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 had been received stating that the driver refused to take a passenger on a pre-booked fare and became abusive and threatening. The driver was not in attendance at the meeting. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recounted that he had called Veezu and booked a journey that involved several stops on the way back to his home. The driver called him a few minutes before the pickup time and asked where he was, apparently unaware that the pickup time had been arranged for a few minutes later. The driver shouted that he couldn’t wait. After he got into the vehicle, the driver refused to take him to the agreed stops on the way back home. He asked if he could speak to the dispatcher, in response to which the driver raised his voice again. At one point when the vehicle was stationary, the driver opened the passenger side door and stood in his way while shouting at him. A passer-by had to come over to the car to calm the driver down. The taxi company apologised and sent another driver to complete the journey. The witness explained that this had been a distressing experience which he found it hard to relive, and he had trouble sleeping afterwards. He wished he had called the police at the time but had been too scared. He felt that the driver should not be driving if he was not capable of doing his job without being aggressive on several occasions, escalating each time, and he was concerned about what could happen to his next customer if there was nobody there to intervene. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks, and that the driver be required to undertake the relevant SQA qualification within three months. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction to consider. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had two convictions, the first for the possession of false identity documents and the second for a money laundering offence. He made no excuse for what had happened in the past and had been working full-time since getting out of prison. He used to be a security driver and had got his SIA licence back this year. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had also applied for licences from Newport and Wolverhampton councils, and both had been refused. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he worked as a delivery driver for Dominos and Amazon in addition to security driving. He wanted to be a taxi driver because his partner was a carer and he wanted to be able to be more flexible so he could look after their child. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant previously held a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence with Cardiff Council that was subsequently revoked. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver emphasised that what happened in 2015 was not reflective of him. He had learned a lesson and not made any mistakes like that since, and he hoped to get a second chance. Members queried the circumstances of the revocation of his previous licence for fraud, and heard that he had been contracted to do a school run. He had given jobs to his colleagues to complete, and several of the drivers did not complete these jobs, without his knowledge. As the person in charge, he accepted responsibility and felt he had served his punishment over the last eight years, and assured the committee it would never happen again. The Legal Officer clarified that school run operators were not permitted to subcontract. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence be refused. (4) Application 4 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 following a complaint received alleging that he deliberately refused to take a fare that involved carrying a guide dog. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been on the way to pick up the passenger when his car cut out at some lights. He had been having issues with it for several weeks but hadn’t mentioned it to the operator because he needed the work. He thought he had sent the job back but then realised that he hadn’t. He cancelled the trip but then his car started again, and he drove past the passenger who was stood behind some parked cars, not seeing his dog. The driver acknowledged that he told Veezu he was no longer in the area, which was not true. He suggested that he panicked because he didn’t want them to stop him driving, and because he needed the money and knew the car would cost a lot to fix. He apologised for the inconvenience caused to the customer, and emphasised that he had picked up hundreds of disabled passengers over the years and never had a complaint. As a result of the incident, he had lost his job with Veezu. The Sub Committee asked for more details about his car and heard that it had cut out before, but not for a couple of days leading up to the incident. Members noted that the driver log showed he had accepted another job just a few minutes after breaking down, and queried how the car could have been unfit to take a passenger one moment and fine the next. The witness addressed the Sub Committee, explaining that he had used Veezu to book a trip to the hospital. He was following the job on the mobile app so he knew when the car was approaching, despite being visually impaired. He recalled the car slowing down as it passed him, then it went towards the far end of the estate and the job disappeared on the app. The same driver reappeared on the map shortly after and then disappeared again. A few minutes later, he was able to find another Veezu driver to take him to the hospital, but was late for his appointment. Members queried whether the original driver communicated with him at any point to explain the situation, and heard that he had not. Addressing the Sub Committee, the representative from Veezu stressed that he had not taken an opinion in his representation, and had provided driver logs, call logs and GPS tracking which had been agreed as accurate by all parties. All bookings undertaken were logged in their system, and he could not recall any other specific instances of fares being cancelled for similar reasons so close to the pickup time. To his knowledge, there were no previous complaints of this nature against the driver. Members asked what happened when a Veezu driver declined a job close to the pickup time, and heard that when jobs came up, nearby drivers had a period of flexibility where they could accept, decline or return to base at their discretion. In this case, because the driver had travelled to the booking after accepting it, he was required to call the operator and explain why he had returned to base outside of that time period. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks. (5) Application 5 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (6) Application 6 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 a complaint had been received stating that the driver allowed his licensed vehicle to be driven by unlicensed drivers on three occasions, each resulting in a speeding offence. It also stated that the driver was the only person insured to drive the vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that on three occasions after being caught speeding, he had asked someone to help him fill out the DVLA documents because his English was not very good, before signing them himself. He found out later that this person had filled in false names, and on the fourth occasion he was caught speeding he filled out the form himself. He had not committed any offences other than these four. He hoped that the committee could take into account that he was supporting his family and had recently lost his father. The Sub Committee noted that getting someone else to fill out these forms was considered fraud regardless of whether the driver signed them before or after the false information was added. The driver confirmed that he understood it was his responsibility to make sure it was correct when he signed it. The witness, representing South Wales Police, reiterated that the forms made very clear that they were only to be filled in by the person in question. They noted that on the fourth occasion the driver was able to fill in the form himself, and that he lived within walking distance of a police station, where he could have gone to request assistance if he was having any trouble. Members asked what would have happened if the driver had declared his speeding offences in the proper way. The witness explained that the first offence would have led to a speed awareness course, before the next three would have been 3 points each. This meant a total of 9 points, which would now be 6 with 3 having expired. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (7) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence following a complaint alleging that he charged and obtained more than the legal fare and failed to provide a proper receipt on request. The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee, acknowledging that the facts presented in the witness statement were accurate. He felt that the evidence provided showed it was indefensible and apologised to the witness and the committee He highlighted the driver’s personal life, noting that he was a doctor and a family man who had switched professions because his wife was disabled. The driver’s representative added that he had trained the driver personally under the old BTEC system and felt responsible for not having got the message across about the importance of taxi drivers’ conduct. He suggested that education would be more appropriate than prosecution, and that this could be an opportunity to retrain the driver rather than just revoke his licence. He driver had admitted his mistake and acknowledged his guilt, and was willing to do the new SQA qualification which had more of a focus on mobility and disability issues. The driver echoed his representative’s statement and apologised to the witness. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness thanked the driver for his apology. He added that earlier on the day in question, he had had similar issues with another taxi, which was why he did not challenge the fare in this case even though he knew he had been overcharged. He hadn’t used a taxi since this incident and it would take a long time before he felt comfortable using one again, which had a debilitating impact on his independence. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks.
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 had been received stating that the driver refused to take a passenger on a pre-booked fare and became abusive and threatening. The driver was not in attendance at the meeting. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recounted that he had called Veezu and booked a journey that involved several stops on the way back to his home. The driver called him a few minutes before the pickup time and asked where he was, apparently unaware that the pickup time had been arranged for a few minutes later. The driver shouted that he couldn’t wait. After he got into the vehicle, the driver refused to take him to the agreed stops on the way back home. He asked if he could speak to the dispatcher, in response to which the driver raised his voice again. At one point when the vehicle was stationary, the driver opened the passenger side door and stood in his way while shouting at him. A passer-by had to come over to the car to calm the driver down. The taxi company apologised and sent another driver to complete the journey. The witness explained that this had been a distressing experience which he found it hard to relive, and he had trouble sleeping afterwards. He wished he had called the police at the time but had been too scared. He felt that the driver should not be driving if he was not capable of doing his job without being aggressive on several occasions, escalating each time, and he was concerned about what could happen to his next customer if there was nobody there to intervene. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks, and that the driver be required to undertake the relevant SQA qualification within three months. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction to consider. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had two convictions, the first for the possession of false identity documents and the second for a money laundering offence. He made no excuse for what had happened in the past and had been working full-time since getting out of prison. He used to be a security driver and had got his SIA licence back this year. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had also applied for licences from Newport and Wolverhampton councils, and both had been refused. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he worked as a delivery driver for Dominos and Amazon in addition to security driving. He wanted to be a taxi driver because his partner was a carer and he wanted to be able to be more flexible so he could look after their child. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant previously held a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence with Cardiff Council that was subsequently revoked. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver emphasised that what happened in 2015 was not reflective of him. He had learned a lesson and not made any mistakes like that since, and he hoped to get a second chance. Members queried the circumstances of the revocation of his previous licence for fraud, and heard that he had been contracted to do a school run. He had given jobs to his colleagues to complete, and several of the drivers did not complete these jobs, without his knowledge. As the person in charge, he accepted responsibility and felt he had served his punishment over the last eight years, and assured the committee it would never happen again. The Legal Officer clarified that school run operators were not permitted to subcontract. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence be refused. (4) Application 4 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 following a complaint received alleging that he deliberately refused to take a fare that involved carrying a guide dog. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been on the way to pick up the passenger when his car cut out at some lights. He had been having issues with it for several weeks but hadn’t mentioned it to the operator because he needed the work. He thought he had sent the job back but then realised that he hadn’t. He cancelled the trip but then his car started again, and he drove past the passenger who was stood behind some parked cars, not seeing his dog. The driver acknowledged that he told Veezu he was no longer in the area, which was not true. He suggested that he panicked because he didn’t want them to stop him driving, and because he needed the money and knew the car would cost a lot to fix. He apologised for the inconvenience caused to the customer, and emphasised that he had picked up hundreds of disabled passengers over the years and never had a complaint. As a result of the incident, he had lost his job with Veezu. The Sub Committee asked for more details about his car and heard that it had cut out before, but not for a couple of days leading up to the incident. Members noted that the driver log showed he had accepted another job just a few minutes after breaking down, and queried how the car could have been unfit to take a passenger one moment and fine the next. The witness addressed the Sub Committee, explaining that he had used Veezu to book a trip to the hospital. He was following the job on the mobile app so he knew when the car was approaching, despite being visually impaired. He recalled the car slowing down as it passed him, then it went towards the far end of the estate and the job disappeared on the app. The same driver reappeared on the map shortly after and then disappeared again. A few minutes later, he was able to find another Veezu driver to take him to the hospital, but was late for his appointment. Members queried whether the original driver communicated with him at any point to explain the situation, and heard that he had not. Addressing the Sub Committee, the representative from Veezu stressed that he had not taken an opinion in his representation, and had provided driver logs, call logs and GPS tracking which had been agreed as accurate by all parties. All bookings undertaken were logged in their system, and he could not recall any other specific instances of fares being cancelled for similar reasons so close to the pickup time. To his knowledge, there were no previous complaints of this nature against the driver. Members asked what happened when a Veezu driver declined a job close to the pickup time, and heard that when jobs came up, nearby drivers had a period of flexibility where they could accept, decline or return to base at their discretion. In this case, because the driver had travelled to the booking after accepting it, he was required to call the operator and explain why he had returned to base outside of that time period. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks. (5) Application 5 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (6) Application 6 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 a complaint had been received stating that the driver allowed his licensed vehicle to be driven by unlicensed drivers on three occasions, each resulting in a speeding offence. It also stated that the driver was the only person insured to drive the vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that on three occasions after being caught speeding, he had asked someone to help him fill out the DVLA documents because his English was not very good, before signing them himself. He found out later that this person had filled in false names, and on the fourth occasion he was caught speeding he filled out the form himself. He had not committed any offences other than these four. He hoped that the committee could take into account that he was supporting his family and had recently lost his father. The Sub Committee noted that getting someone else to fill out these forms was considered fraud regardless of whether the driver signed them before or after the false information was added. The driver confirmed that he understood it was his responsibility to make sure it was correct when he signed it. The witness, representing South Wales Police, reiterated that the forms made very clear that they were only to be filled in by the person in question. They noted that on the fourth occasion the driver was able to fill in the form himself, and that he lived within walking distance of a police station, where he could have gone to request assistance if he was having any trouble. Members asked what would have happened if the driver had declared his speeding offences in the proper way. The witness explained that the first offence would have led to a speed awareness course, before the next three would have been 3 points each. This meant a total of 9 points, which would now be 6 with 3 having expired. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (7) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence following a complaint alleging that he charged and obtained more than the legal fare and failed to provide a proper receipt on request. The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee, acknowledging that the facts presented in the witness statement were accurate. He felt that the evidence provided showed it was indefensible and apologised to the witness and the committee He highlighted the driver’s personal life, noting that he was a doctor and a family man who had switched professions because his wife was disabled. The driver’s representative added that he had trained the driver personally under the old BTEC system and felt responsible for not having got the message across about the importance of taxi drivers’ conduct. He suggested that education would be more appropriate than prosecution, and that this could be an opportunity to retrain the driver rather than just revoke his licence. He driver had admitted his mistake and acknowledged his guilt, and was willing to do the new SQA qualification which had more of a focus on mobility and disability issues. The driver echoed his representative’s statement and apologised to the witness. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness thanked the driver for his apology. He added that earlier on the day in question, he had had similar issues with another taxi, which was why he did not challenge the fare in this case even though he knew he had been overcharged. He hadn’t used a taxi since this incident and it would take a long time before he felt comfortable using one again, which had a debilitating impact on his independence. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks.
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 had been received stating that the driver refused to take a passenger on a pre-booked fare and became abusive and threatening. The driver was not in attendance at the meeting. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recounted that he had called Veezu and booked a journey that involved several stops on the way back to his home. The driver called him a few minutes before the pickup time and asked where he was, apparently unaware that the pickup time had been arranged for a few minutes later. The driver shouted that he couldn’t wait. After he got into the vehicle, the driver refused to take him to the agreed stops on the way back home. He asked if he could speak to the dispatcher, in response to which the driver raised his voice again. At one point when the vehicle was stationary, the driver opened the passenger side door and stood in his way while shouting at him. A passer-by had to come over to the car to calm the driver down. The taxi company apologised and sent another driver to complete the journey. The witness explained that this had been a distressing experience which he found it hard to relive, and he had trouble sleeping afterwards. He wished he had called the police at the time but had been too scared. He felt that the driver should not be driving if he was not capable of doing his job without being aggressive on several occasions, escalating each time, and he was concerned about what could happen to his next customer if there was nobody there to intervene. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks, and that the driver be required to undertake the relevant SQA qualification within three months. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction to consider. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had two convictions, the first for the possession of false identity documents and the second for a money laundering offence. He made no excuse for what had happened in the past and had been working full-time since getting out of prison. He used to be a security driver and had got his SIA licence back this year. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had also applied for licences from Newport and Wolverhampton councils, and both had been refused. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he worked as a delivery driver for Dominos and Amazon in addition to security driving. He wanted to be a taxi driver because his partner was a carer and he wanted to be able to be more flexible so he could look after their child. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant previously held a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence with Cardiff Council that was subsequently revoked. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver emphasised that what happened in 2015 was not reflective of him. He had learned a lesson and not made any mistakes like that since, and he hoped to get a second chance. Members queried the circumstances of the revocation of his previous licence for fraud, and heard that he had been contracted to do a school run. He had given jobs to his colleagues to complete, and several of the drivers did not complete these jobs, without his knowledge. As the person in charge, he accepted responsibility and felt he had served his punishment over the last eight years, and assured the committee it would never happen again. The Legal Officer clarified that school run operators were not permitted to subcontract. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence be refused. (4) Application 4 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 following a complaint received alleging that he deliberately refused to take a fare that involved carrying a guide dog. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been on the way to pick up the passenger when his car cut out at some lights. He had been having issues with it for several weeks but hadn’t mentioned it to the operator because he needed the work. He thought he had sent the job back but then realised that he hadn’t. He cancelled the trip but then his car started again, and he drove past the passenger who was stood behind some parked cars, not seeing his dog. The driver acknowledged that he told Veezu he was no longer in the area, which was not true. He suggested that he panicked because he didn’t want them to stop him driving, and because he needed the money and knew the car would cost a lot to fix. He apologised for the inconvenience caused to the customer, and emphasised that he had picked up hundreds of disabled passengers over the years and never had a complaint. As a result of the incident, he had lost his job with Veezu. The Sub Committee asked for more details about his car and heard that it had cut out before, but not for a couple of days leading up to the incident. Members noted that the driver log showed he had accepted another job just a few minutes after breaking down, and queried how the car could have been unfit to take a passenger one moment and fine the next. The witness addressed the Sub Committee, explaining that he had used Veezu to book a trip to the hospital. He was following the job on the mobile app so he knew when the car was approaching, despite being visually impaired. He recalled the car slowing down as it passed him, then it went towards the far end of the estate and the job disappeared on the app. The same driver reappeared on the map shortly after and then disappeared again. A few minutes later, he was able to find another Veezu driver to take him to the hospital, but was late for his appointment. Members queried whether the original driver communicated with him at any point to explain the situation, and heard that he had not. Addressing the Sub Committee, the representative from Veezu stressed that he had not taken an opinion in his representation, and had provided driver logs, call logs and GPS tracking which had been agreed as accurate by all parties. All bookings undertaken were logged in their system, and he could not recall any other specific instances of fares being cancelled for similar reasons so close to the pickup time. To his knowledge, there were no previous complaints of this nature against the driver. Members asked what happened when a Veezu driver declined a job close to the pickup time, and heard that when jobs came up, nearby drivers had a period of flexibility where they could accept, decline or return to base at their discretion. In this case, because the driver had travelled to the booking after accepting it, he was required to call the operator and explain why he had returned to base outside of that time period. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks. (5) Application 5 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (6) Application 6 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 a complaint had been received stating that the driver allowed his licensed vehicle to be driven by unlicensed drivers on three occasions, each resulting in a speeding offence. It also stated that the driver was the only person insured to drive the vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that on three occasions after being caught speeding, he had asked someone to help him fill out the DVLA documents because his English was not very good, before signing them himself. He found out later that this person had filled in false names, and on the fourth occasion he was caught speeding he filled out the form himself. He had not committed any offences other than these four. He hoped that the committee could take into account that he was supporting his family and had recently lost his father. The Sub Committee noted that getting someone else to fill out these forms was considered fraud regardless of whether the driver signed them before or after the false information was added. The driver confirmed that he understood it was his responsibility to make sure it was correct when he signed it. The witness, representing South Wales Police, reiterated that the forms made very clear that they were only to be filled in by the person in question. They noted that on the fourth occasion the driver was able to fill in the form himself, and that he lived within walking distance of a police station, where he could have gone to request assistance if he was having any trouble. Members asked what would have happened if the driver had declared his speeding offences in the proper way. The witness explained that the first offence would have led to a speed awareness course, before the next three would have been 3 points each. This meant a total of 9 points, which would now be 6 with 3 having expired. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (7) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence following a complaint alleging that he charged and obtained more than the legal fare and failed to provide a proper receipt on request. The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee, acknowledging that the facts presented in the witness statement were accurate. He felt that the evidence provided showed it was indefensible and apologised to the witness and the committee He highlighted the driver’s personal life, noting that he was a doctor and a family man who had switched professions because his wife was disabled. The driver’s representative added that he had trained the driver personally under the old BTEC system and felt responsible for not having got the message across about the importance of taxi drivers’ conduct. He suggested that education would be more appropriate than prosecution, and that this could be an opportunity to retrain the driver rather than just revoke his licence. He driver had admitted his mistake and acknowledged his guilt, and was willing to do the new SQA qualification which had more of a focus on mobility and disability issues. The driver echoed his representative’s statement and apologised to the witness. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness thanked the driver for his apology. He added that earlier on the day in question, he had had similar issues with another taxi, which was why he did not challenge the fare in this case even though he knew he had been overcharged. He hadn’t used a taxi since this incident and it would take a long time before he felt comfortable using one again, which had a debilitating impact on his independence. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks.
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.