Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • London Borough of Hackney (19 003 081)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 05-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X, a landlord, complains the Council's selective licensing scheme terms were wrong. He said he was put to time and trouble, the Council delayed responding and did not alter its terms. We find the Council was at fault. It has agreed a remedy.

  • Medway Council (20 005 315)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 30-Nov-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman has identified fault by the Council resulting in an injustice about information it gave to Ms L. In addition, Ms L also complains about the Council's response to her request for an investigation into a dog breeder and the evidence she supplied in support of her concerns. However, the Ombudsman does not consider this matter has caused the complainant a personal and significant injustice. We have asked the Council to provide a remedy for the injustice of providing incorrect information.

  • Transport for London (19 018 499)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 25-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains that Transport for London advised him a vehicle he intended to purchase for use as a private hire vehicle would meet its licensing requirements. In reliance on that advice he purchased the vehicle only to discover it did not meet the requirements. He suffered financial loss as a result. The Ombudsman does not uphold Mr B's complaint.

  • 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.

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.