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 accessed his emails on a tablet while driving with a passenger present. The witness did not attend the Sub Committee. 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 Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his driving licence but did not disclose them until three had expired. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that upon renewal of his licence it had flagged up that he had nine points at one point during the triannual renewal period. He apologised for this and emphasised that it was an error rather than an attempt to hide it from the licensing authority. He ran his own business which was very busy and had made an oversight. He added that he drove around 80,000 miles a year and never drove dangerously, but had been caught out on a few occasions by speed cameras in unfamiliar areas. Since the offences he had taken every precaution to ensure it didn’t happen again. The driver also clarified that he had undertaken the NVQ qualification, which the report stated he had not. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had a conviction for harassment. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he accepted responsibility for the mistakes he made which led to him being convicted of harassment in 2019. He did not want to make excuses but clarified that it was online harassment that had taken place over Facebook rather than face-to-face, and he regretted his actions. He added that he saw the conviction as a turning point and had had no issues whatsoever since. He had worked hard to turn his life around and now had a stable family life with a wife and a child. He had been doing school transport for a decade now with no complaints, and understood the importance of trust, professionalism and safeguarding. Members asked whether he had declared the conviction on his previous renewal, which the driver confirmed he had. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points due to three speeding offences, two of which happened on the same day on Western Avenue when he didn’t realise the limit had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He had been driving taxis for many years and had a clean record until the speeding offences in 2023 and 2024. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (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 Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had a caution for importing a controlled Class C drug with intent to evade prohibition and restriction. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s solicitor explained that his client had brought bags of khat into the UK in 2021, which had led to a caution in 2022 for a drug-related offence. He suggested that the investigating authorities must have been satisfied that there was no commercial or distribution aspect to the importation, or he would have received more than a caution. The driver’s solicitor emphasised that the driver had an exemplary record otherwise and was of good character. He was a family man who was working to support his children, and there had been no other substantial issues across 14 years of driving taxis, so they considered him to be a fit and proper person. Members asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had not fully understood the process as his English wasn’t perfect. He had declared it on his most recent renewal, which was the first one since the caution. He had submitted the renewal application in July 2022, which was before the caution was finalised in August. The driver accepted that he should have informed the authority at the earliest opportunity. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days, and that the driver receive a written warning. (7) Application 7 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 the driver had six penalty points on her driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver accepted that she had failed to give information as to the identity of the driver, and explained that she hadn’t been driving the car at the time. After dropping off a customer, they had asked to drive her vehicle because she had mentioned she was selling it. She explained that they wouldn’t be able to drive it as they weren’t a taxi driver, which they said they were and showed a badge. They only drove it about 100 yards but went at 27mph in a 20 zone. She added that when the ticket came, she was unable to provide any details of the driver’s identity, only their name and a phone number which they never responded on. She appealed the decision but the authorities were unable to track the individual down. She noted that she didn’t attend the court hearing, though the report said she did, as she accepted she was guilty of letting another person drive her car. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that she didn’t have CCTV in her car at the time as she was planning on selling it. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (8) Application 8 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he collided with a cyclist while driving on the wrong side of the road. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he was travelling on East Tyndall Street with a passenger on board and turned right up the hill onto Sanquhar Street. The road markings were not clear and he misjudged the turning, and collided with a cyclist who was knocked over. He emphasised that he had been following the speed limit and travelling at about 10mph. He added that after pulling over, he stayed with the cyclist and provided his details. He asked whether the cyclist wanted to call the police, which he did not. He then carried on to drop the passenger off. Six weeks later he was contacted by the licensing authority and the police about the incident. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had not stopped before making the turn because there were no cars coming the other way. He also explained that the passenger had not said anything, and they just wanted to get home as he’d picked them up from a night shift. He apologised for the accident. Members viewed a CCTV video of the incident. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events. He suggested that the driver had cut the corner and had been travelling faster than he had claimed. The Sanquhar Road corner was known for being a dangerous place for cyclists because cars sped up as they went up the hill before turning. He also suggested that he had suggested contacting the police, not the driver, and that the driver had given him an incorrect phone number. The driver had stated that the road markings were faded, but he had provided pictures which showed they were reasonably clear. The Sub Committee asked the driver how he responded to this. The driver acknowledged that he had cut the corner slightly but stressed that he had done so slowly and had misjudged his line due to the lack of road markings. The driver’s representative noted that there was a dispute over the car’s speed, which he suggested did not look overly fast from the video but may well have seemed faster from the cyclist’s perspective. He suggested that it was a problem corner which the council needed to address. It was a genuine accident and the driver had accepted that he misjudged the corner, and it would never happen again. The driver had a clean record and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before. The witness emphasised that while he had slowed down as he approached the junction, the driver had not. He added that he had found it difficult to cycle on that road since it happened. A lot of roads in Cardiff were dangerous to cycle on, and the conduct of many drivers made this worse. He felt that the driver had recklessly cut the corner and caused an accident that could have been much worse. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (9) Application 9 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 alleging that he had taken fares without bookings. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that a lot of Veezu drivers had recurring issues with registering fares and trips when they were in areas with poor signal. Sometimes they were called during the trip by an operator to see if they had picked up a passenger, but sometimes they had to call the operator themselves, which meant they had to wait until the journey complete. He added that he worked for Uber too and didn’t have the same problem with them. He felt that the examples provided where he was accused of plying for hire could be explained by these technical issues, where he had pressed ‘no show’ but the system didn’t register it, so it thought he had refused to pick them up. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been working for Veezu since around 2014, when it was still Dragon. Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of Veezu, the witness explained that the four bookings had been flagged up in their system because it was unusual to have so many ‘no shows’ in quick succession. Veezu had looked into the individual bookings and the corresponding GPS data and found that on each occasion, after pressing the ‘no show’ button, the driver had then travelled to each of the requested destinations without booking it as a journey. On three of the occasions the driver had also made a call to the passenger to confirm they were there. As far as the witness was concerned, this would only have been done for financial gain. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days. (10) Application 10 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 had allowed three schoolchildren to exit his vehicle in the middle of a busy intersection without consideration for their safety. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was on Leckwith Road in stationary traffic on a school run. His three passengers, who were aged around 15, wanted to get out as the car had stopped. He tried to explain that they shouldn’t as they were in traffic, but they jumped out and went. Members asked whether there was an automatic locking system in the car. The driver responded that he drove a Seat Alhambra and wasn’t sure whether the back doors could be permanently locked from the front, as it was never usually necessary. The driver clarified that the journey was not part of a contracted school run, but rather a single booked journey that morning. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recounted her statement explaining what she had seen. It was on a very busy road connecting Leckwith to Canton, made up of two lanes of traffic that then turned into four by Asda. The taxi was less than a car length ahead of her and the sliding doors opened to let the passengers out. The vehicle was stationary at a red light but all the other lanes around it were moving. The passengers got out onto the hatched road markings and made their way to the traffic island, before picking their way through the cars waiting to move. As the traffic moved off, she became aware of the taxi going around her and wrote down the taxi plate number and registration. The witness felt it was an extremely dangerous thing to do and was particularly worried that a contracted school run driver could have been responsible for it. The driver’s representative asked what time this would have occurred, which the witness estimated was about 8:15am. The driver’s representative suggested that while it was a busy road, it would have been moving very slowly at this time. The witness disagreed and suggested it was a hectic road. The driver’s representative sympathised with the witness and reiterated the driver’s recollection that he had asked the passengers not to get out in the wrong place, but had been unable to stop them due to the lack of automatic locking. He suggested that ensuring the locking was always on would prevent anything like this happening again. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (11) Application 11 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 the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had acquired six points for failing to fill in a Section 172 notice, which he had accepted responsibility for. The other three points were for exceeding the speed limit just off Newport Road near Fitzalan, which he had reported when he applied to renew his taxi licence. He had been driving since 2005 and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before. He depended on his licence to support his family. He provided Members with a number of references in support of his character and record. The driver’s solicitor summed up that his client had been driving taxis for more than 20 years without any disciplinary matters. He had made two mistakes, one being an administrative matter and the other being a failure to notice that a speed limit had changed. He was now on nine points and would have to drive very carefully to ensure he didn’t lose his licence. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (12) Application 12 This item 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 Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver accessed his emails on a tablet while driving with a passenger present. The witness did not attend the Sub Committee. 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 Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his driving licence but did not disclose them until three had expired. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that upon renewal of his licence it had flagged up that he had nine points at one point during the triannual renewal period. He apologised for this and emphasised that it was an error rather than an attempt to hide it from the licensing authority. He ran his own business which was very busy and had made an oversight. He added that he drove around 80,000 miles a year and never drove dangerously, but had been caught out on a few occasions by speed cameras in unfamiliar areas. Since the offences he had taken every precaution to ensure it didn’t happen again. The driver also clarified that he had undertaken the NVQ qualification, which the report stated he had not. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had a conviction for harassment. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he accepted responsibility for the mistakes he made which led to him being convicted of harassment in 2019. He did not want to make excuses but clarified that it was online harassment that had taken place over Facebook rather than face-to-face, and he regretted his actions. He added that he saw the conviction as a turning point and had had no issues whatsoever since. He had worked hard to turn his life around and now had a stable family life with a wife and a child. He had been doing school transport for a decade now with no complaints, and understood the importance of trust, professionalism and safeguarding. Members asked whether he had declared the conviction on his previous renewal, which the driver confirmed he had. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points due to three speeding offences, two of which happened on the same day on Western Avenue when he didn’t realise the limit had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He had been driving taxis for many years and had a clean record until the speeding offences in 2023 and 2024. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (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 Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had a caution for importing a controlled Class C drug with intent to evade prohibition and restriction. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s solicitor explained that his client had brought bags of khat into the UK in 2021, which had led to a caution in 2022 for a drug-related offence. He suggested that the investigating authorities must have been satisfied that there was no commercial or distribution aspect to the importation, or he would have received more than a caution. The driver’s solicitor emphasised that the driver had an exemplary record otherwise and was of good character. He was a family man who was working to support his children, and there had been no other substantial issues across 14 years of driving taxis, so they considered him to be a fit and proper person. Members asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had not fully understood the process as his English wasn’t perfect. He had declared it on his most recent renewal, which was the first one since the caution. He had submitted the renewal application in July 2022, which was before the caution was finalised in August. The driver accepted that he should have informed the authority at the earliest opportunity. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days, and that the driver receive a written warning. (7) Application 7 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 the driver had six penalty points on her driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver accepted that she had failed to give information as to the identity of the driver, and explained that she hadn’t been driving the car at the time. After dropping off a customer, they had asked to drive her vehicle because she had mentioned she was selling it. She explained that they wouldn’t be able to drive it as they weren’t a taxi driver, which they said they were and showed a badge. They only drove it about 100 yards but went at 27mph in a 20 zone. She added that when the ticket came, she was unable to provide any details of the driver’s identity, only their name and a phone number which they never responded on. She appealed the decision but the authorities were unable to track the individual down. She noted that she didn’t attend the court hearing, though the report said she did, as she accepted she was guilty of letting another person drive her car. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that she didn’t have CCTV in her car at the time as she was planning on selling it. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (8) Application 8 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he collided with a cyclist while driving on the wrong side of the road. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he was travelling on East Tyndall Street with a passenger on board and turned right up the hill onto Sanquhar Street. The road markings were not clear and he misjudged the turning, and collided with a cyclist who was knocked over. He emphasised that he had been following the speed limit and travelling at about 10mph. He added that after pulling over, he stayed with the cyclist and provided his details. He asked whether the cyclist wanted to call the police, which he did not. He then carried on to drop the passenger off. Six weeks later he was contacted by the licensing authority and the police about the incident. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had not stopped before making the turn because there were no cars coming the other way. He also explained that the passenger had not said anything, and they just wanted to get home as he’d picked them up from a night shift. He apologised for the accident. Members viewed a CCTV video of the incident. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events. He suggested that the driver had cut the corner and had been travelling faster than he had claimed. The Sanquhar Road corner was known for being a dangerous place for cyclists because cars sped up as they went up the hill before turning. He also suggested that he had suggested contacting the police, not the driver, and that the driver had given him an incorrect phone number. The driver had stated that the road markings were faded, but he had provided pictures which showed they were reasonably clear. The Sub Committee asked the driver how he responded to this. The driver acknowledged that he had cut the corner slightly but stressed that he had done so slowly and had misjudged his line due to the lack of road markings. The driver’s representative noted that there was a dispute over the car’s speed, which he suggested did not look overly fast from the video but may well have seemed faster from the cyclist’s perspective. He suggested that it was a problem corner which the council needed to address. It was a genuine accident and the driver had accepted that he misjudged the corner, and it would never happen again. The driver had a clean record and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before. The witness emphasised that while he had slowed down as he approached the junction, the driver had not. He added that he had found it difficult to cycle on that road since it happened. A lot of roads in Cardiff were dangerous to cycle on, and the conduct of many drivers made this worse. He felt that the driver had recklessly cut the corner and caused an accident that could have been much worse. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (9) Application 9 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 alleging that he had taken fares without bookings. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that a lot of Veezu drivers had recurring issues with registering fares and trips when they were in areas with poor signal. Sometimes they were called during the trip by an operator to see if they had picked up a passenger, but sometimes they had to call the operator themselves, which meant they had to wait until the journey complete. He added that he worked for Uber too and didn’t have the same problem with them. He felt that the examples provided where he was accused of plying for hire could be explained by these technical issues, where he had pressed ‘no show’ but the system didn’t register it, so it thought he had refused to pick them up. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been working for Veezu since around 2014, when it was still Dragon. Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of Veezu, the witness explained that the four bookings had been flagged up in their system because it was unusual to have so many ‘no shows’ in quick succession. Veezu had looked into the individual bookings and the corresponding GPS data and found that on each occasion, after pressing the ‘no show’ button, the driver had then travelled to each of the requested destinations without booking it as a journey. On three of the occasions the driver had also made a call to the passenger to confirm they were there. As far as the witness was concerned, this would only have been done for financial gain. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days. (10) Application 10 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 had allowed three schoolchildren to exit his vehicle in the middle of a busy intersection without consideration for their safety. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was on Leckwith Road in stationary traffic on a school run. His three passengers, who were aged around 15, wanted to get out as the car had stopped. He tried to explain that they shouldn’t as they were in traffic, but they jumped out and went. Members asked whether there was an automatic locking system in the car. The driver responded that he drove a Seat Alhambra and wasn’t sure whether the back doors could be permanently locked from the front, as it was never usually necessary. The driver clarified that the journey was not part of a contracted school run, but rather a single booked journey that morning. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recounted her statement explaining what she had seen. It was on a very busy road connecting Leckwith to Canton, made up of two lanes of traffic that then turned into four by Asda. The taxi was less than a car length ahead of her and the sliding doors opened to let the passengers out. The vehicle was stationary at a red light but all the other lanes around it were moving. The passengers got out onto the hatched road markings and made their way to the traffic island, before picking their way through the cars waiting to move. As the traffic moved off, she became aware of the taxi going around her and wrote down the taxi plate number and registration. The witness felt it was an extremely dangerous thing to do and was particularly worried that a contracted school run driver could have been responsible for it. The driver’s representative asked what time this would have occurred, which the witness estimated was about 8:15am. The driver’s representative suggested that while it was a busy road, it would have been moving very slowly at this time. The witness disagreed and suggested it was a hectic road. The driver’s representative sympathised with the witness and reiterated the driver’s recollection that he had asked the passengers not to get out in the wrong place, but had been unable to stop them due to the lack of automatic locking. He suggested that ensuring the locking was always on would prevent anything like this happening again. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (11) Application 11 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 the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had acquired six points for failing to fill in a Section 172 notice, which he had accepted responsibility for. The other three points were for exceeding the speed limit just off Newport Road near Fitzalan, which he had reported when he applied to renew his taxi licence. He had been driving since 2005 and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before. He depended on his licence to support his family. He provided Members with a number of references in support of his character and record. The driver’s solicitor summed up that his client had been driving taxis for more than 20 years without any disciplinary matters. He had made two mistakes, one being an administrative matter and the other being a failure to notice that a speed limit had changed. He was now on nine points and would have to drive very carefully to ensure he didn’t lose his licence. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (12) Application 12 This item 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 Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver accessed his emails on a tablet while driving with a passenger present. The witness did not attend the Sub Committee. 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 Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his driving licence but did not disclose them until three had expired. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that upon renewal of his licence it had flagged up that he had nine points at one point during the triannual renewal period. He apologised for this and emphasised that it was an error rather than an attempt to hide it from the licensing authority. He ran his own business which was very busy and had made an oversight. He added that he drove around 80,000 miles a year and never drove dangerously, but had been caught out on a few occasions by speed cameras in unfamiliar areas. Since the offences he had taken every precaution to ensure it didn’t happen again. The driver also clarified that he had undertaken the NVQ qualification, which the report stated he had not. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had a conviction for harassment. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he accepted responsibility for the mistakes he made which led to him being convicted of harassment in 2019. He did not want to make excuses but clarified that it was online harassment that had taken place over Facebook rather than face-to-face, and he regretted his actions. He added that he saw the conviction as a turning point and had had no issues whatsoever since. He had worked hard to turn his life around and now had a stable family life with a wife and a child. He had been doing school transport for a decade now with no complaints, and understood the importance of trust, professionalism and safeguarding. Members asked whether he had declared the conviction on his previous renewal, which the driver confirmed he had. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points due to three speeding offences, two of which happened on the same day on Western Avenue when he didn’t realise the limit had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He had been driving taxis for many years and had a clean record until the speeding offences in 2023 and 2024. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (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 Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had a caution for importing a controlled Class C drug with intent to evade prohibition and restriction. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s solicitor explained that his client had brought bags of khat into the UK in 2021, which had led to a caution in 2022 for a drug-related offence. He suggested that the investigating authorities must have been satisfied that there was no commercial or distribution aspect to the importation, or he would have received more than a caution. The driver’s solicitor emphasised that the driver had an exemplary record otherwise and was of good character. He was a family man who was working to support his children, and there had been no other substantial issues across 14 years of driving taxis, so they considered him to be a fit and proper person. Members asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had not fully understood the process as his English wasn’t perfect. He had declared it on his most recent renewal, which was the first one since the caution. He had submitted the renewal application in July 2022, which was before the caution was finalised in August. The driver accepted that he should have informed the authority at the earliest opportunity. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days, and that the driver receive a written warning. (7) Application 7 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 the driver had six penalty points on her driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver accepted that she had failed to give information as to the identity of the driver, and explained that she hadn’t been driving the car at the time. After dropping off a customer, they had asked to drive her vehicle because she had mentioned she was selling it. She explained that they wouldn’t be able to drive it as they weren’t a taxi driver, which they said they were and showed a badge. They only drove it about 100 yards but went at 27mph in a 20 zone. She added that when the ticket came, she was unable to provide any details of the driver’s identity, only their name and a phone number which they never responded on. She appealed the decision but the authorities were unable to track the individual down. She noted that she didn’t attend the court hearing, though the report said she did, as she accepted she was guilty of letting another person drive her car. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that she didn’t have CCTV in her car at the time as she was planning on selling it. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (8) Application 8 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he collided with a cyclist while driving on the wrong side of the road. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he was travelling on East Tyndall Street with a passenger on board and turned right up the hill onto Sanquhar Street. The road markings were not clear and he misjudged the turning, and collided with a cyclist who was knocked over. He emphasised that he had been following the speed limit and travelling at about 10mph. He added that after pulling over, he stayed with the cyclist and provided his details. He asked whether the cyclist wanted to call the police, which he did not. He then carried on to drop the passenger off. Six weeks later he was contacted by the licensing authority and the police about the incident. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had not stopped before making the turn because there were no cars coming the other way. He also explained that the passenger had not said anything, and they just wanted to get home as he’d picked them up from a night shift. He apologised for the accident. Members viewed a CCTV video of the incident. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events. He suggested that the driver had cut the corner and had been travelling faster than he had claimed. The Sanquhar Road corner was known for being a dangerous place for cyclists because cars sped up as they went up the hill before turning. He also suggested that he had suggested contacting the police, not the driver, and that the driver had given him an incorrect phone number. The driver had stated that the road markings were faded, but he had provided pictures which showed they were reasonably clear. The Sub Committee asked the driver how he responded to this. The driver acknowledged that he had cut the corner slightly but stressed that he had done so slowly and had misjudged his line due to the lack of road markings. The driver’s representative noted that there was a dispute over the car’s speed, which he suggested did not look overly fast from the video but may well have seemed faster from the cyclist’s perspective. He suggested that it was a problem corner which the council needed to address. It was a genuine accident and the driver had accepted that he misjudged the corner, and it would never happen again. The driver had a clean record and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before. The witness emphasised that while he had slowed down as he approached the junction, the driver had not. He added that he had found it difficult to cycle on that road since it happened. A lot of roads in Cardiff were dangerous to cycle on, and the conduct of many drivers made this worse. He felt that the driver had recklessly cut the corner and caused an accident that could have been much worse. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (9) Application 9 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 alleging that he had taken fares without bookings. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that a lot of Veezu drivers had recurring issues with registering fares and trips when they were in areas with poor signal. Sometimes they were called during the trip by an operator to see if they had picked up a passenger, but sometimes they had to call the operator themselves, which meant they had to wait until the journey complete. He added that he worked for Uber too and didn’t have the same problem with them. He felt that the examples provided where he was accused of plying for hire could be explained by these technical issues, where he had pressed ‘no show’ but the system didn’t register it, so it thought he had refused to pick them up. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been working for Veezu since around 2014, when it was still Dragon. Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of Veezu, the witness explained that the four bookings had been flagged up in their system because it was unusual to have so many ‘no shows’ in quick succession. Veezu had looked into the individual bookings and the corresponding GPS data and found that on each occasion, after pressing the ‘no show’ button, the driver had then travelled to each of the requested destinations without booking it as a journey. On three of the occasions the driver had also made a call to the passenger to confirm they were there. As far as the witness was concerned, this would only have been done for financial gain. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days. (10) Application 10 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 had allowed three schoolchildren to exit his vehicle in the middle of a busy intersection without consideration for their safety. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was on Leckwith Road in stationary traffic on a school run. His three passengers, who were aged around 15, wanted to get out as the car had stopped. He tried to explain that they shouldn’t as they were in traffic, but they jumped out and went. Members asked whether there was an automatic locking system in the car. The driver responded that he drove a Seat Alhambra and wasn’t sure whether the back doors could be permanently locked from the front, as it was never usually necessary. The driver clarified that the journey was not part of a contracted school run, but rather a single booked journey that morning. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recounted her statement explaining what she had seen. It was on a very busy road connecting Leckwith to Canton, made up of two lanes of traffic that then turned into four by Asda. The taxi was less than a car length ahead of her and the sliding doors opened to let the passengers out. The vehicle was stationary at a red light but all the other lanes around it were moving. The passengers got out onto the hatched road markings and made their way to the traffic island, before picking their way through the cars waiting to move. As the traffic moved off, she became aware of the taxi going around her and wrote down the taxi plate number and registration. The witness felt it was an extremely dangerous thing to do and was particularly worried that a contracted school run driver could have been responsible for it. The driver’s representative asked what time this would have occurred, which the witness estimated was about 8:15am. The driver’s representative suggested that while it was a busy road, it would have been moving very slowly at this time. The witness disagreed and suggested it was a hectic road. The driver’s representative sympathised with the witness and reiterated the driver’s recollection that he had asked the passengers not to get out in the wrong place, but had been unable to stop them due to the lack of automatic locking. He suggested that ensuring the locking was always on would prevent anything like this happening again. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (11) Application 11 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 the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had acquired six points for failing to fill in a Section 172 notice, which he had accepted responsibility for. The other three points were for exceeding the speed limit just off Newport Road near Fitzalan, which he had reported when he applied to renew his taxi licence. He had been driving since 2005 and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before. He depended on his licence to support his family. He provided Members with a number of references in support of his character and record. The driver’s solicitor summed up that his client had been driving taxis for more than 20 years without any disciplinary matters. He had made two mistakes, one being an administrative matter and the other being a failure to notice that a speed limit had changed. He was now on nine points and would have to drive very carefully to ensure he didn’t lose his licence. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (12) Application 12 This item 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.