Licensing


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Transport for London (19 017 597)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 23-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains that he did not receive Transport for London's correspondence about a taxi delicensing application in May 2019 and that it did not properly deal with his further application in October 2019. He also says TfL delayed in dealing with his complaint. The Ombudsman finds TfL failed to respond to emails Mr B sent in October 2019. As a result, he lost the opportunity to submit further documents in support of his application. It also failed to respond to Mr B's complaint causing him frustration and time and trouble. TfL has agreed to apologise to Mr B and make a payment.

  • Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (20 001 338)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 17-Nov-2020

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided not to take enforcement action when Mrs B reported that she was experiencing harassment from the owner of the park home where she lives.

  • West Oxfordshire District Council (19 021 079)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 30-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to adequately investigate his complaint about his neighbour, Ms F, who he said was operating an unlicensed dog boarding business. He said the anti-social behaviour by Ms F and the noise from her dogs caused him distress. I discontinued this investigation. This was because the housing association investigated the anti-social behaviour and noise and as a result it terminated Ms F's tenancy and provided Mr X with a financial remedy for the distress caused. It is unlikely further investigation into how the Council investigated Ms F's alleged dog boarding business would achieve more for Mr X or lead to a different outcome.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (19 017 388)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 21-Oct-2020

    Summary: There was fault by the Council, because its policy about licensing wheelchair accessible vehicles as taxis is ambiguous, and because licence application forms were not freely available, but it is already taking steps to address these issues. It is too speculative, however, to say this caused an injustice to the complainant. There is no evidence to say the Council's Licensing Officer was deliberately obstructive towards the complainant, nor that this was motivated by racism.

  • Cherwell District Council (19 017 256)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 19-Oct-2020

    Summary: There is no fault in the Council's decision not to take enforcement action against a park home site owner for a breach of licence conditions.

  • Transport for London (19 008 645)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 07-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr C says Transport for London was responsible for unacceptable delay in investigating allegations against him while he applied for a new taxi licence. He says this caused him to lose approximately £40,000 in income. Transport for London was not at fault. Mr C did not initially provide vetting information required before a licence decision could be made. Transport for London then took time to investigate allegations of misconduct against Mr C and his claim that such misconduct had not occurred. There was no significant delay and no injustice to Mr C.

  • London Borough of Bexley (19 021 085)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 29-Sep-2020

    Summary: During an Ombudsman investigation into a different complaint, it came to our attention that the Council unlawfully required landlords to provide Electrical Installation Condition Reports as a condition of granting selective licences. This was fault. The Council should write to all affected landlords to tell them of the error and provide an opportunity to seek redress.

  • London Borough of Lewisham (19 012 541)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 08-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council unreasonably terminated his trading licence, failed to give him notice and treated him differently to other traders. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr B's trading licence.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 014 482)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 25-Aug-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council breeched court agreements and delayed the handling of his case about the alleged wrongful suspension and then revocation of his taxi licence. He says this has caused him an injustice as he feels he has been treated unfairly and this has affected him financially and otherwise. The matters Mr X asks the Ombudsman to investigate are outside our jurisdiction. Therefore, we are discontinuing this investigation.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (19 014 028)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 21-Aug-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council refused his application to work as a taxi driver and a passenger assistant on Council contracts and did not issue him with a Council approved identification badge. Mr B says the Council's rejection of his application has prevented him from working and put him in financial difficulty. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council.

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.