Licensing


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Transport for London (16 009 522)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 11-Sep-2017

    Summary: There was no fault in the way Transport for London processed Mr X's private hire licence renewal application. It was at fault for the delay in responding to his complaint. The apology it has already provided is an appropriate remedy.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (17 007 308)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 07-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to licence Mr Y's replacement taxi. Mr Y had the opportunity to appeal to the court but did not.

  • Transport for London (17 007 167)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 06-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C's complaint that Transport for London (TfL) has failed to enforce against private hire vehicle drivers it licenses. It would be reasonable for Mr C to pursue the matter in the Courts and it is unlikely we would find fault in the way TfL has dealt with Mr C's concerns.

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (17 007 381)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 31-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a statement made by a council officer. The meaning of the council officer's statement is open to interpretation and it is therefore unlikely we could say it amounts to fault. If Mr X believes the incident has damaged his mental health, or that the council officer has defamed him, he may wish to take the matter to court.

  • Transport for London (17 001 610)

    Statement Not upheld Licensing 31-Aug-2017

    Summary: There was no fault in Transport for London's decision not to accept Mr X's topographical test certificate.

  • London Borough of Newham (16 018 941)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 30-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council acknowledges that on one occasion it took too long to process Mr B's street trading licence application. It has already given him a suitable remedy and therefore the Ombudsman will not make any further recommendations. But I have found no evidence of fault on his other applications. The Council acted appropriately based on the information available on Mr B's application forms and in line with its policies.

  • Hastings Borough Council (17 006 965)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 30-Aug-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's refusal to refund him any proportion of a property which he operates as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. There is insufficient evidence of any fault on the Council's part which has caused injustice to Mr X.

  • Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (17 006 481)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 23-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not responded properly to the complainant's reports of inappropriate parking by taxis. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, part of the complaint is late.

  • Westminster City Council (17 002 305)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 21-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council mislaid information from Ms X. It took over nine months and a formal complaint before the Council replied to Ms X. The delay did not cause the injustice Ms X claims (about the loss of her home and legal fees). However, the Council should provide a clear apology for any distress to Ms X arising from its delay in replying to her information.

  • East Devon District Council (16 014 813)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 21-Aug-2017

    Summary: Council delays did not prevent Mr B securing a boat concession. The Council properly valued the concession.

;