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:

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (20 000 437)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 02-Aug-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X and Mr Y's complaint about matters relating to the Council's actions during our investigation of Mr Y's previous complaint. The issues raised are not valid new complaints, do not show fault by the Council in carrying out the remedy agreed and are more appropriate for consideration by the Information Commissioner.

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (20 014 026)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 28-Jul-2021

    Summary: The complainant, Mrs X, complained the Council failed to properly exercise its powers over an unlicensed house in multiple occupation. The Council accepted it delayed action and that errors made resulted in it serving a further notice. We find the Council acted with fault and agreed a proportionate remedy.

  • Buckinghamshire Council (20 012 511)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 20-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about delay by the Council in renewing his badge which allows him to be a school transport driver. Mr X seeks compensation from the Council for lost earnings. We will not investigate as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action for the compensation he seeks.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (20 013 104)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 09-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council's application process for discounted landlord licenses was unclear and meant the landlords she applied on behalf of did not benefit from the discount. The Council was not at fault.

  • Somerset West and Taunton Council (20 010 917)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 06-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to properly consider his application for a street trading consent and wrongly revoked it the day after it granted it to him. As a result, Mr C said he experienced financial loss and distress. The Council agreed it was partly at fault for its failure to properly consult on his application before granting Mr C the Consent. However, it has already remedied the injustice this caused him.

  • Daventry District Council (20 011 799)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 06-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused to accept his license application by email and handled his complaint poorly, causing upset and inconvenience. We find the Council at fault as it does not ensure people can complete electronic license applications and it delayed addressing Mr X's complaint. We recommend the Council provides Mr X with an apology, payment and acts to prevent recurrence.

  • Transport for London (20 004 204)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 23-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London delayed sending him an extended license for his private hire vehicle. Transport for London was at fault for failing to consider how postal delays would affect whether Mr X would receive the license on time. Transport for London has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration this caused him and remind its staff they should respond to complaints according to its policy.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (20 011 766)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 22-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X alleges the Council introduced a change to its licencing policy without consulting with his trade. No worthwhile outcome is achievable through further investigation of this complaint.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (19 015 744)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 16-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to act on reports of an unlicensed House of Multiple Occupation and anti-social behaviour. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint because there is no evidence of fault.

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 089)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 10-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council operated a selective licensing scheme. He said as a result of a series of failures by the Council he incurred considerable expense. He also said his property lost value and he lost future rental income. There was fault which caused injustice to Mr B. The Council will apologise where it has not already done so and make a payment.