Licensing


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • Telford & Wrekin Council (18 010 185)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 29-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's consideration of breaches of the site licence conditions, planning and other matters about the running and management of the mobile home site where he lives. There are no new issues here that should be investigated further. The Council is yet to respond to Mr B on his concerns about whether his mobile home is level so I do not consider I should investigate that further now.

  • 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.

  • Torbay Council (18 010 919)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 24-Apr-2019

    Summary: Ms B complains about the way the Council dealt with changes to fee structure associated with the licensing regime for activities which include the home boarding of dogs. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in the decision-making process associated with this matter. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendation that the decision in respect of the setting of licensing fees is properly re-made and documented.

  • North Hertfordshire District Council (18 013 690)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 24-Apr-2019

    Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to give Mr X reasons for its decision not to take action against a taxi driver he complained about. It failed to give Mr X the opportunity to comment on the allegations the driver made against him and then failed to consider a further complaint Mr X made. The Council's actions caused Mr X distress, frustration and unnecessary time and trouble. To put this right the Council will apologise to him, pay him £200 and include his version of events in its records.

  • West Dorset District Council (18 008 441)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 17-Apr-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her concerns about the actions of a taxi driver. We found fault because the Council delayed telling Ms X the outcome of its investigation. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised to Ms X and improved its procedures and officer training which is a suitable remedy in this case.

  • Transport for London (18 007 521)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 09-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about Transport for London's handling of his report of non-compliance by a private hire operator. He says he has suffered financially and mentally as a result. The Ombudsman has not investigated Transport for London's handling of non-compliance, because this arose more than 12 months ago. The Ombudsman finds Transport for London at fault for not responding appropriately to Mr X's complaint. We recommend it provides Mr X with an apology and addresses any outstanding issues.

  • London Borough of Ealing (18 002 560)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 05-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council's handling of licensing matters caused him financial loss. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to communicate appropriately with Mr X about licensing matters, causing him uncertainty and frustration. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology and a payment.