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.

Licensing


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Tendring District Council (21 009 607)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 30-May-2022

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council has not taken enforcement action to ensure the site owner does work to the base on which their mobile home is installed. They have also applied to a Tribunal to determine what action the site owner should take. I have decided to exercise our discretion not to investigate this complaint. The Tribunal is better placed to provide the remedy and for the Ombudsman to also investigate the matter would not be a good use of public resources.

  • London Borough of Barnet (21 008 272)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 30-May-2022

    Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's handling of her reports of anti-social behaviour and poor housing conditions. We have found fault with the Council for failing to signpost Miss X to the Community Trigger mechanism, causing Miss X an injustice. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. We have also found the Council at fault for not conducting a formal risk assessment, although this did not cause Miss X an injustice. We have not found fault with how the Council engaged with the Police or responded to Miss X's complaints about poor housing conditions.

  • Transport for London (21 018 787)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 17-May-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Transport for London failed to fully refund Mr X's private driver hire licence. That is because it has agreed to a full refund therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

  • Transport for London (20 003 732)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 05-May-2022

    Summary: Ms X (on Mr Y's behalf) complains about the Authority's decision to withdraw the permission given to allow Mr Y to convert his taxi to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) from diesel. There was no fault in the way the Authority reached its decision, which means we cannot question the decision's merits. The Authority was at fault for the considerable delay in responding to Mr Y and his representatives about this issue. The Authority has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr Y in recognition of avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused by its delay. The Authority will also remind relevant staff of the importance of timely responses in similar future cases.

  • Bromsgrove District Council (21 006 098)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 10-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of his complaints about noise nuisance, antisocial behaviour, and breach of licence conditions regarding a pub near his property. We find fault with the Council for not properly considering Mr X's complaints about antisocial behaviour. We do not find fault with the Council's actions in relation to Mr X's complaints about noise nuisance and breach of licence conditions. We have made recommendations.

  • City of York Council (21 010 595)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 25-Feb-2022

    Summary: The Ombudsman exercised discretion not to investigate Mr D's complaint about the Council failing to follow the correct procedure when it approved a minor variation application sent by a neighbouring business. This is because he could have appealed a later review hearing which considered his evidence and concerns about the application. In addition, we could not achieve any worthwhile achievable outcome by investigating further.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 006 869)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 22-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to increase its street trading licence fees. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to revise its street trading policy and increase its fees for consents.

  • Northumberland County Council (21 006 778)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 14-Feb-2022

    Summary: The Council was at fault when it incorrectly advised Mr X about the type of licence needed for his new business. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £300 in recognition of avoidable frustration and raised expectations caused by this fault. The Council has also agreed to our service improvement recommendation.

  • Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (21 004 205)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 11-Jan-2022

    Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council considered his applications for a private hire vehicle licence transfer and dual hackney carriage and private hire drivers licence extension. He said that as a result of the Council's failings and delays he was unable to work. There was fault which caused injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr B.

  • Transport for London (21 001 629)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 02-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London wrongly refused to accept a medical declaration form completed by a private doctor and delayed in renewing his private hire driver's licence. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Transport for London considered Mr X's application renew his private hire driver's licence.