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 alleging he abandoned his passenger at 2am following the passenger refusing to rebook the journey with a different operator for a higher fee. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver welcomed the opportunity to put his case forward. He had been a taxi driver for ten years, worked to support his children and was a big part of his local community in Cardiff. He understood his responsibilities to his community and the city and could not understand how the incident had happened, and apologised to the witness. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had just finished work in the Red Dragon Centre, and as she didn’t drive at the time she booked an Uber home. After she got in, the driver asked where she was going and complained that it was too far, asking her to rebook it with another provider and pay cash. She had already paid through Uber, so she refused. The driver kept repeating that it was too far and got louder, so she felt uncomfortable and asked if he wanted her to leave. He said yes so she got out. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he worked for both Uber and Cabs 64. He was aware of the contracts that he was entering into as a driver when he accepted a fare, and that he should have completed the job. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness confirmed that she had cancelled the journey on Uber after getting out and had got her money back, and had booked a different Uber home. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days. (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 he had declared 8 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received the penalty points for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. The driver’s representative added that he had a black and white hackney vehicle which he had converted to a private hire vehicle in May 2023. On the night in question, he was due to finish his shift as a private hire vehicle before shifting to operate as a hackney carriage later in the evening. While still operating as a private hire driver, he was approached by a passenger and agreed to take them. He was only two weeks into operating as a private hire driver, using the same vehicle. He wasn’t thinking clearly and took the passenger, but knew now that he shouldn’t have taken them as they hadn’t pre-booked. The driver’s representative noted that he had brought additional character references, and hoped the Sub Committee would take into account that his family depended on his income, as well as the difficult year that the driver had had. He suggested that the council must have been fully aware of his situation last October when the licence was renewed, and felt the matter should have been dealt with then rather than bringing the driver back to answer for it a year later. 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 he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences, the first two being shortly after the 20mph limit was brought in, both on Manor Way on the A470 late at night, and another in 2025. He had been licensed for 22 years with no other issues. Taxi driving was his livelihood and he did it to support his family. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (4) Application 4 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (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 declared 6 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t use his phone while the car was moving but jobs appeared on it and you needed to tap the screen to accept them. He wasn’t sure when exactly the offence had taken place but emphasised that he respected the rules of the road. He had been a taxi driver since 2019 and had been driving for more than forty years. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 six penalty points on his driving licence which he had not declared to the licensing authority. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that while picking up a member of his family before starting work in his taxi, he had been seen by a police officer touching his phone and received six points. When it came to the renewal process he forgot to declare this. He suggested that this was an oversight rather than attempt to hide it, and he understood that it was his duty to inform the licensing authority as soon as it happened. RESOLVED – 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 he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points through a SP50 speeding offence and an MS90 offence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. He noted that the offence did not concern his taxi but rather a private car. His wife had travelled up north using the car, and let a friend drive it back, believing they were insured to do so. The friend was caught speeding and the driver filled in the form accordingly, but was given an MS90 offence for not providing the driver’s name. The Legal Officer clarified that it was the responsibility of the person who had been driving to fill in the form. The driver added that he had been driving taxis for nearly 40 years in Cardiff, enjoyed his job and had served the city well. The speeding points had recently expired so he now only had six. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 he was disqualified from driving in October 2022 but did not advise the licensing authority. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had obtained a taxi licence in 2018 and started driving them in 2019, working for Uber. He was disqualified from driving in 2022 due to totting up 12 penalty points, and served his six month disqualification in 2023. When he came to renew his taxi licence in 2024, he wasn’t sure how to answer the questions on fixed penalties and points since his last renewal, as he didn’t know if he still had the points. He left it blank and intended to come back to it, but ran out of time before the deadline and wanted to ask for clarification at the taxi office. Upon renewal, he handed the forms in and completely forgot to draw their attention to the gaps in the form. He didn’t think anything of it until this was flagged up almost a year later. He emphasised that he had not intended to deceive, and it was just a simple mistake. 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 he had 18 penalty points on his driving licence and had been disqualified from driving for six months. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had been before them this year and mentioned two pending offences that had since been confirmed, with his licence revoked as a result. He had since handed his licence in and was not currently driving. The driver’s representative acknowledged that he had committed repeated speeding offences, but had learned the hard way from his mistakes. He asked the Sub Committee to consider that once he was able to drive again in four months’ time, he would be a fit and proper person who could be trusted to drive a taxi safely and responsibly. The Chair noted that the driver had previously been suspended for seven days by the Sub Committee, and before then had received a written warning. The driver’s representative noted that the warning had been for a different offence. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (10) Application 10 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in a few years ago he had gone through a red light on an electric bike, not realising that this was not legal on a bike. Another offence had occurred a few hours after he had bought a car, when the insurance on the vehicle was not under his name at that time. These offences combined resulted in a six month ban, which he had served. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted. (11) Application 11 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence given that the applicant previously had a Private Hire Operator Licence revoked by Newport City Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was seeking an operating licence because Newport had revoked his previous one after a misunderstanding. He understood the error he had made, and would ensure full compliance if granted a licence by Cardiff to ensure it didn’t happen again. He now had a legal advisor in place to ensure compliance. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had operated in Newport from 2021 to 2025. His operator licence had been revoked after he lent friends licensed vehicles for personal use, misunderstanding the meaning of social, domestic, pleasure (SDP) insurance. His company’s compliance had also not been deemed up to standard. He added that there had been no complaints against him as a driver, and his new company had a Cardiff office which Licensing were welcome to visit at any time. He was happy for any conditions to be attached to his operating licence to mitigate any previous concerns. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence be refused.
The following item is confidential and exempt from publication as it contains exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging he abandoned his passenger at 2am following the passenger refusing to rebook the journey with a different operator for a higher fee. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver welcomed the opportunity to put his case forward. He had been a taxi driver for ten years, worked to support his children and was a big part of his local community in Cardiff. He understood his responsibilities to his community and the city and could not understand how the incident had happened, and apologised to the witness. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had just finished work in the Red Dragon Centre, and as she didn’t drive at the time she booked an Uber home. After she got in, the driver asked where she was going and complained that it was too far, asking her to rebook it with another provider and pay cash. She had already paid through Uber, so she refused. The driver kept repeating that it was too far and got louder, so she felt uncomfortable and asked if he wanted her to leave. He said yes so she got out. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he worked for both Uber and Cabs 64. He was aware of the contracts that he was entering into as a driver when he accepted a fare, and that he should have completed the job. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness confirmed that she had cancelled the journey on Uber after getting out and had got her money back, and had booked a different Uber home. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days. (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 he had declared 8 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received the penalty points for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. The driver’s representative added that he had a black and white hackney vehicle which he had converted to a private hire vehicle in May 2023. On the night in question, he was due to finish his shift as a private hire vehicle before shifting to operate as a hackney carriage later in the evening. While still operating as a private hire driver, he was approached by a passenger and agreed to take them. He was only two weeks into operating as a private hire driver, using the same vehicle. He wasn’t thinking clearly and took the passenger, but knew now that he shouldn’t have taken them as they hadn’t pre-booked. The driver’s representative noted that he had brought additional character references, and hoped the Sub Committee would take into account that his family depended on his income, as well as the difficult year that the driver had had. He suggested that the council must have been fully aware of his situation last October when the licence was renewed, and felt the matter should have been dealt with then rather than bringing the driver back to answer for it a year later. 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 he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences, the first two being shortly after the 20mph limit was brought in, both on Manor Way on the A470 late at night, and another in 2025. He had been licensed for 22 years with no other issues. Taxi driving was his livelihood and he did it to support his family. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (4) Application 4 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (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 declared 6 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t use his phone while the car was moving but jobs appeared on it and you needed to tap the screen to accept them. He wasn’t sure when exactly the offence had taken place but emphasised that he respected the rules of the road. He had been a taxi driver since 2019 and had been driving for more than forty years. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 six penalty points on his driving licence which he had not declared to the licensing authority. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that while picking up a member of his family before starting work in his taxi, he had been seen by a police officer touching his phone and received six points. When it came to the renewal process he forgot to declare this. He suggested that this was an oversight rather than attempt to hide it, and he understood that it was his duty to inform the licensing authority as soon as it happened. RESOLVED – 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 he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points through a SP50 speeding offence and an MS90 offence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. He noted that the offence did not concern his taxi but rather a private car. His wife had travelled up north using the car, and let a friend drive it back, believing they were insured to do so. The friend was caught speeding and the driver filled in the form accordingly, but was given an MS90 offence for not providing the driver’s name. The Legal Officer clarified that it was the responsibility of the person who had been driving to fill in the form. The driver added that he had been driving taxis for nearly 40 years in Cardiff, enjoyed his job and had served the city well. The speeding points had recently expired so he now only had six. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 he was disqualified from driving in October 2022 but did not advise the licensing authority. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had obtained a taxi licence in 2018 and started driving them in 2019, working for Uber. He was disqualified from driving in 2022 due to totting up 12 penalty points, and served his six month disqualification in 2023. When he came to renew his taxi licence in 2024, he wasn’t sure how to answer the questions on fixed penalties and points since his last renewal, as he didn’t know if he still had the points. He left it blank and intended to come back to it, but ran out of time before the deadline and wanted to ask for clarification at the taxi office. Upon renewal, he handed the forms in and completely forgot to draw their attention to the gaps in the form. He didn’t think anything of it until this was flagged up almost a year later. He emphasised that he had not intended to deceive, and it was just a simple mistake. 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 he had 18 penalty points on his driving licence and had been disqualified from driving for six months. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had been before them this year and mentioned two pending offences that had since been confirmed, with his licence revoked as a result. He had since handed his licence in and was not currently driving. The driver’s representative acknowledged that he had committed repeated speeding offences, but had learned the hard way from his mistakes. He asked the Sub Committee to consider that once he was able to drive again in four months’ time, he would be a fit and proper person who could be trusted to drive a taxi safely and responsibly. The Chair noted that the driver had previously been suspended for seven days by the Sub Committee, and before then had received a written warning. The driver’s representative noted that the warning had been for a different offence. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (10) Application 10 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in a few years ago he had gone through a red light on an electric bike, not realising that this was not legal on a bike. Another offence had occurred a few hours after he had bought a car, when the insurance on the vehicle was not under his name at that time. These offences combined resulted in a six month ban, which he had served. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted. (11) Application 11 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence given that the applicant previously had a Private Hire Operator Licence revoked by Newport City Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was seeking an operating licence because Newport had revoked his previous one after a misunderstanding. He understood the error he had made, and would ensure full compliance if granted a licence by Cardiff to ensure it didn’t happen again. He now had a legal advisor in place to ensure compliance. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had operated in Newport from 2021 to 2025. His operator licence had been revoked after he lent friends licensed vehicles for personal use, misunderstanding the meaning of social, domestic, pleasure (SDP) insurance. His company’s compliance had also not been deemed up to standard. He added that there had been no complaints against him as a driver, and his new company had a Cardiff office which Licensing were welcome to visit at any time. He was happy for any conditions to be attached to his operating licence to mitigate any previous concerns. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging he abandoned his passenger at 2am following the passenger refusing to rebook the journey with a different operator for a higher fee. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver welcomed the opportunity to put his case forward. He had been a taxi driver for ten years, worked to support his children and was a big part of his local community in Cardiff. He understood his responsibilities to his community and the city and could not understand how the incident had happened, and apologised to the witness. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had just finished work in the Red Dragon Centre, and as she didn’t drive at the time she booked an Uber home. After she got in, the driver asked where she was going and complained that it was too far, asking her to rebook it with another provider and pay cash. She had already paid through Uber, so she refused. The driver kept repeating that it was too far and got louder, so she felt uncomfortable and asked if he wanted her to leave. He said yes so she got out. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he worked for both Uber and Cabs 64. He was aware of the contracts that he was entering into as a driver when he accepted a fare, and that he should have completed the job. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness confirmed that she had cancelled the journey on Uber after getting out and had got her money back, and had booked a different Uber home. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days. (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 he had declared 8 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received the penalty points for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. The driver’s representative added that he had a black and white hackney vehicle which he had converted to a private hire vehicle in May 2023. On the night in question, he was due to finish his shift as a private hire vehicle before shifting to operate as a hackney carriage later in the evening. While still operating as a private hire driver, he was approached by a passenger and agreed to take them. He was only two weeks into operating as a private hire driver, using the same vehicle. He wasn’t thinking clearly and took the passenger, but knew now that he shouldn’t have taken them as they hadn’t pre-booked. The driver’s representative noted that he had brought additional character references, and hoped the Sub Committee would take into account that his family depended on his income, as well as the difficult year that the driver had had. He suggested that the council must have been fully aware of his situation last October when the licence was renewed, and felt the matter should have been dealt with then rather than bringing the driver back to answer for it a year later. 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 he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences, the first two being shortly after the 20mph limit was brought in, both on Manor Way on the A470 late at night, and another in 2025. He had been licensed for 22 years with no other issues. Taxi driving was his livelihood and he did it to support his family. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (4) Application 4 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (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 declared 6 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t use his phone while the car was moving but jobs appeared on it and you needed to tap the screen to accept them. He wasn’t sure when exactly the offence had taken place but emphasised that he respected the rules of the road. He had been a taxi driver since 2019 and had been driving for more than forty years. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 six penalty points on his driving licence which he had not declared to the licensing authority. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that while picking up a member of his family before starting work in his taxi, he had been seen by a police officer touching his phone and received six points. When it came to the renewal process he forgot to declare this. He suggested that this was an oversight rather than attempt to hide it, and he understood that it was his duty to inform the licensing authority as soon as it happened. RESOLVED – 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 he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points through a SP50 speeding offence and an MS90 offence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. He noted that the offence did not concern his taxi but rather a private car. His wife had travelled up north using the car, and let a friend drive it back, believing they were insured to do so. The friend was caught speeding and the driver filled in the form accordingly, but was given an MS90 offence for not providing the driver’s name. The Legal Officer clarified that it was the responsibility of the person who had been driving to fill in the form. The driver added that he had been driving taxis for nearly 40 years in Cardiff, enjoyed his job and had served the city well. The speeding points had recently expired so he now only had six. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 he was disqualified from driving in October 2022 but did not advise the licensing authority. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had obtained a taxi licence in 2018 and started driving them in 2019, working for Uber. He was disqualified from driving in 2022 due to totting up 12 penalty points, and served his six month disqualification in 2023. When he came to renew his taxi licence in 2024, he wasn’t sure how to answer the questions on fixed penalties and points since his last renewal, as he didn’t know if he still had the points. He left it blank and intended to come back to it, but ran out of time before the deadline and wanted to ask for clarification at the taxi office. Upon renewal, he handed the forms in and completely forgot to draw their attention to the gaps in the form. He didn’t think anything of it until this was flagged up almost a year later. He emphasised that he had not intended to deceive, and it was just a simple mistake. 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 he had 18 penalty points on his driving licence and had been disqualified from driving for six months. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had been before them this year and mentioned two pending offences that had since been confirmed, with his licence revoked as a result. He had since handed his licence in and was not currently driving. The driver’s representative acknowledged that he had committed repeated speeding offences, but had learned the hard way from his mistakes. He asked the Sub Committee to consider that once he was able to drive again in four months’ time, he would be a fit and proper person who could be trusted to drive a taxi safely and responsibly. The Chair noted that the driver had previously been suspended for seven days by the Sub Committee, and before then had received a written warning. The driver’s representative noted that the warning had been for a different offence. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (10) Application 10 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in a few years ago he had gone through a red light on an electric bike, not realising that this was not legal on a bike. Another offence had occurred a few hours after he had bought a car, when the insurance on the vehicle was not under his name at that time. These offences combined resulted in a six month ban, which he had served. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted. (11) Application 11 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence given that the applicant previously had a Private Hire Operator Licence revoked by Newport City Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was seeking an operating licence because Newport had revoked his previous one after a misunderstanding. He understood the error he had made, and would ensure full compliance if granted a licence by Cardiff to ensure it didn’t happen again. He now had a legal advisor in place to ensure compliance. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had operated in Newport from 2021 to 2025. His operator licence had been revoked after he lent friends licensed vehicles for personal use, misunderstanding the meaning of social, domestic, pleasure (SDP) insurance. His company’s compliance had also not been deemed up to standard. He added that there had been no complaints against him as a driver, and his new company had a Cardiff office which Licensing were welcome to visit at any time. He was happy for any conditions to be attached to his operating licence to mitigate any previous concerns. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence be refused.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.