Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with a different local authority and had the licence revoked. He also had a motoring conviction for CU80 (use of mobile phone while driving) which resulted in 6 penalty points. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was a hard worker who just wanted the best possible life for his children. He was a courteous and friendly driver who treated customers well and had experience driving for Uber before. He had received the penalty points in 2021 for parking on a double yellow line. A police officer informed him he had committed an offence but then acted unprofessionally, which another police officer apologised for, so he didn’t realise he had actually received the points until he applied for a change of licence in Newport. Newport City Council then revoked his licence because of his failure to declare the points. Members queried the history of complaints highlighted by Newport council. The driver acknowledged he had received some complaints while working for Uber but felt that this was because some customers would complain about anything. Since leaving Uber he had worked for Amazon but wanted to serve the public as a taxi driver again. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that the six points on his licence were made up of 3 points for parking on a double yellow line and 3 for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t feel this was a fair punishment and believed the police had fabricated their charges. He had not put in an official complaint because he didn’t have the money to go to court. Members asked if the driver would be happy for his children to travel in a taxi driven by someone who had six points on his record. The driver responded that he would not. The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident with the police officer provided by the driver. Members queried why he hadn’t shown the video to the authority until now. The driver responded that he hadn’t seen the point, and added that he had given it to Newport council at the time of his hearing. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that information was received by the Licensing Authority alleging suspected drug misuse that was a cause for concern with Adult and Children’s Services. Due to the nature of his role as a taxi driver and the high likelihood of transporting vulnerable passengers, these concerns were shared with the licensing authority, including a DNA test that was requested by the Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the DNA test stemmed from a family matter where he had voluntarily put himself forward to be tested as a possible carer for a child. He was shocked when he saw the results, having never used drugs in his life, and disputed it immediately with the testing company, his solicitor and the local authority. He had managed to arrange a new test through the local authority the day before the hearing and believed the results would show he had not taken drugs at any point in the last 12 months. He added that he was dependent on the school run for his livelihood, as it was about 80% of his income. He had driven schoolchildren and children with special needs around for more than six years and loved it. He had no support from Universal Credit as he was self-employed, and was only just about keeping his cab running to pay the bills. This experience had turned his life upside down and been very damaging. He wanted to clear his name and get back to working the school runs. Members asked about the time period the new test would cover, and when the results would be available. The driver confirmed that it would cover the last 12 months, so that it included the time of the original test and could clear his name properly, and the results would take up to two weeks. The Sub Committee discussed the possibility of deferring the case until the results of the new test were available. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the next scheduled date was 5th June, and the driver would remain suspended from the school contract and able to drive his taxi in the meantime. RESOLVED – that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee
The following item is confidential and exempt from publication as it contains exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with a different local authority and had the licence revoked. He also had a motoring conviction for CU80 (use of mobile phone while driving) which resulted in 6 penalty points. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was a hard worker who just wanted the best possible life for his children. He was a courteous and friendly driver who treated customers well and had experience driving for Uber before. He had received the penalty points in 2021 for parking on a double yellow line. A police officer informed him he had committed an offence but then acted unprofessionally, which another police officer apologised for, so he didn’t realise he had actually received the points until he applied for a change of licence in Newport. Newport City Council then revoked his licence because of his failure to declare the points. Members queried the history of complaints highlighted by Newport council. The driver acknowledged he had received some complaints while working for Uber but felt that this was because some customers would complain about anything. Since leaving Uber he had worked for Amazon but wanted to serve the public as a taxi driver again. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that the six points on his licence were made up of 3 points for parking on a double yellow line and 3 for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t feel this was a fair punishment and believed the police had fabricated their charges. He had not put in an official complaint because he didn’t have the money to go to court. Members asked if the driver would be happy for his children to travel in a taxi driven by someone who had six points on his record. The driver responded that he would not. The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident with the police officer provided by the driver. Members queried why he hadn’t shown the video to the authority until now. The driver responded that he hadn’t seen the point, and added that he had given it to Newport council at the time of his hearing. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that information was received by the Licensing Authority alleging suspected drug misuse that was a cause for concern with Adult and Children’s Services. Due to the nature of his role as a taxi driver and the high likelihood of transporting vulnerable passengers, these concerns were shared with the licensing authority, including a DNA test that was requested by the Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the DNA test stemmed from a family matter where he had voluntarily put himself forward to be tested as a possible carer for a child. He was shocked when he saw the results, having never used drugs in his life, and disputed it immediately with the testing company, his solicitor and the local authority. He had managed to arrange a new test through the local authority the day before the hearing and believed the results would show he had not taken drugs at any point in the last 12 months. He added that he was dependent on the school run for his livelihood, as it was about 80% of his income. He had driven schoolchildren and children with special needs around for more than six years and loved it. He had no support from Universal Credit as he was self-employed, and was only just about keeping his cab running to pay the bills. This experience had turned his life upside down and been very damaging. He wanted to clear his name and get back to working the school runs. Members asked about the time period the new test would cover, and when the results would be available. The driver confirmed that it would cover the last 12 months, so that it included the time of the original test and could clear his name properly, and the results would take up to two weeks. The Sub Committee discussed the possibility of deferring the case until the results of the new test were available. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the next scheduled date was 5th June, and the driver would remain suspended from the school contract and able to drive his taxi in the meantime. RESOLVED – that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with a different local authority and had the licence revoked. He also had a motoring conviction for CU80 (use of mobile phone while driving) which resulted in 6 penalty points. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was a hard worker who just wanted the best possible life for his children. He was a courteous and friendly driver who treated customers well and had experience driving for Uber before. He had received the penalty points in 2021 for parking on a double yellow line. A police officer informed him he had committed an offence but then acted unprofessionally, which another police officer apologised for, so he didn’t realise he had actually received the points until he applied for a change of licence in Newport. Newport City Council then revoked his licence because of his failure to declare the points. Members queried the history of complaints highlighted by Newport council. The driver acknowledged he had received some complaints while working for Uber but felt that this was because some customers would complain about anything. Since leaving Uber he had worked for Amazon but wanted to serve the public as a taxi driver again. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that the six points on his licence were made up of 3 points for parking on a double yellow line and 3 for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t feel this was a fair punishment and believed the police had fabricated their charges. He had not put in an official complaint because he didn’t have the money to go to court. Members asked if the driver would be happy for his children to travel in a taxi driven by someone who had six points on his record. The driver responded that he would not. The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident with the police officer provided by the driver. Members queried why he hadn’t shown the video to the authority until now. The driver responded that he hadn’t seen the point, and added that he had given it to Newport council at the time of his hearing. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that information was received by the Licensing Authority alleging suspected drug misuse that was a cause for concern with Adult and Children’s Services. Due to the nature of his role as a taxi driver and the high likelihood of transporting vulnerable passengers, these concerns were shared with the licensing authority, including a DNA test that was requested by the Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the DNA test stemmed from a family matter where he had voluntarily put himself forward to be tested as a possible carer for a child. He was shocked when he saw the results, having never used drugs in his life, and disputed it immediately with the testing company, his solicitor and the local authority. He had managed to arrange a new test through the local authority the day before the hearing and believed the results would show he had not taken drugs at any point in the last 12 months. He added that he was dependent on the school run for his livelihood, as it was about 80% of his income. He had driven schoolchildren and children with special needs around for more than six years and loved it. He had no support from Universal Credit as he was self-employed, and was only just about keeping his cab running to pay the bills. This experience had turned his life upside down and been very damaging. He wanted to clear his name and get back to working the school runs. Members asked about the time period the new test would cover, and when the results would be available. The driver confirmed that it would cover the last 12 months, so that it included the time of the original test and could clear his name properly, and the results would take up to two weeks. The Sub Committee discussed the possibility of deferring the case until the results of the new test were available. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the next scheduled date was 5th June, and the driver would remain suspended from the school contract and able to drive his taxi in the meantime. RESOLVED – that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.