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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a speeding offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence. The driver was not in attendance. The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained when the name given on the NIP form was not the registered keeper of the car, the next step was to carry out an insurance check to find out whether they were insured on it. The police then contacted the licensing authority to find out whether they were a licensed taxi driver, which they were not. On this occasion, when challenged, the driver admitted that he had falsely filled in the form, and filled it in again correctly. In the police’s view, it was a basic attempt to pervert the course of justice, and the driver had acted intentionally to get someone else to take the blame. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (2) Application 2 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 he was displaying illegal number plates on his Hackney Carriage vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that it was a genuine mistake, and he was not aware that he had been using a ghost plate until the police came and took it from him. His son had bought it as a gift several years ago as it had 3D lettering that looked better, and he had been unknowingly driving with it since then. The plate had been registered with the DVLA and had not been noticed on several MOTs. He provided the Sub Committee with a receipt for the plates which described them as ‘UK standard’. The driver added that he did not know what ghost plates were until the police seized them from him. He suggested that if he had really wanted to avoid being caught committing an offence, he would not have put his hackney plate right next to the ghost plate on the rear of his vehicle. The police’s statement had made clear that they would not have been able to trace him if not for the hackney plate. The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that when the speed limit changed from 40mph to 30mph on Manor Way, advice letters were sent out to drivers who were caught breaking the new limit. Suspicions were raised when this number plate didn’t read, and the police were only able to identify the vehicle from the taxi plate next to it. Possession of the plates was illegal, which was why the driver had received a fixed penalty notice and paid a fine. The witness added that the ghost plate was not actually UK standard as it didn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it, but acknowledged that this was not obvious. He was surprised that this was not noticed during several MOTs but could not speak for the garage that had passed it. In his experience, ghost plates were only fitted to vehicles so they could avoid cameras, and they had been on the vehicle for some time. It was not possible to say for sure whether the vehicle had gotten away with any other offences in that time. The driver’s representative added that the plates would have seemed legal to the untrained eye and had since been replaced with legal ones. He emphasised that the driver had been a taxi driver of good standing for nearly twenty years, and had made a genuine mistake and not intended to deceive anyone. RESOLVED – that no further action 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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a motoring offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he had made a mistake by nominating the wrong driver. He got confused about the date that it happened because he and his wife shared another car, and he wrongly nominated her as the driver on that day. His wife had also not noticed that it was the wrong car when she was notified of the offence. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the car they shared was a Vauxhall Corsa while his taxi was a Mercedes E-Class. Both of them were insured to drive the Corsa while only he was allowed to drive the Mercedes. The driver noted that there was a mistake in the police’s statement, which stated that the offence occurred on a Sunday when actually it was on a Thursday. The witness, representing South Wales Police, acknowledged the error in the statement but clarified that the NIP form displayed the correct date, in addition to clearly stating the make, model and number plate of the vehicle. The witness noted that the number plates of the two cars in question were not particularly similar. He added that their records showed he was carrying a fare at the time, and as the offence involved going through a red light at speed it would go to court. The driver added that he was disappointed in himself for not looking at the form properly and making a mistake. He had driven taxis for more than ten years and had never previously had a complaint. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (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 given that he was disqualified from driving in November 2024 for 56 days. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that on the day in question he was coming back to Cardiff from Bristol. He was too slow to decelerate when he came off the A48 and the speed limit changed, and there was a police vehicle behind him which pulled him over for speeding. It was the first time this had happened in 16 years of driving, and he had apologised and accepted his punishment. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the suspension had expired in mid-January and he was back driving now. Having been disqualified in November, he had declared his offence to the council in December and handed in his plates then. The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had already been punished, having received a fine and a suspension, and asked that he be given a second chance. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (5) Application 5 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 he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90). Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that some time ago he had been trying to sell a car and allowed a potential buyer to take it for a test drive. Upon being notified that the car had been caught going 29mph in a 20mph zone, he provided the driver’s details but the police had been unable to find them. The driver suspected that the individual may have had a licence from another country or provided a fake name. He had been unable to track down the driver and in the end felt he had no choice but to accept the points and declare this to the council. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the vehicle in question had not been his taxi. He allowed a friend of a friend to take the car out on their own without checking their licence, which he accepted was a mistake. His friend had failed to provide the individual’s proper details and as a result they were no longer friends. The driver added that taxi driving was his only source of income and he needed to support his children. If he had known any of this would happen then he would never have let someone else drive his car. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 21 days. (6) 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 / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence for breaching the requirements as to control of the vehicle including a mobile phone offence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points and a fine for using a mobile phone while driving. His phone screen had lit up in the passenger seat and a police officer walking by spotted it, and he ended up having to go to court. He had tried to explain that the phone screen had come on automatically but the police claimed it was in his hand. The driver believed he was innocent and disputed the police’s version of events but had accepted the judge’s verdict. He clarified that he had been driving his wife’s car rather than his taxi. He apologised for not notifying the council of the offence as soon as it had happened, having been under the impression that it only had to be reported upon renewal. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days. (7) Application 7 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 failed to declare on his application form that he had previously been licensed by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and that his licence with that authority had been revoked in May 2024 on the grounds of public safety. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that when he was licensed in Merthyr he wasn’t aware that they did not allow him to drive in Cardiff. He had now done the Cardiff knowledge test and wanted to get licensed so he could drive a taxi in the city. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that Merthyr council had revoked his licence after a complaint from a passenger who said he locked her in the taxi. He disputed that he had locked her in and suggested that the passenger had refused to pay the fare, leading to an altercation. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (8) Application 8 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 convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been kicked out of his home when he was 16 and had subsequently gotten into trouble. He was convicted of wounding, affray and assault after several fights, with the last conviction coming in 2002, relating to an incident in 1999. When the last case went to court, he was sentenced to 240 hours of community service, and since then he had maintained a clean record. He now had a daughter and a house and felt he had shown he was a good man. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had worked as an HGV driver before sustaining an injury in a car accident which left him in a wheelchair for several years. Since then he had worked to get his fitness back and was confident driving again. The car accident had led to a disorder which caused his hands to twitch but his doctor was happy for him to drive. The Licensing Officer added that the applicant had provided a medical certificate confirming this. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a speeding offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence. The driver was not in attendance. The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained when the name given on the NIP form was not the registered keeper of the car, the next step was to carry out an insurance check to find out whether they were insured on it. The police then contacted the licensing authority to find out whether they were a licensed taxi driver, which they were not. On this occasion, when challenged, the driver admitted that he had falsely filled in the form, and filled it in again correctly. In the police’s view, it was a basic attempt to pervert the course of justice, and the driver had acted intentionally to get someone else to take the blame. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (2) Application 2 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 he was displaying illegal number plates on his Hackney Carriage vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that it was a genuine mistake, and he was not aware that he had been using a ghost plate until the police came and took it from him. His son had bought it as a gift several years ago as it had 3D lettering that looked better, and he had been unknowingly driving with it since then. The plate had been registered with the DVLA and had not been noticed on several MOTs. He provided the Sub Committee with a receipt for the plates which described them as ‘UK standard’. The driver added that he did not know what ghost plates were until the police seized them from him. He suggested that if he had really wanted to avoid being caught committing an offence, he would not have put his hackney plate right next to the ghost plate on the rear of his vehicle. The police’s statement had made clear that they would not have been able to trace him if not for the hackney plate. The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that when the speed limit changed from 40mph to 30mph on Manor Way, advice letters were sent out to drivers who were caught breaking the new limit. Suspicions were raised when this number plate didn’t read, and the police were only able to identify the vehicle from the taxi plate next to it. Possession of the plates was illegal, which was why the driver had received a fixed penalty notice and paid a fine. The witness added that the ghost plate was not actually UK standard as it didn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it, but acknowledged that this was not obvious. He was surprised that this was not noticed during several MOTs but could not speak for the garage that had passed it. In his experience, ghost plates were only fitted to vehicles so they could avoid cameras, and they had been on the vehicle for some time. It was not possible to say for sure whether the vehicle had gotten away with any other offences in that time. The driver’s representative added that the plates would have seemed legal to the untrained eye and had since been replaced with legal ones. He emphasised that the driver had been a taxi driver of good standing for nearly twenty years, and had made a genuine mistake and not intended to deceive anyone. RESOLVED – that no further action 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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a motoring offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he had made a mistake by nominating the wrong driver. He got confused about the date that it happened because he and his wife shared another car, and he wrongly nominated her as the driver on that day. His wife had also not noticed that it was the wrong car when she was notified of the offence. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the car they shared was a Vauxhall Corsa while his taxi was a Mercedes E-Class. Both of them were insured to drive the Corsa while only he was allowed to drive the Mercedes. The driver noted that there was a mistake in the police’s statement, which stated that the offence occurred on a Sunday when actually it was on a Thursday. The witness, representing South Wales Police, acknowledged the error in the statement but clarified that the NIP form displayed the correct date, in addition to clearly stating the make, model and number plate of the vehicle. The witness noted that the number plates of the two cars in question were not particularly similar. He added that their records showed he was carrying a fare at the time, and as the offence involved going through a red light at speed it would go to court. The driver added that he was disappointed in himself for not looking at the form properly and making a mistake. He had driven taxis for more than ten years and had never previously had a complaint. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (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 given that he was disqualified from driving in November 2024 for 56 days. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that on the day in question he was coming back to Cardiff from Bristol. He was too slow to decelerate when he came off the A48 and the speed limit changed, and there was a police vehicle behind him which pulled him over for speeding. It was the first time this had happened in 16 years of driving, and he had apologised and accepted his punishment. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the suspension had expired in mid-January and he was back driving now. Having been disqualified in November, he had declared his offence to the council in December and handed in his plates then. The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had already been punished, having received a fine and a suspension, and asked that he be given a second chance. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (5) Application 5 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 he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90). Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that some time ago he had been trying to sell a car and allowed a potential buyer to take it for a test drive. Upon being notified that the car had been caught going 29mph in a 20mph zone, he provided the driver’s details but the police had been unable to find them. The driver suspected that the individual may have had a licence from another country or provided a fake name. He had been unable to track down the driver and in the end felt he had no choice but to accept the points and declare this to the council. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the vehicle in question had not been his taxi. He allowed a friend of a friend to take the car out on their own without checking their licence, which he accepted was a mistake. His friend had failed to provide the individual’s proper details and as a result they were no longer friends. The driver added that taxi driving was his only source of income and he needed to support his children. If he had known any of this would happen then he would never have let someone else drive his car. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 21 days. (6) 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 / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence for breaching the requirements as to control of the vehicle including a mobile phone offence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points and a fine for using a mobile phone while driving. His phone screen had lit up in the passenger seat and a police officer walking by spotted it, and he ended up having to go to court. He had tried to explain that the phone screen had come on automatically but the police claimed it was in his hand. The driver believed he was innocent and disputed the police’s version of events but had accepted the judge’s verdict. He clarified that he had been driving his wife’s car rather than his taxi. He apologised for not notifying the council of the offence as soon as it had happened, having been under the impression that it only had to be reported upon renewal. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days. (7) Application 7 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 failed to declare on his application form that he had previously been licensed by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and that his licence with that authority had been revoked in May 2024 on the grounds of public safety. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that when he was licensed in Merthyr he wasn’t aware that they did not allow him to drive in Cardiff. He had now done the Cardiff knowledge test and wanted to get licensed so he could drive a taxi in the city. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that Merthyr council had revoked his licence after a complaint from a passenger who said he locked her in the taxi. He disputed that he had locked her in and suggested that the passenger had refused to pay the fare, leading to an altercation. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (8) Application 8 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 convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been kicked out of his home when he was 16 and had subsequently gotten into trouble. He was convicted of wounding, affray and assault after several fights, with the last conviction coming in 2002, relating to an incident in 1999. When the last case went to court, he was sentenced to 240 hours of community service, and since then he had maintained a clean record. He now had a daughter and a house and felt he had shown he was a good man. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had worked as an HGV driver before sustaining an injury in a car accident which left him in a wheelchair for several years. Since then he had worked to get his fitness back and was confident driving again. The car accident had led to a disorder which caused his hands to twitch but his doctor was happy for him to drive. The Licensing Officer added that the applicant had provided a medical certificate confirming this. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a speeding offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence. The driver was not in attendance. The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained when the name given on the NIP form was not the registered keeper of the car, the next step was to carry out an insurance check to find out whether they were insured on it. The police then contacted the licensing authority to find out whether they were a licensed taxi driver, which they were not. On this occasion, when challenged, the driver admitted that he had falsely filled in the form, and filled it in again correctly. In the police’s view, it was a basic attempt to pervert the course of justice, and the driver had acted intentionally to get someone else to take the blame. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (2) Application 2 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 he was displaying illegal number plates on his Hackney Carriage vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that it was a genuine mistake, and he was not aware that he had been using a ghost plate until the police came and took it from him. His son had bought it as a gift several years ago as it had 3D lettering that looked better, and he had been unknowingly driving with it since then. The plate had been registered with the DVLA and had not been noticed on several MOTs. He provided the Sub Committee with a receipt for the plates which described them as ‘UK standard’. The driver added that he did not know what ghost plates were until the police seized them from him. He suggested that if he had really wanted to avoid being caught committing an offence, he would not have put his hackney plate right next to the ghost plate on the rear of his vehicle. The police’s statement had made clear that they would not have been able to trace him if not for the hackney plate. The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that when the speed limit changed from 40mph to 30mph on Manor Way, advice letters were sent out to drivers who were caught breaking the new limit. Suspicions were raised when this number plate didn’t read, and the police were only able to identify the vehicle from the taxi plate next to it. Possession of the plates was illegal, which was why the driver had received a fixed penalty notice and paid a fine. The witness added that the ghost plate was not actually UK standard as it didn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it, but acknowledged that this was not obvious. He was surprised that this was not noticed during several MOTs but could not speak for the garage that had passed it. In his experience, ghost plates were only fitted to vehicles so they could avoid cameras, and they had been on the vehicle for some time. It was not possible to say for sure whether the vehicle had gotten away with any other offences in that time. The driver’s representative added that the plates would have seemed legal to the untrained eye and had since been replaced with legal ones. He emphasised that the driver had been a taxi driver of good standing for nearly twenty years, and had made a genuine mistake and not intended to deceive anyone. RESOLVED – that no further action 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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a motoring offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he had made a mistake by nominating the wrong driver. He got confused about the date that it happened because he and his wife shared another car, and he wrongly nominated her as the driver on that day. His wife had also not noticed that it was the wrong car when she was notified of the offence. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the car they shared was a Vauxhall Corsa while his taxi was a Mercedes E-Class. Both of them were insured to drive the Corsa while only he was allowed to drive the Mercedes. The driver noted that there was a mistake in the police’s statement, which stated that the offence occurred on a Sunday when actually it was on a Thursday. The witness, representing South Wales Police, acknowledged the error in the statement but clarified that the NIP form displayed the correct date, in addition to clearly stating the make, model and number plate of the vehicle. The witness noted that the number plates of the two cars in question were not particularly similar. He added that their records showed he was carrying a fare at the time, and as the offence involved going through a red light at speed it would go to court. The driver added that he was disappointed in himself for not looking at the form properly and making a mistake. He had driven taxis for more than ten years and had never previously had a complaint. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (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 given that he was disqualified from driving in November 2024 for 56 days. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that on the day in question he was coming back to Cardiff from Bristol. He was too slow to decelerate when he came off the A48 and the speed limit changed, and there was a police vehicle behind him which pulled him over for speeding. It was the first time this had happened in 16 years of driving, and he had apologised and accepted his punishment. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the suspension had expired in mid-January and he was back driving now. Having been disqualified in November, he had declared his offence to the council in December and handed in his plates then. The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had already been punished, having received a fine and a suspension, and asked that he be given a second chance. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (5) Application 5 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 he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90). Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that some time ago he had been trying to sell a car and allowed a potential buyer to take it for a test drive. Upon being notified that the car had been caught going 29mph in a 20mph zone, he provided the driver’s details but the police had been unable to find them. The driver suspected that the individual may have had a licence from another country or provided a fake name. He had been unable to track down the driver and in the end felt he had no choice but to accept the points and declare this to the council. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the vehicle in question had not been his taxi. He allowed a friend of a friend to take the car out on their own without checking their licence, which he accepted was a mistake. His friend had failed to provide the individual’s proper details and as a result they were no longer friends. The driver added that taxi driving was his only source of income and he needed to support his children. If he had known any of this would happen then he would never have let someone else drive his car. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 21 days. (6) 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 / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence for breaching the requirements as to control of the vehicle including a mobile phone offence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points and a fine for using a mobile phone while driving. His phone screen had lit up in the passenger seat and a police officer walking by spotted it, and he ended up having to go to court. He had tried to explain that the phone screen had come on automatically but the police claimed it was in his hand. The driver believed he was innocent and disputed the police’s version of events but had accepted the judge’s verdict. He clarified that he had been driving his wife’s car rather than his taxi. He apologised for not notifying the council of the offence as soon as it had happened, having been under the impression that it only had to be reported upon renewal. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days. (7) Application 7 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 failed to declare on his application form that he had previously been licensed by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and that his licence with that authority had been revoked in May 2024 on the grounds of public safety. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that when he was licensed in Merthyr he wasn’t aware that they did not allow him to drive in Cardiff. He had now done the Cardiff knowledge test and wanted to get licensed so he could drive a taxi in the city. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that Merthyr council had revoked his licence after a complaint from a passenger who said he locked her in the taxi. He disputed that he had locked her in and suggested that the passenger had refused to pay the fare, leading to an altercation. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (8) Application 8 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 convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been kicked out of his home when he was 16 and had subsequently gotten into trouble. He was convicted of wounding, affray and assault after several fights, with the last conviction coming in 2002, relating to an incident in 1999. When the last case went to court, he was sentenced to 240 hours of community service, and since then he had maintained a clean record. He now had a daughter and a house and felt he had shown he was a good man. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had worked as an HGV driver before sustaining an injury in a car accident which left him in a wheelchair for several years. Since then he had worked to get his fitness back and was confident driving again. The car accident had led to a disorder which caused his hands to twitch but his doctor was happy for him to drive. The Licensing Officer added that the applicant had provided a medical certificate confirming this. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
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.