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 was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating he refused to take a journey from Cardiff train station to Penarth after allegedly saying he was available for hire. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that the driver in attendance at the meeting was not the one he had dealt with and submitted a complaint about. RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating that he refused to take a passenger using the meter and requested £30 for a journey within the Cardiff boundary. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that the complaint related to an alleged incident on 3rd February 2024 which was the evening of the Wales v Scotland International rugby match. At 8.55 pm on the evening of 3rd February 2024 and the time of the alleged incident St Mary’s Street would have been very busy. The driver was not working but was present as he had pre-arranged to pick up his nephew as he knew he would have been struggling to get out the city after the rugby international match. There was evidence from the nephew that he had made arrangements with the driver to collect him and take him home. He added that the driver did not speak to the witness and had no reason to speak to him as he was there only to take his nephew home. Further, if the driver had been working taking a fare to Pentwyn would have cost more than a typical Saturday night due to the level of congestion in the city. It was noted that the journey to Roath with his nephew took 45 minutes and Pentwyn would have taken double that time. He suggested that perhaps the witness was confused as he had asked the driver five times how much it would cost to take him to Pentwyn. He also referred to the photograph submitted by the witness. He stated that there was no illuminated sign in the middle of the roof of the car with the word Taxi written on it as he was not working but waiting for his nephew. The driver’s representative queried why the driver would refuse a fare if he was working because he would be paid more if journey took longer due the congestion in the city centre. He also added that the driver was not someone who has caused the council problems, always used the taxi meter and provided the correct questions when asked. Summarising he said that the balance of probabilities would suggest that the incident did not happen. There were two statements to support the driver – his and his nephew’s, and the statement that the complainant had to repeat his request five times to the drive, and also the witness was not present. He suggested that the driver was a fit and proper person and that the allegation was not substantiated. RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he took payment of £25 from a member of the public in a private hire vehicle without the fare being booked in advance, and then offered and took payment for a second un-booked fare with the same member of the public the following day. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the timeline in the case was crucial and referred to the fact that the allegation dated back to July 2023. The witness had stated he made a booking with the taxi company but the company had a record of him cancelling the booking at 12.03 am. The driver was not working that night which had been confirmed by the taxi company. The witness had suggested he had spoken to the driver and the driver had asked for confirmation that the name matched the booking. The driver’s representative said that the original booking was cancelled and had not been received by the driver as it had been allocated to another driver – the implication being that it was the original driver who had the name and details from the taxi company. The driver’s representative stated that the witness had been taken to their home address, and the driver had to wait a significant period before the witness was driven to his destination. The witness had been pleased with the charge of £25 and commended, who he believed was, the driver on the level of service provided. However, a few hours later at 3.00 am the witness claimed to have seen the same person. He had gone from commending someone on a £25 fare to an argument around a £6.50 fare. The driver’s representative noted that this did not make sense. According to the witness statement he stated the fare was normally cost £6 to return home again and then claims he was told to exit the vehicle as he does not have the full fare. The driver’s representative stated that the witness did not describe the driver, car, colour, make or registration details. He also did not contact the taxi company until 10 to 14 days after the alleged incident. He was then advised to contact the Council which was 6 months later in 2024. He said that the driver was contacted for the first time eight months after the original allegation in July 2023 and asked whether he recalled something happening. It was noted that the driver would have made between 8,000 to 10,000 taxi journeys during that time and was adamant that he did not pick the witness up. The witness also referred to a BACS payment but the driver had never taken a BACS payment. Responding to questions the driver’s representative clarified the booking process. He explained that when booking on the app or at the taxi base the passenger was asked for their name, pick up point and destination. The driver would then receive confirmation on an app and had the option of accepting or rejecting the booking. If they accept the fare, they would receive the pick-up and destination details and the name of person who had made the booking. Only the driver who accepted the booking would be able to view the booking. If the passenger had cancelled the booking what would be logged on system was that the booking was cancelled and the driver would no longer have access to that journey but it would remain on the company system. To summarise, the driver’s representative stated that the driver disputed the complaint in two respects. Firstly, it was not him and secondly, in relation to the allegation itself it was not substantiated on its own merits as £25 was accepted for the first fare and then £6.50 was claimed by the witness to be an overcharge for the return journey. It was also noted that the witness was not present to clarify issues. RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken. Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he declared he had a conviction for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. The Sub Committee heard the case in the absence of the driver. The driver was contacted during the meeting by telephone to confirm his attendance. However, no response was received. The application had been scheduled to be heard at 11.30 am. To allow time for the driver to arrive the Sub Committee waited until 11.34 am before commencing the hearing. The Sub Committee noted the circumstances and the driver’s conviction for the possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. Additional information had also been provided by the police. The driver had no previous complaints and had been driving since 2007, however the Sub Committee were mindful of the guidance on determining the suitability of applicants and licensees in the Hackney and Private Hire Trades and that a licence should not be granted unless at least 7 years had elapsed since the completion of any sentence. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be revoked as of 7.08.24 (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had 6 penalty points on his licence, arising from two offences committed on 29th July 2022 for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks and driving otherwise than in accordance with a license. The applicant failed to declare these endorsements on his application for a grant of a licence and ticked the ‘No’ box when answering the question on the application form. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was a fit and proper person. He said his conviction had been a mistake. He had been living abroad and had been in possession of a driving licence since 2008. When he returned to the UK in July 2022 he had not known that his driving licence was not valid until he had been stopped by the police. When he contacted the DVLA he said they did not have an explanation for him as to why his licence was not valid. When the driver attended court for the driving conviction, he informed the Sub Committee that he had been told he could drive with his international driving licence but could take his driving test again. He did so and passed within one month. He said he paid for insurance for the vehicle but it was not accepted as his driving licence was showing as not valid. The insurance company emailed him to say the payment was rejected and he confirmed he had not received an insurance policy document. The driver said he had held a full driving licence for the last 2 years and had not accumulated any points during those 2 years. Responding to questions the driver informed the Sub Committee that he had not declared the points on his application form as he had not understood what the term ‘endorsement’ meant. He confirmed he now knew what the term meant. He also confirmed that when he held his first UK driving licence he had been in possession of a card and photo and that he was aware it was valid from 2008 to 2018. He informed the Sub Committee that he had changed his address and was going to change his licence but was convicted before he had managed to do this. The driver confirmed he was aware of the seriousness of the offence as the police had taken his car and he had to obtain an insurance document to release it. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
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 was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating he refused to take a journey from Cardiff train station to Penarth after allegedly saying he was available for hire. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that the driver in attendance at the meeting was not the one he had dealt with and submitted a complaint about. RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating that he refused to take a passenger using the meter and requested £30 for a journey within the Cardiff boundary. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that the complaint related to an alleged incident on 3rd February 2024 which was the evening of the Wales v Scotland International rugby match. At 8.55 pm on the evening of 3rd February 2024 and the time of the alleged incident St Mary’s Street would have been very busy. The driver was not working but was present as he had pre-arranged to pick up his nephew as he knew he would have been struggling to get out the city after the rugby international match. There was evidence from the nephew that he had made arrangements with the driver to collect him and take him home. He added that the driver did not speak to the witness and had no reason to speak to him as he was there only to take his nephew home. Further, if the driver had been working taking a fare to Pentwyn would have cost more than a typical Saturday night due to the level of congestion in the city. It was noted that the journey to Roath with his nephew took 45 minutes and Pentwyn would have taken double that time. He suggested that perhaps the witness was confused as he had asked the driver five times how much it would cost to take him to Pentwyn. He also referred to the photograph submitted by the witness. He stated that there was no illuminated sign in the middle of the roof of the car with the word Taxi written on it as he was not working but waiting for his nephew. The driver’s representative queried why the driver would refuse a fare if he was working because he would be paid more if journey took longer due the congestion in the city centre. He also added that the driver was not someone who has caused the council problems, always used the taxi meter and provided the correct questions when asked. Summarising he said that the balance of probabilities would suggest that the incident did not happen. There were two statements to support the driver – his and his nephew’s, and the statement that the complainant had to repeat his request five times to the drive, and also the witness was not present. He suggested that the driver was a fit and proper person and that the allegation was not substantiated. RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he took payment of £25 from a member of the public in a private hire vehicle without the fare being booked in advance, and then offered and took payment for a second un-booked fare with the same member of the public the following day. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the timeline in the case was crucial and referred to the fact that the allegation dated back to July 2023. The witness had stated he made a booking with the taxi company but the company had a record of him cancelling the booking at 12.03 am. The driver was not working that night which had been confirmed by the taxi company. The witness had suggested he had spoken to the driver and the driver had asked for confirmation that the name matched the booking. The driver’s representative said that the original booking was cancelled and had not been received by the driver as it had been allocated to another driver – the implication being that it was the original driver who had the name and details from the taxi company. The driver’s representative stated that the witness had been taken to their home address, and the driver had to wait a significant period before the witness was driven to his destination. The witness had been pleased with the charge of £25 and commended, who he believed was, the driver on the level of service provided. However, a few hours later at 3.00 am the witness claimed to have seen the same person. He had gone from commending someone on a £25 fare to an argument around a £6.50 fare. The driver’s representative noted that this did not make sense. According to the witness statement he stated the fare was normally cost £6 to return home again and then claims he was told to exit the vehicle as he does not have the full fare. The driver’s representative stated that the witness did not describe the driver, car, colour, make or registration details. He also did not contact the taxi company until 10 to 14 days after the alleged incident. He was then advised to contact the Council which was 6 months later in 2024. He said that the driver was contacted for the first time eight months after the original allegation in July 2023 and asked whether he recalled something happening. It was noted that the driver would have made between 8,000 to 10,000 taxi journeys during that time and was adamant that he did not pick the witness up. The witness also referred to a BACS payment but the driver had never taken a BACS payment. Responding to questions the driver’s representative clarified the booking process. He explained that when booking on the app or at the taxi base the passenger was asked for their name, pick up point and destination. The driver would then receive confirmation on an app and had the option of accepting or rejecting the booking. If they accept the fare, they would receive the pick-up and destination details and the name of person who had made the booking. Only the driver who accepted the booking would be able to view the booking. If the passenger had cancelled the booking what would be logged on system was that the booking was cancelled and the driver would no longer have access to that journey but it would remain on the company system. To summarise, the driver’s representative stated that the driver disputed the complaint in two respects. Firstly, it was not him and secondly, in relation to the allegation itself it was not substantiated on its own merits as £25 was accepted for the first fare and then £6.50 was claimed by the witness to be an overcharge for the return journey. It was also noted that the witness was not present to clarify issues. RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken. Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he declared he had a conviction for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. The Sub Committee heard the case in the absence of the driver. The driver was contacted during the meeting by telephone to confirm his attendance. However, no response was received. The application had been scheduled to be heard at 11.30 am. To allow time for the driver to arrive the Sub Committee waited until 11.34 am before commencing the hearing. The Sub Committee noted the circumstances and the driver’s conviction for the possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. Additional information had also been provided by the police. The driver had no previous complaints and had been driving since 2007, however the Sub Committee were mindful of the guidance on determining the suitability of applicants and licensees in the Hackney and Private Hire Trades and that a licence should not be granted unless at least 7 years had elapsed since the completion of any sentence. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be revoked as of 7.08.24 (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had 6 penalty points on his licence, arising from two offences committed on 29th July 2022 for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks and driving otherwise than in accordance with a license. The applicant failed to declare these endorsements on his application for a grant of a licence and ticked the ‘No’ box when answering the question on the application form. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was a fit and proper person. He said his conviction had been a mistake. He had been living abroad and had been in possession of a driving licence since 2008. When he returned to the UK in July 2022 he had not known that his driving licence was not valid until he had been stopped by the police. When he contacted the DVLA he said they did not have an explanation for him as to why his licence was not valid. When the driver attended court for the driving conviction, he informed the Sub Committee that he had been told he could drive with his international driving licence but could take his driving test again. He did so and passed within one month. He said he paid for insurance for the vehicle but it was not accepted as his driving licence was showing as not valid. The insurance company emailed him to say the payment was rejected and he confirmed he had not received an insurance policy document. The driver said he had held a full driving licence for the last 2 years and had not accumulated any points during those 2 years. Responding to questions the driver informed the Sub Committee that he had not declared the points on his application form as he had not understood what the term ‘endorsement’ meant. He confirmed he now knew what the term meant. He also confirmed that when he held his first UK driving licence he had been in possession of a card and photo and that he was aware it was valid from 2008 to 2018. He informed the Sub Committee that he had changed his address and was going to change his licence but was convicted before he had managed to do this. The driver confirmed he was aware of the seriousness of the offence as the police had taken his car and he had to obtain an insurance document to release it. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating he refused to take a journey from Cardiff train station to Penarth after allegedly saying he was available for hire. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that the driver in attendance at the meeting was not the one he had dealt with and submitted a complaint about. RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating that he refused to take a passenger using the meter and requested £30 for a journey within the Cardiff boundary. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that the complaint related to an alleged incident on 3rd February 2024 which was the evening of the Wales v Scotland International rugby match. At 8.55 pm on the evening of 3rd February 2024 and the time of the alleged incident St Mary’s Street would have been very busy. The driver was not working but was present as he had pre-arranged to pick up his nephew as he knew he would have been struggling to get out the city after the rugby international match. There was evidence from the nephew that he had made arrangements with the driver to collect him and take him home. He added that the driver did not speak to the witness and had no reason to speak to him as he was there only to take his nephew home. Further, if the driver had been working taking a fare to Pentwyn would have cost more than a typical Saturday night due to the level of congestion in the city. It was noted that the journey to Roath with his nephew took 45 minutes and Pentwyn would have taken double that time. He suggested that perhaps the witness was confused as he had asked the driver five times how much it would cost to take him to Pentwyn. He also referred to the photograph submitted by the witness. He stated that there was no illuminated sign in the middle of the roof of the car with the word Taxi written on it as he was not working but waiting for his nephew. The driver’s representative queried why the driver would refuse a fare if he was working because he would be paid more if journey took longer due the congestion in the city centre. He also added that the driver was not someone who has caused the council problems, always used the taxi meter and provided the correct questions when asked. Summarising he said that the balance of probabilities would suggest that the incident did not happen. There were two statements to support the driver – his and his nephew’s, and the statement that the complainant had to repeat his request five times to the drive, and also the witness was not present. He suggested that the driver was a fit and proper person and that the allegation was not substantiated. RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he took payment of £25 from a member of the public in a private hire vehicle without the fare being booked in advance, and then offered and took payment for a second un-booked fare with the same member of the public the following day. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the timeline in the case was crucial and referred to the fact that the allegation dated back to July 2023. The witness had stated he made a booking with the taxi company but the company had a record of him cancelling the booking at 12.03 am. The driver was not working that night which had been confirmed by the taxi company. The witness had suggested he had spoken to the driver and the driver had asked for confirmation that the name matched the booking. The driver’s representative said that the original booking was cancelled and had not been received by the driver as it had been allocated to another driver – the implication being that it was the original driver who had the name and details from the taxi company. The driver’s representative stated that the witness had been taken to their home address, and the driver had to wait a significant period before the witness was driven to his destination. The witness had been pleased with the charge of £25 and commended, who he believed was, the driver on the level of service provided. However, a few hours later at 3.00 am the witness claimed to have seen the same person. He had gone from commending someone on a £25 fare to an argument around a £6.50 fare. The driver’s representative noted that this did not make sense. According to the witness statement he stated the fare was normally cost £6 to return home again and then claims he was told to exit the vehicle as he does not have the full fare. The driver’s representative stated that the witness did not describe the driver, car, colour, make or registration details. He also did not contact the taxi company until 10 to 14 days after the alleged incident. He was then advised to contact the Council which was 6 months later in 2024. He said that the driver was contacted for the first time eight months after the original allegation in July 2023 and asked whether he recalled something happening. It was noted that the driver would have made between 8,000 to 10,000 taxi journeys during that time and was adamant that he did not pick the witness up. The witness also referred to a BACS payment but the driver had never taken a BACS payment. Responding to questions the driver’s representative clarified the booking process. He explained that when booking on the app or at the taxi base the passenger was asked for their name, pick up point and destination. The driver would then receive confirmation on an app and had the option of accepting or rejecting the booking. If they accept the fare, they would receive the pick-up and destination details and the name of person who had made the booking. Only the driver who accepted the booking would be able to view the booking. If the passenger had cancelled the booking what would be logged on system was that the booking was cancelled and the driver would no longer have access to that journey but it would remain on the company system. To summarise, the driver’s representative stated that the driver disputed the complaint in two respects. Firstly, it was not him and secondly, in relation to the allegation itself it was not substantiated on its own merits as £25 was accepted for the first fare and then £6.50 was claimed by the witness to be an overcharge for the return journey. It was also noted that the witness was not present to clarify issues. RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken. Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he declared he had a conviction for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. The Sub Committee heard the case in the absence of the driver. The driver was contacted during the meeting by telephone to confirm his attendance. However, no response was received. The application had been scheduled to be heard at 11.30 am. To allow time for the driver to arrive the Sub Committee waited until 11.34 am before commencing the hearing. The Sub Committee noted the circumstances and the driver’s conviction for the possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. Additional information had also been provided by the police. The driver had no previous complaints and had been driving since 2007, however the Sub Committee were mindful of the guidance on determining the suitability of applicants and licensees in the Hackney and Private Hire Trades and that a licence should not be granted unless at least 7 years had elapsed since the completion of any sentence. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be revoked as of 7.08.24 (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had 6 penalty points on his licence, arising from two offences committed on 29th July 2022 for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks and driving otherwise than in accordance with a license. The applicant failed to declare these endorsements on his application for a grant of a licence and ticked the ‘No’ box when answering the question on the application form. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was a fit and proper person. He said his conviction had been a mistake. He had been living abroad and had been in possession of a driving licence since 2008. When he returned to the UK in July 2022 he had not known that his driving licence was not valid until he had been stopped by the police. When he contacted the DVLA he said they did not have an explanation for him as to why his licence was not valid. When the driver attended court for the driving conviction, he informed the Sub Committee that he had been told he could drive with his international driving licence but could take his driving test again. He did so and passed within one month. He said he paid for insurance for the vehicle but it was not accepted as his driving licence was showing as not valid. The insurance company emailed him to say the payment was rejected and he confirmed he had not received an insurance policy document. The driver said he had held a full driving licence for the last 2 years and had not accumulated any points during those 2 years. Responding to questions the driver informed the Sub Committee that he had not declared the points on his application form as he had not understood what the term ‘endorsement’ meant. He confirmed he now knew what the term meant. He also confirmed that when he held his first UK driving licence he had been in possession of a card and photo and that he was aware it was valid from 2008 to 2018. He informed the Sub Committee that he had changed his address and was going to change his licence but was convicted before he had managed to do this. The driver confirmed he was aware of the seriousness of the offence as the police had taken his car and he had to obtain an insurance document to release it. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
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.