Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • East Lindsey District Council (18 010 720)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not acted to stop a nearby dog breeding business, despite a planning enforcement notice preventing such activity being in force since 2005. We do not uphold this complaint. We consider there is no fault in the Council giving the business a dog breeding license despite the planning enforcement notice. We also consider it reasonable for the Council not to have taken planning enforcement action given all the circumstances of the case.

  • Leeds City Council (18 012 003)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 20-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Miss J's complaint against the Council that it did not treat representations about a premises licence application equally. It failed to identify more invalid representations from those in favour of the application than against. It also allowed those who had not made valid representations to address the committee. These faults did not cause her a significant injustice. It failed to redact her name on an attachment to a report published on its website. The agreed action remedies the injustice this caused.

  • Cambridge City Council (18 005 464)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 18-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council will not offer a moorings licence for her boat. The Council is at fault as it has not properly considered if Ms X's circumstances are exceptional enough to warrant a departure from its moorings policy and offer her a licence. The Council will consider Ms X circumstances in its welfare assessment. If the Council decides Ms X's circumstances are exceptional enough not to take enforcement action it should then consider if it they warrant a departure from its moorings policy and offer a licence to her. This is an appropriate remedy for Ms X's injustice.

  • North Devon District Council (18 010 360)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 18-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against the landlord of a neighbouring property who was operating a house of multiple occupation without a licence. She says this led to poor living conditions, antisocial behaviour and damage to her home, and has caused her and her family considerable distress. We have found no fault in the Council's actions.

  • Leicester City Council (18 012 333)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 13-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not deal with his application for street trading consent properly. The Council was not at fault in how it handled his application.

  • Gloucester City Council (18 009 423)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 08-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council's street trading fees. They say that they are being overcharged. There is no fault in the way the Council calculated its fees. We do not uphold Mr and Mrs X's complaint.

  • Peterborough City Council (18 013 743)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 05-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to ensure the neighbouring dog boarding business maintained a secure fence. A dog did escape into Mr and Mrs X's garden but this was not because of fault by the Council. The Council responded promptly to the report and ensured the neighbour took appropriate action. Mr and Mrs X have not reported any further incidents of dogs in their garden indicating the fence is now secure.

  • Cheshire East Council (18 009 846)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 22-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr A, Ms B and Mr C all complained about the Council's handling of a taxi licence renewal. They complained the Council refused to renew the licence in the names of Mr A and Ms B as joint proprietors. The Council asked Mr A for further evidence to show Ms B was a joint proprietor, but did not make it clear what evidence it needed which was fault. The Council also failed to offer Mr A a right of appeal to the taxi licensing committee. The Council eventually issued a licence in the name of Mr A only, however the delay caused distress and uncertainty and meant Mr A could not work for 25 days. The Council has agreed to apologise to the complainants, and pay Mr A £500 to recognise the loss of employment opportunity.