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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that he attempted to charge a customer an extra amount for paying by debit card and was attempting to charge a fixed fee and not utilise the calibrated meter in the vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had taken card payments long before it was mandatory to offer them, and often picked up passengers near the train station who did not have cash on them. On the night in question, at about 1am he saw the witness waiting for a taxi and asked him if he needed to pay by card, which he did. The passenger asked how much it would be to go to Penylan, which he said would cost about £10. The driver added that he had accidentally pressed the £1 extra button on SumUp while waiting to leave the rank but did not intend to charge this. He was aware of the rules against charging more than was on the meter, even though he had to pay fees on card payments. The driver suggested that during the journey, the passenger was upset and rude. After arriving at the destination, they paid the £9.30 fare listed on the meter by card and then took pictures of the inside and outside of the car. The passenger was not charged anything extra, which the receipt showed. The driver’s representative added that there had been no previous complaints against the driver, and he had been taking card payments for six years now without ever being accused of trying to charge more than what was on the meter. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver emphasised that he knew it was not legal to charge a transaction fee for card payments, and stressed that he had added the £1 fee by mistake at the start of the journey and then not tried to charge it at the end. He also emphasised that he had not asked for a fixed fee, but had just said that a trip to Penylan would likely be around that amount, and then put the meter on as requested. The witness recalled that he had hailed a taxi at the bottom of St Mary’s Street on a Friday night, which was always busy. He found a taxi which was willing to take card, as he didn’t have cash and this was before a card reader became a requirement. He asked the driver if he could go to Penylan and the driver said ‘£10’. The witness said ‘we’ll see what the meter says’, because he was aware of the requirements for journeys within the city boundaries. The driver then said there would be a £1 fee, which he disputed. The witness insisted that he had not been rude or angry. At the end of the journey, as he exited the vehicle he took a photo of the numberplate, because he didn’t think it was right that the driver had tried to charge him a fixed fare within the city boundaries. Members asked what the fee was at the end of the journey. The witness responded that he paid £9.30 and suggested that the photo he took of the meter showed a £9.30 total with a £1 fee having been added to it. The driver clarified that the £1 fee had not been added to the fare, as he had to press an extra button to add this on before taking payment, but did not do this because he had pressed the £1 button accidentally. The driver added that he had never been accused of overcharging before, and he always used the meter even when he went outside of the boundaries to places like Penarth. The driver’s representative suggested that the situation may have stemmed from a misunderstanding when the driver advised that the likely cost to go to Penylan would be around £10, which the passenger interpreted as a fixed fare. RESOLVED – that no further action 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 License given that he had 9 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained the offences and acknowledged complacency on his part, particularly regarding two of his speeding offences which had occurred in the same week. At the time he was going through a personal crisis with his partner being ill in hospital, and he failed to notice a recent change in speed limit in an area from 40mph to 30mph. Members asked why the driver had only declared 6 penalty points when renewing his licence when he actually had 9. The driver explained that the second offence in that week, in June 2023, was not actually penalised until the following February, which he still did not understand. He had paid the fine initially but then had it reimbursed in December 2023, so he assumed it had been a mistake and they had charged him twice for the same offence. In January 2024 he was summoned to court and told that he hadn’t paid the fine. He co-operated in every way he could and accepted his punishment for speeding, which ended up being a larger fine than the original one. At the time he renewed his application, he believed there were only 6 points on his licence. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the two offences in the same week were committed on Manor Way. The driver added that he drove past there almost every day because he lived nearby. He was not making excuses but felt there were some mitigating circumstances on his mind when he failed to notice the change to a 30mph road, and he did not deny that he was speeding. Members noted that with 9 points now on his licence, he would need to be very careful in order to keep driving at all. The driver agreed and stressed that he was very aware of this. Taxi driving was very important to him because it allowed him to work flexibly and care for his wife. He reiterated that the offences had been a temporary lapse of judgement which he had owned up to. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had a conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had made a big mistake six years ago, while he was new in the country and had been drinking. He had sexually assaulted a woman who reported him to the police, and he had accepted a caution for this and apologised. Members asked why he had not declared this on his application form. The driver explained that he didn’t know that he needed to at the time, having only been in the UK for a year and only having had limited English skills then. At the police station he had come under the impression that accepting the caution and apologising would be the end of the matter. He didn’t know it would show up on his application but he needed a job and didn’t want to be turned down. He felt very ashamed, both for what he did and for not declaring it. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’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 License given that he had been issued with a caution by South Wales Police which he did not declare on his renewal application. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received a caution for battery in 2022 after an incident between him and his wife. He pushed her and she called the police, and he was arrested and released with a caution. When it came to renew his licence, he misunderstood the question and thought it only referred to convictions, not cautions. Members asked why he had not declared the caution immediately in 2022, let alone failing to do so in 2024 upon renewal. The driver responded that he didn’t realise it was something he had to declare as he had been released straight away. He had understood it as a warning rather than something on his permanent record, and apologised for this. Members suggested that having been a taxi driver since 2008, he would have renewed his licence several times before, and should have been aware of the need to inform the licensing authority as soon as possible if he committed any sort of offence. The driver apologised and reiterated that he was under the impression that a caution was more like a warning. The driver added that in 16 years in the trade he had never had any incidents of this or any other nature. The offence was something in his private life which he and his wife had now resolved. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days, and the driver receive a written warning. (5) This case was deferred to the next meeting.
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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that he attempted to charge a customer an extra amount for paying by debit card and was attempting to charge a fixed fee and not utilise the calibrated meter in the vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had taken card payments long before it was mandatory to offer them, and often picked up passengers near the train station who did not have cash on them. On the night in question, at about 1am he saw the witness waiting for a taxi and asked him if he needed to pay by card, which he did. The passenger asked how much it would be to go to Penylan, which he said would cost about £10. The driver added that he had accidentally pressed the £1 extra button on SumUp while waiting to leave the rank but did not intend to charge this. He was aware of the rules against charging more than was on the meter, even though he had to pay fees on card payments. The driver suggested that during the journey, the passenger was upset and rude. After arriving at the destination, they paid the £9.30 fare listed on the meter by card and then took pictures of the inside and outside of the car. The passenger was not charged anything extra, which the receipt showed. The driver’s representative added that there had been no previous complaints against the driver, and he had been taking card payments for six years now without ever being accused of trying to charge more than what was on the meter. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver emphasised that he knew it was not legal to charge a transaction fee for card payments, and stressed that he had added the £1 fee by mistake at the start of the journey and then not tried to charge it at the end. He also emphasised that he had not asked for a fixed fee, but had just said that a trip to Penylan would likely be around that amount, and then put the meter on as requested. The witness recalled that he had hailed a taxi at the bottom of St Mary’s Street on a Friday night, which was always busy. He found a taxi which was willing to take card, as he didn’t have cash and this was before a card reader became a requirement. He asked the driver if he could go to Penylan and the driver said ‘£10’. The witness said ‘we’ll see what the meter says’, because he was aware of the requirements for journeys within the city boundaries. The driver then said there would be a £1 fee, which he disputed. The witness insisted that he had not been rude or angry. At the end of the journey, as he exited the vehicle he took a photo of the numberplate, because he didn’t think it was right that the driver had tried to charge him a fixed fare within the city boundaries. Members asked what the fee was at the end of the journey. The witness responded that he paid £9.30 and suggested that the photo he took of the meter showed a £9.30 total with a £1 fee having been added to it. The driver clarified that the £1 fee had not been added to the fare, as he had to press an extra button to add this on before taking payment, but did not do this because he had pressed the £1 button accidentally. The driver added that he had never been accused of overcharging before, and he always used the meter even when he went outside of the boundaries to places like Penarth. The driver’s representative suggested that the situation may have stemmed from a misunderstanding when the driver advised that the likely cost to go to Penylan would be around £10, which the passenger interpreted as a fixed fare. RESOLVED – that no further action 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 License given that he had 9 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained the offences and acknowledged complacency on his part, particularly regarding two of his speeding offences which had occurred in the same week. At the time he was going through a personal crisis with his partner being ill in hospital, and he failed to notice a recent change in speed limit in an area from 40mph to 30mph. Members asked why the driver had only declared 6 penalty points when renewing his licence when he actually had 9. The driver explained that the second offence in that week, in June 2023, was not actually penalised until the following February, which he still did not understand. He had paid the fine initially but then had it reimbursed in December 2023, so he assumed it had been a mistake and they had charged him twice for the same offence. In January 2024 he was summoned to court and told that he hadn’t paid the fine. He co-operated in every way he could and accepted his punishment for speeding, which ended up being a larger fine than the original one. At the time he renewed his application, he believed there were only 6 points on his licence. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the two offences in the same week were committed on Manor Way. The driver added that he drove past there almost every day because he lived nearby. He was not making excuses but felt there were some mitigating circumstances on his mind when he failed to notice the change to a 30mph road, and he did not deny that he was speeding. Members noted that with 9 points now on his licence, he would need to be very careful in order to keep driving at all. The driver agreed and stressed that he was very aware of this. Taxi driving was very important to him because it allowed him to work flexibly and care for his wife. He reiterated that the offences had been a temporary lapse of judgement which he had owned up to. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had a conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had made a big mistake six years ago, while he was new in the country and had been drinking. He had sexually assaulted a woman who reported him to the police, and he had accepted a caution for this and apologised. Members asked why he had not declared this on his application form. The driver explained that he didn’t know that he needed to at the time, having only been in the UK for a year and only having had limited English skills then. At the police station he had come under the impression that accepting the caution and apologising would be the end of the matter. He didn’t know it would show up on his application but he needed a job and didn’t want to be turned down. He felt very ashamed, both for what he did and for not declaring it. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’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 License given that he had been issued with a caution by South Wales Police which he did not declare on his renewal application. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received a caution for battery in 2022 after an incident between him and his wife. He pushed her and she called the police, and he was arrested and released with a caution. When it came to renew his licence, he misunderstood the question and thought it only referred to convictions, not cautions. Members asked why he had not declared the caution immediately in 2022, let alone failing to do so in 2024 upon renewal. The driver responded that he didn’t realise it was something he had to declare as he had been released straight away. He had understood it as a warning rather than something on his permanent record, and apologised for this. Members suggested that having been a taxi driver since 2008, he would have renewed his licence several times before, and should have been aware of the need to inform the licensing authority as soon as possible if he committed any sort of offence. The driver apologised and reiterated that he was under the impression that a caution was more like a warning. The driver added that in 16 years in the trade he had never had any incidents of this or any other nature. The offence was something in his private life which he and his wife had now resolved. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days, and the driver receive a written warning. (5) This case was deferred to the next meeting.
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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that he attempted to charge a customer an extra amount for paying by debit card and was attempting to charge a fixed fee and not utilise the calibrated meter in the vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had taken card payments long before it was mandatory to offer them, and often picked up passengers near the train station who did not have cash on them. On the night in question, at about 1am he saw the witness waiting for a taxi and asked him if he needed to pay by card, which he did. The passenger asked how much it would be to go to Penylan, which he said would cost about £10. The driver added that he had accidentally pressed the £1 extra button on SumUp while waiting to leave the rank but did not intend to charge this. He was aware of the rules against charging more than was on the meter, even though he had to pay fees on card payments. The driver suggested that during the journey, the passenger was upset and rude. After arriving at the destination, they paid the £9.30 fare listed on the meter by card and then took pictures of the inside and outside of the car. The passenger was not charged anything extra, which the receipt showed. The driver’s representative added that there had been no previous complaints against the driver, and he had been taking card payments for six years now without ever being accused of trying to charge more than what was on the meter. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver emphasised that he knew it was not legal to charge a transaction fee for card payments, and stressed that he had added the £1 fee by mistake at the start of the journey and then not tried to charge it at the end. He also emphasised that he had not asked for a fixed fee, but had just said that a trip to Penylan would likely be around that amount, and then put the meter on as requested. The witness recalled that he had hailed a taxi at the bottom of St Mary’s Street on a Friday night, which was always busy. He found a taxi which was willing to take card, as he didn’t have cash and this was before a card reader became a requirement. He asked the driver if he could go to Penylan and the driver said ‘£10’. The witness said ‘we’ll see what the meter says’, because he was aware of the requirements for journeys within the city boundaries. The driver then said there would be a £1 fee, which he disputed. The witness insisted that he had not been rude or angry. At the end of the journey, as he exited the vehicle he took a photo of the numberplate, because he didn’t think it was right that the driver had tried to charge him a fixed fare within the city boundaries. Members asked what the fee was at the end of the journey. The witness responded that he paid £9.30 and suggested that the photo he took of the meter showed a £9.30 total with a £1 fee having been added to it. The driver clarified that the £1 fee had not been added to the fare, as he had to press an extra button to add this on before taking payment, but did not do this because he had pressed the £1 button accidentally. The driver added that he had never been accused of overcharging before, and he always used the meter even when he went outside of the boundaries to places like Penarth. The driver’s representative suggested that the situation may have stemmed from a misunderstanding when the driver advised that the likely cost to go to Penylan would be around £10, which the passenger interpreted as a fixed fare. RESOLVED – that no further action 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 License given that he had 9 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained the offences and acknowledged complacency on his part, particularly regarding two of his speeding offences which had occurred in the same week. At the time he was going through a personal crisis with his partner being ill in hospital, and he failed to notice a recent change in speed limit in an area from 40mph to 30mph. Members asked why the driver had only declared 6 penalty points when renewing his licence when he actually had 9. The driver explained that the second offence in that week, in June 2023, was not actually penalised until the following February, which he still did not understand. He had paid the fine initially but then had it reimbursed in December 2023, so he assumed it had been a mistake and they had charged him twice for the same offence. In January 2024 he was summoned to court and told that he hadn’t paid the fine. He co-operated in every way he could and accepted his punishment for speeding, which ended up being a larger fine than the original one. At the time he renewed his application, he believed there were only 6 points on his licence. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the two offences in the same week were committed on Manor Way. The driver added that he drove past there almost every day because he lived nearby. He was not making excuses but felt there were some mitigating circumstances on his mind when he failed to notice the change to a 30mph road, and he did not deny that he was speeding. Members noted that with 9 points now on his licence, he would need to be very careful in order to keep driving at all. The driver agreed and stressed that he was very aware of this. Taxi driving was very important to him because it allowed him to work flexibly and care for his wife. He reiterated that the offences had been a temporary lapse of judgement which he had owned up to. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had a conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had made a big mistake six years ago, while he was new in the country and had been drinking. He had sexually assaulted a woman who reported him to the police, and he had accepted a caution for this and apologised. Members asked why he had not declared this on his application form. The driver explained that he didn’t know that he needed to at the time, having only been in the UK for a year and only having had limited English skills then. At the police station he had come under the impression that accepting the caution and apologising would be the end of the matter. He didn’t know it would show up on his application but he needed a job and didn’t want to be turned down. He felt very ashamed, both for what he did and for not declaring it. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’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 License given that he had been issued with a caution by South Wales Police which he did not declare on his renewal application. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received a caution for battery in 2022 after an incident between him and his wife. He pushed her and she called the police, and he was arrested and released with a caution. When it came to renew his licence, he misunderstood the question and thought it only referred to convictions, not cautions. Members asked why he had not declared the caution immediately in 2022, let alone failing to do so in 2024 upon renewal. The driver responded that he didn’t realise it was something he had to declare as he had been released straight away. He had understood it as a warning rather than something on his permanent record, and apologised for this. Members suggested that having been a taxi driver since 2008, he would have renewed his licence several times before, and should have been aware of the need to inform the licensing authority as soon as possible if he committed any sort of offence. The driver apologised and reiterated that he was under the impression that a caution was more like a warning. The driver added that in 16 years in the trade he had never had any incidents of this or any other nature. The offence was something in his private life which he and his wife had now resolved. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days, and the driver receive a written warning. (5) This case was deferred to the next meeting.
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.