-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council responded to her reports of noise and other nuisance. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.

Woking Borough Council (24 004 402)

Statement Upheld Licensing 12-May-2025

Summary: Mr X complained the Council unfairly rejected his application to hold a circus on its land and poor complaint handling. We found the Council was at fault because it did not respond to his complaint or several enquiries by us. This caused Mr X avoidable distress, time and trouble. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and take action to improve its service. We did not find fault with the Council’s decision to refuse his application because it was entitled to decide not to host any large events on its land. We found no evidence of an inconsistent or discriminatory approach to circuses, as claimed by Mr X.