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 that he pushed in at the Heath hospital rank, and in a separate incident on the same date, said he would beat another driver and pushed them. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been a taxi driver for ten years with a clean record. He believed that the complaint was part of a targeted campaign of harassment against him. He recalled that as he had attempted to leave the rank, another driver had blocked his car and he had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting him. He felt the other driver had been aggressive and unprofessional, while he had remained inside his car to protect his passenger and prevent the situation escalating. The driver also disputed the complainant’s suggestion that he had followed him afterwards. He just wanted to work without being harassed, but felt he was being bullied by other drivers because he followed the official rules rather than an unofficial system. The driver’s representative added that there was no official rank in place at the Heath hospital, where the incident had taken place. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he saw the driver pick up an old lady by the hospital and drive away. When he returned, the witness went over and asked why he was pinching fares from the back of the rank. The driver then threatened him, saying he was going to smash his face and that he couldn’t fight back because he was old. He also used abusive language which the witness found very offensive. The witness added that he believed he had been followed by the driver on more than one occasion, and that other drivers had an issue with how he didn’t follow the queuing system. He emphasised that he was not an aggressive person and had not received any complaints himself. He was less concerned about the driver pinching fares than his conduct towards other drivers, and the language he used towards him. Members asked how much time had passed between the initial pickup and the confrontation when the driver returned. The witness estimated that it was 30-45 minutes later. Members asked whether there was anyone else present, and heard that three other taxis were parked there in addition to the driver and the witness. The driver’s representative emphasised that it was not an official rank, and the driver was entitled to pick up the fare from where he was. He did not feel that the witness’ description of the incident fit with the video Members had viewed. He considered it to be a he-said-she-said situation that was not deserving of sanction. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken, with the driver receiving an advice letter about their professional conduct towards other drivers. (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 a complaint had been receiving alleging that he did not have a card reader and did not display his vehicle or driver’s ID badges. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not have anything to add to his written statement. The driver’s representative suggested that his badges had been visible in the window. Members asked whether the driver was aware that he was not allowed to ply for trade without a card machine, so continuing to work after leaving it at home was a breach of his licence. The driver confirmed that he was aware of this, and added that he only realised he had forgotten it when the customer asked to pay by card. It was his first fare of the night, at around 1am, having started working at 12:30am. He didn’t charge passenger for the journey and then went home. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that the driver did not attempt to look for the card reader at any point, and just asked for cash immediately. He added that the badge holders on the windscreen appeared to be empty. The driver’s representative disputed this, suggesting that the photo provided was not clear, and it may have been a transfer rather than the physical badge. The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had not charged for the fare upon realising his mistake, and then finished his shift and went home. He had made a mistake but would learn from it and always have a card machine available in the future. 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 a complaint had been received alleging he charged more than the legal fare by applying a £1 charge for payment by card. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t recall the incident but did not normally charge for card payments. His representative added that there had been a long gap between the incident and his interview about it, which wasn’t the driver’s fault. Members asked whether the driver was aware that he wasn’t allowed to charge additional fees for card payments. The driver confirmed that he was, and that he only charged the meter price within the city boundary. The driver’s representative suggested that it may have been an honest mistake as he didn’t recall it. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled getting into a taxi at the train station to go to the Hilton as she had a suitcase. Upon arrival she took out her card to pay the fare and saw that the driver had added an additional £1. She challenged this as she thought it wasn’t legal, but the driver said he was allowed to add a charge. The witness wasn’t sure if the law was different in Wales so she paid the extra pound, but took a picture of his plate just in case. She added that the driver’s demeanour had changed when she took a photo, and he had hurried her away. She had made the complaint because she was concerned that vulnerable passengers who were unaware of the rules might be taken advantage of. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (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 a complaint had been received alleging that he was rude and dismissive about a passenger’s mobility issues. The driver was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had booked a taxi and then requested a different route. The driver became rude and said that she shouldn’t give him orders. When they arrived at the drop-off point, he refused to go any closer than 30 metres away because there was a van there, even though he had plenty of space to go around. He raised his voice and was intimidating and disrespectful towards her, and asked repeatedly if she was going to leave his taxi. She added that she had felt unsafe and intimidated by the experience. She had mobility problems, but even if she didn’t, the driver should have stopped at the agreed spot. 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 he had failed to provide a DBS certificate since renewal of his licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had had an issue with the renewal process, and provided his previous DBS certificate to the committee. He had not yet received his new DBS but would provide it as soon as possible. Members noted that the previous DBS showed a conviction in 2020 for possession of a knife, blade or sharp pointed article in a public place, and for threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour with the intention of causing fear or violence. The driver explained that this had been the result of a confrontation with a bailiff who clamped his car and then called the police on him. The driver added that he had learned his lesson and had had no problems since, and worked to support his children. He had declared the conviction to the licensing authority when it happened. Members noted that he had been asked to provide a DBS in August, several months into the renewal process. The driver apologised for not producing it yet and said that he would follow up as soon as possible. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days for failure to provide a DBS certificate in a timely manner. (7) Application 7 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (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 had been issued with a Simple Caution by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council in respect of a plying for hire offence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had taken a fare from Cardiff to Pontypridd, and having dropped them off, was flagged down and stopped by an Rhondda Cynon Taf licensing enforcement officer. He accepted that he wasn’t licensed to pick up fares in Pontypridd, and accepted a caution from RCT council. The driver added that he genuinely didn’t realise he had to report the caution to Cardiff as well. He had declared it upon renewal as it was a question on the application. The driver’s representative added that the driver been licensed since 2017 without incident and was clearly a fit and proper person. He had pulled over when hailed and been caught out by a licensing enforcement operation, and had been cautioned rather than prosecuted. He also felt it was understandable that the driver had not realised he had to report it to a different authority immediately. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (9) Application 9 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that several years ago he had unwittingly laundered money for a friend who used him to transfer money between accounts. He only became aware of the full details when the case went to trial for fraud. It was several years ago and he had not been involved in anything illegal before or since. Members asked about the timeline and heard that the offences had taken place in 2022 and gone to court in 2024. He added that in the last few years he had been training as an apprentice carpenter and would soon be fully qualified. He had tried to turn his life around and expected it to be difficult to be self-employed as a carpenter, so he hoped to become a taxi driver to support himself further. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted. (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 the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been convicted of two domestic common assault offences in 2022, which he understood shouldn’t have happened. His record was otherwise clean, and he had driven taxis in Cardiff for 18 years before his licence had been revoked in 2024. He felt that he had changed his life since the offences and was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi. A friend of the applicant added that after he was found guilty, he received a 14 week sentence and a community work requirement. It was a minor assault and an isolated incident, and there was no serious likelihood of him reoffending. He had also completed a six month program on building better relationships. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s 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 that he pushed in at the Heath hospital rank, and in a separate incident on the same date, said he would beat another driver and pushed them. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been a taxi driver for ten years with a clean record. He believed that the complaint was part of a targeted campaign of harassment against him. He recalled that as he had attempted to leave the rank, another driver had blocked his car and he had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting him. He felt the other driver had been aggressive and unprofessional, while he had remained inside his car to protect his passenger and prevent the situation escalating. The driver also disputed the complainant’s suggestion that he had followed him afterwards. He just wanted to work without being harassed, but felt he was being bullied by other drivers because he followed the official rules rather than an unofficial system. The driver’s representative added that there was no official rank in place at the Heath hospital, where the incident had taken place. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he saw the driver pick up an old lady by the hospital and drive away. When he returned, the witness went over and asked why he was pinching fares from the back of the rank. The driver then threatened him, saying he was going to smash his face and that he couldn’t fight back because he was old. He also used abusive language which the witness found very offensive. The witness added that he believed he had been followed by the driver on more than one occasion, and that other drivers had an issue with how he didn’t follow the queuing system. He emphasised that he was not an aggressive person and had not received any complaints himself. He was less concerned about the driver pinching fares than his conduct towards other drivers, and the language he used towards him. Members asked how much time had passed between the initial pickup and the confrontation when the driver returned. The witness estimated that it was 30-45 minutes later. Members asked whether there was anyone else present, and heard that three other taxis were parked there in addition to the driver and the witness. The driver’s representative emphasised that it was not an official rank, and the driver was entitled to pick up the fare from where he was. He did not feel that the witness’ description of the incident fit with the video Members had viewed. He considered it to be a he-said-she-said situation that was not deserving of sanction. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken, with the driver receiving an advice letter about their professional conduct towards other drivers. (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 a complaint had been receiving alleging that he did not have a card reader and did not display his vehicle or driver’s ID badges. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not have anything to add to his written statement. The driver’s representative suggested that his badges had been visible in the window. Members asked whether the driver was aware that he was not allowed to ply for trade without a card machine, so continuing to work after leaving it at home was a breach of his licence. The driver confirmed that he was aware of this, and added that he only realised he had forgotten it when the customer asked to pay by card. It was his first fare of the night, at around 1am, having started working at 12:30am. He didn’t charge passenger for the journey and then went home. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that the driver did not attempt to look for the card reader at any point, and just asked for cash immediately. He added that the badge holders on the windscreen appeared to be empty. The driver’s representative disputed this, suggesting that the photo provided was not clear, and it may have been a transfer rather than the physical badge. The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had not charged for the fare upon realising his mistake, and then finished his shift and went home. He had made a mistake but would learn from it and always have a card machine available in the future. 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 a complaint had been received alleging he charged more than the legal fare by applying a £1 charge for payment by card. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t recall the incident but did not normally charge for card payments. His representative added that there had been a long gap between the incident and his interview about it, which wasn’t the driver’s fault. Members asked whether the driver was aware that he wasn’t allowed to charge additional fees for card payments. The driver confirmed that he was, and that he only charged the meter price within the city boundary. The driver’s representative suggested that it may have been an honest mistake as he didn’t recall it. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled getting into a taxi at the train station to go to the Hilton as she had a suitcase. Upon arrival she took out her card to pay the fare and saw that the driver had added an additional £1. She challenged this as she thought it wasn’t legal, but the driver said he was allowed to add a charge. The witness wasn’t sure if the law was different in Wales so she paid the extra pound, but took a picture of his plate just in case. She added that the driver’s demeanour had changed when she took a photo, and he had hurried her away. She had made the complaint because she was concerned that vulnerable passengers who were unaware of the rules might be taken advantage of. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (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 a complaint had been received alleging that he was rude and dismissive about a passenger’s mobility issues. The driver was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had booked a taxi and then requested a different route. The driver became rude and said that she shouldn’t give him orders. When they arrived at the drop-off point, he refused to go any closer than 30 metres away because there was a van there, even though he had plenty of space to go around. He raised his voice and was intimidating and disrespectful towards her, and asked repeatedly if she was going to leave his taxi. She added that she had felt unsafe and intimidated by the experience. She had mobility problems, but even if she didn’t, the driver should have stopped at the agreed spot. 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 he had failed to provide a DBS certificate since renewal of his licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had had an issue with the renewal process, and provided his previous DBS certificate to the committee. He had not yet received his new DBS but would provide it as soon as possible. Members noted that the previous DBS showed a conviction in 2020 for possession of a knife, blade or sharp pointed article in a public place, and for threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour with the intention of causing fear or violence. The driver explained that this had been the result of a confrontation with a bailiff who clamped his car and then called the police on him. The driver added that he had learned his lesson and had had no problems since, and worked to support his children. He had declared the conviction to the licensing authority when it happened. Members noted that he had been asked to provide a DBS in August, several months into the renewal process. The driver apologised for not producing it yet and said that he would follow up as soon as possible. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days for failure to provide a DBS certificate in a timely manner. (7) Application 7 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (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 had been issued with a Simple Caution by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council in respect of a plying for hire offence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had taken a fare from Cardiff to Pontypridd, and having dropped them off, was flagged down and stopped by an Rhondda Cynon Taf licensing enforcement officer. He accepted that he wasn’t licensed to pick up fares in Pontypridd, and accepted a caution from RCT council. The driver added that he genuinely didn’t realise he had to report the caution to Cardiff as well. He had declared it upon renewal as it was a question on the application. The driver’s representative added that the driver been licensed since 2017 without incident and was clearly a fit and proper person. He had pulled over when hailed and been caught out by a licensing enforcement operation, and had been cautioned rather than prosecuted. He also felt it was understandable that the driver had not realised he had to report it to a different authority immediately. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (9) Application 9 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that several years ago he had unwittingly laundered money for a friend who used him to transfer money between accounts. He only became aware of the full details when the case went to trial for fraud. It was several years ago and he had not been involved in anything illegal before or since. Members asked about the timeline and heard that the offences had taken place in 2022 and gone to court in 2024. He added that in the last few years he had been training as an apprentice carpenter and would soon be fully qualified. He had tried to turn his life around and expected it to be difficult to be self-employed as a carpenter, so he hoped to become a taxi driver to support himself further. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted. (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 the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been convicted of two domestic common assault offences in 2022, which he understood shouldn’t have happened. His record was otherwise clean, and he had driven taxis in Cardiff for 18 years before his licence had been revoked in 2024. He felt that he had changed his life since the offences and was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi. A friend of the applicant added that after he was found guilty, he received a 14 week sentence and a community work requirement. It was a minor assault and an isolated incident, and there was no serious likelihood of him reoffending. He had also completed a six month program on building better relationships. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s 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 that he pushed in at the Heath hospital rank, and in a separate incident on the same date, said he would beat another driver and pushed them. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been a taxi driver for ten years with a clean record. He believed that the complaint was part of a targeted campaign of harassment against him. He recalled that as he had attempted to leave the rank, another driver had blocked his car and he had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting him. He felt the other driver had been aggressive and unprofessional, while he had remained inside his car to protect his passenger and prevent the situation escalating. The driver also disputed the complainant’s suggestion that he had followed him afterwards. He just wanted to work without being harassed, but felt he was being bullied by other drivers because he followed the official rules rather than an unofficial system. The driver’s representative added that there was no official rank in place at the Heath hospital, where the incident had taken place. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he saw the driver pick up an old lady by the hospital and drive away. When he returned, the witness went over and asked why he was pinching fares from the back of the rank. The driver then threatened him, saying he was going to smash his face and that he couldn’t fight back because he was old. He also used abusive language which the witness found very offensive. The witness added that he believed he had been followed by the driver on more than one occasion, and that other drivers had an issue with how he didn’t follow the queuing system. He emphasised that he was not an aggressive person and had not received any complaints himself. He was less concerned about the driver pinching fares than his conduct towards other drivers, and the language he used towards him. Members asked how much time had passed between the initial pickup and the confrontation when the driver returned. The witness estimated that it was 30-45 minutes later. Members asked whether there was anyone else present, and heard that three other taxis were parked there in addition to the driver and the witness. The driver’s representative emphasised that it was not an official rank, and the driver was entitled to pick up the fare from where he was. He did not feel that the witness’ description of the incident fit with the video Members had viewed. He considered it to be a he-said-she-said situation that was not deserving of sanction. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken, with the driver receiving an advice letter about their professional conduct towards other drivers. (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 a complaint had been receiving alleging that he did not have a card reader and did not display his vehicle or driver’s ID badges. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not have anything to add to his written statement. The driver’s representative suggested that his badges had been visible in the window. Members asked whether the driver was aware that he was not allowed to ply for trade without a card machine, so continuing to work after leaving it at home was a breach of his licence. The driver confirmed that he was aware of this, and added that he only realised he had forgotten it when the customer asked to pay by card. It was his first fare of the night, at around 1am, having started working at 12:30am. He didn’t charge passenger for the journey and then went home. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that the driver did not attempt to look for the card reader at any point, and just asked for cash immediately. He added that the badge holders on the windscreen appeared to be empty. The driver’s representative disputed this, suggesting that the photo provided was not clear, and it may have been a transfer rather than the physical badge. The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had not charged for the fare upon realising his mistake, and then finished his shift and went home. He had made a mistake but would learn from it and always have a card machine available in the future. 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 a complaint had been received alleging he charged more than the legal fare by applying a £1 charge for payment by card. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t recall the incident but did not normally charge for card payments. His representative added that there had been a long gap between the incident and his interview about it, which wasn’t the driver’s fault. Members asked whether the driver was aware that he wasn’t allowed to charge additional fees for card payments. The driver confirmed that he was, and that he only charged the meter price within the city boundary. The driver’s representative suggested that it may have been an honest mistake as he didn’t recall it. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled getting into a taxi at the train station to go to the Hilton as she had a suitcase. Upon arrival she took out her card to pay the fare and saw that the driver had added an additional £1. She challenged this as she thought it wasn’t legal, but the driver said he was allowed to add a charge. The witness wasn’t sure if the law was different in Wales so she paid the extra pound, but took a picture of his plate just in case. She added that the driver’s demeanour had changed when she took a photo, and he had hurried her away. She had made the complaint because she was concerned that vulnerable passengers who were unaware of the rules might be taken advantage of. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (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 a complaint had been received alleging that he was rude and dismissive about a passenger’s mobility issues. The driver was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had booked a taxi and then requested a different route. The driver became rude and said that she shouldn’t give him orders. When they arrived at the drop-off point, he refused to go any closer than 30 metres away because there was a van there, even though he had plenty of space to go around. He raised his voice and was intimidating and disrespectful towards her, and asked repeatedly if she was going to leave his taxi. She added that she had felt unsafe and intimidated by the experience. She had mobility problems, but even if she didn’t, the driver should have stopped at the agreed spot. 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 he had failed to provide a DBS certificate since renewal of his licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had had an issue with the renewal process, and provided his previous DBS certificate to the committee. He had not yet received his new DBS but would provide it as soon as possible. Members noted that the previous DBS showed a conviction in 2020 for possession of a knife, blade or sharp pointed article in a public place, and for threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour with the intention of causing fear or violence. The driver explained that this had been the result of a confrontation with a bailiff who clamped his car and then called the police on him. The driver added that he had learned his lesson and had had no problems since, and worked to support his children. He had declared the conviction to the licensing authority when it happened. Members noted that he had been asked to provide a DBS in August, several months into the renewal process. The driver apologised for not producing it yet and said that he would follow up as soon as possible. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days for failure to provide a DBS certificate in a timely manner. (7) Application 7 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (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 had been issued with a Simple Caution by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council in respect of a plying for hire offence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had taken a fare from Cardiff to Pontypridd, and having dropped them off, was flagged down and stopped by an Rhondda Cynon Taf licensing enforcement officer. He accepted that he wasn’t licensed to pick up fares in Pontypridd, and accepted a caution from RCT council. The driver added that he genuinely didn’t realise he had to report the caution to Cardiff as well. He had declared it upon renewal as it was a question on the application. The driver’s representative added that the driver been licensed since 2017 without incident and was clearly a fit and proper person. He had pulled over when hailed and been caught out by a licensing enforcement operation, and had been cautioned rather than prosecuted. He also felt it was understandable that the driver had not realised he had to report it to a different authority immediately. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (9) Application 9 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that several years ago he had unwittingly laundered money for a friend who used him to transfer money between accounts. He only became aware of the full details when the case went to trial for fraud. It was several years ago and he had not been involved in anything illegal before or since. Members asked about the timeline and heard that the offences had taken place in 2022 and gone to court in 2024. He added that in the last few years he had been training as an apprentice carpenter and would soon be fully qualified. He had tried to turn his life around and expected it to be difficult to be self-employed as a carpenter, so he hoped to become a taxi driver to support himself further. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted. (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 the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been convicted of two domestic common assault offences in 2022, which he understood shouldn’t have happened. His record was otherwise clean, and he had driven taxis in Cardiff for 18 years before his licence had been revoked in 2024. He felt that he had changed his life since the offences and was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi. A friend of the applicant added that after he was found guilty, he received a 14 week sentence and a community work requirement. It was a minor assault and an isolated incident, and there was no serious likelihood of him reoffending. He had also completed a six month program on building better relationships. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s 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.