Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Portsmouth City Council (18 010 162)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 08-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr W complained about the Councils decision not to offer him compensation, after an increase in competition in the area led to a decrease in business at his ice cream concession. We have not found fault in the way the Council considered Mr W's request for compensation.

  • Transport for London (17 008 034)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 23-Jan-2019

    Summary: We uphold Mr A's complaint about the way TfL dealt with his application for a minicab licence. The fault we have identified meant Mr A could not work as a driver for two months resulting in a financial loss to him. To remedy the injustice, TfL will pay Mr A £3530 and apologise in writing.

  • Birmingham City Council (18 004 635)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 15-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr Y is licensed to drive a hackney carriage taxi. He complains the Council has issued a temporary renewal for the licence of a rival taxi firm, despite them not being fit and proper to operate. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault in the procedure followed by the Council when considering the renewal application. In any event, there is no injustice either to Mr Y or the wider public because the rival operator can continue to operate pending any appeal against an outright refusal to renew their licence.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (18 007 453)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 11-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council's appointment system for taxi drivers did not cater for urgent matters and consequently affected the livelihoods of the taxi drivers. There was fault by the Council and it made service improvements. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £100 to remedy the injustice caused to him.

  • Havant Borough Council (18 011 039)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 03-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr C says the Council did not explain its decision to raise his beach hut licence fee adequately. The Council communicated poorly with Mr C which he found distressing. It has apologised.

  • North Lincolnshire Council (18 001 039)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 21-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate or take action against an unlicensed business operating next to his former business. The Council is not at fault. It considered evidence Mr X and others provided. It took informal action to check on the premises and decided it did not have enough evidence to take formal action.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (17 018 777)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 19-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly identified his property as a possible House of Multiple Occupation and misused its powers to enter and inspect his home. Based on the information available I am minded to find that the Council's failure to maintain proper records of its investigation amounts to fault causing Mr X an injustice in the form of distress and unnecessary time and trouble.

  • Luton Borough Council (18 007 174)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 23-Nov-2018

    Summary: There was no fault in how the Council made an amendment to its selective licencing scheme. The complainant was unaware of the amendment, which led her to take action which was no longer part of the scheme, but this has not put her at a disadvantage. The Ombudsman has therefore completed his investigation.

  • Nottingham City Council (18 007 621)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 16-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council provided him with inadequate and contradictory information when he applied for a landlord's licence under the Council's selective licensing scheme. He says this caused him unnecessary costs. There was no fault in the Council's actions.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (17 019 934)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 13-Nov-2018

    Summary: The Association complains about the way the Council has dealt with a BTEC vocational training course for private hire and taxi drivers. There was no fault by the Council in its decision to suspend its acceptance of certain BTEC courses for licensed drivers.