Licensing


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Folkestone & Hythe District Council (20 003 335)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 26-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr F complains about the Council's refusal of his application for a licence to use his electric boat on a canal owned by the Council. He complains about its inconsistent approach, as it has granted a licence for one electric boat. There was no fault by the Council. It has valid reasons why it wants to restrict use of the canal to non-motorised boats. And it has given reasons why its view is it can make an exception for a Council owned boat.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (19 019 963)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 25-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q's complaint that the Council lied to us to make us change our decision on an earlier complaint about private hire and taxi driver training. This is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Nor will we investigate Mr Q's related complaint about the Council's decision, in March 2019, not to accept BTEC courses for licensed drivers. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, nor has it caused injustice to the Association making the complaint, or its members.

  • 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.

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.