Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been made alleging that he refused to provide service to a disabled passenger. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s wife stated that the driver had been working that day for Uber, but didn’t recall the job in question. She emphasised that the accusation had caused him considerable stress. He had driven taxis since 2007, transporting countless disabled passengers since then with no complaints, and had worked with the council for several years on a city centre mobility scheme. He regularly looked after people with mobility issues, including her mother, and had a very good Uber rating and no points on his licence. She added that as soon as he was made aware of the complaint in January, he offered to provide his dashcam footage from that night. He was informed that Uber did not need it as they were treating the incident as feedback rather than a complaint, so it was never reviewed. He maintained that the incident as described in the witness’ statement did not happen, in particular because the shape of Rhymney Street made it difficult to pull in. She suggested that although he did not remember the particular journey, he might not have been aware that the passenger was disabled because her mobility aid would not have been visible between the cars. It was not uncommon for Uber drivers to cancel, and he often had to use the toilet in a hurry as he needed an operation. Members asked why the driver might cancel a fare without warning. The driver’s wife explained that he might need the toilet, or she might phone needing something, as they sometimes had emergencies relating to her mother. She felt there was no reason why he would have cancelled while so close to a job. Members discussed the Uber complaints process and heard that the company had not provided any evidence of the job being booked and cancelled. The driver and passenger did not automatically receive any record of cancellations. Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness stated that she had been waiting outside her son’s house on Rhymney Street. She had recently come out of hospital and was staying with her son for a few days. The taxi she had booked pulled up, then the driver looked at her and drove off. She looked at the app and saw that the fare had been cancelled as soon as he went round the corner. She re-booked the journey with another driver. Members asked what the witness’ rollator looked like, which the witness showed them. She recalled that the taxi had been a Toyota with a normal boot, so her rollator would have fit in. Addressing the Sub Committee, the second witness stated that he was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, who had investigated the complaint. It had taken some time to get details from Uber about the incident, and then he had sent a questionnaire to the driver, to which he had responded very quickly. Members asked if it was typical of Uber not to provide that information quickly. The second witness explained that they were normally very fast, and hadn’t mentioned any sort of issue in getting the data. The request for the full log of bookings and communications was sent to them on 20th February, and though there was a response it was not the full set of data requested. Members asked if the delay between the incident in January and the driver being contacted in April was normal. The second witness explained that they had been waiting on different statements coming in before they could go to the driver for his statement. Summing up, the first witness explained that if the driver had spoken to her about needing to cancel, she would have understood. Uber had not been able to give her the driver’s details, and it was only when the Licensing officer rang her that she knew who he was. Summing up, the driver’s wife explained that without the Uber data or the dashcam footage the driver had offered to provide, they felt it would be unfair to revoke his licence. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been disqualified from driving for six months. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been disqualified for totting up offences, having driven through a red light early in the morning and not realised. At the time he had 9 points on his licence, having committed several speeding offences in 20mph zones. He worked six or seven days a week, normally starting at 4:30am and working for 8-10 hours at a time. For each of the 20mph offences he had been caught going under 30mph. Three of the points had now expired, but as he had nine when the red light offence happened it made twelve in total and led to a ban. The driver’s representative added that his client had more than thirty years’ experience as a taxi driver, and if the offence had happened slightly later he would not have been banned as three of his points were about to expire. He was very contrite about it, and he was supporting his son through university, so the ban had already had a significant impact on his family. The driver added that the ban meant he couldn’t drive until February, but he was keen to carry on after that point. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his future conduct. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had six points on his licence. He had received three points for defective tyres, after he was pulled over for a headlight being out, on top of three more for a speeding offence. He worked as a delivery driver for Uber Eats. Members asked why he had only declared 3 points on his application, and not mentioned the offence with the tyres? The applicant explained that he didn’t know about those points then. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance which he did not declare on his application form. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had an accident in 2020 and went to court, where he was banned from driving for six months. He took a course afterwards and felt he had grown since. He had been convicted for failing to stop after an accident, and for driving without due care and attention. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that he had been working as a delivery driver on a 125cc scooter and had collided with someone. He had to complete his delivery and had returned afterwards, but was convicted of failing to stop. He was still working as a delivery driver at his shop and wanted to drive taxis. Members asked when the applicant got his driving licence, which he clarified was in June last year. Members asked why he had failed to declare his convictions, which the applicant explained was because his English wasn’t very good at the time, and the offence had been several years ago. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared previous criminal and motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been rejected for a taxi licence in the past. He had made serious errors in the past but felt he was a different person now and provided character references to prove this. He had also gained his HGV licence and was a safe and conscientious driver. He explained that when he was young, he fell in with the wrong crowd. He had done a lot of stupid things but wasn’t the same person any more. The most recent offence was in 2017 for being drunk and disorderly, and he didn’t remember it well but as a result didn’t drink any more. He hoped Members would look upon his new application favourably. Members asked if he had done any lorry driving work. The applicant responded that he worked for Müller and had previously worked for Owens and Tesco. He had obtained his Class 1 HGV licence in 2022. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance and previously had his licence revoked by Cardiff Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he appreciated the opportunity to have his application reviewed. He understood that the offences he had committed were wrong and had been punished by having his licence revoked. He had never had any complaints from customers in his time as a driver. Responding to questions from Members, he explained that he had committed three speeding offences after struggling to adapt to the 20mph limit. Two of the offences were in the same place on Newport Road within the space of a week, and the other was a few months later. He had then filled out the Notice of Intended Prosecution form inaccurately to say that someone else was driving. Members asked when the speeding points would expire. The driver explained that this would be between December 2027 and May 2028. Members asked when he was first licensed as a taxi driver, which he clarified was in 2013. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
There were none.
There were none.
The following item is confidential and exempt from publication as it contains exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been made alleging that he refused to provide service to a disabled passenger. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s wife stated that the driver had been working that day for Uber, but didn’t recall the job in question. She emphasised that the accusation had caused him considerable stress. He had driven taxis since 2007, transporting countless disabled passengers since then with no complaints, and had worked with the council for several years on a city centre mobility scheme. He regularly looked after people with mobility issues, including her mother, and had a very good Uber rating and no points on his licence. She added that as soon as he was made aware of the complaint in January, he offered to provide his dashcam footage from that night. He was informed that Uber did not need it as they were treating the incident as feedback rather than a complaint, so it was never reviewed. He maintained that the incident as described in the witness’ statement did not happen, in particular because the shape of Rhymney Street made it difficult to pull in. She suggested that although he did not remember the particular journey, he might not have been aware that the passenger was disabled because her mobility aid would not have been visible between the cars. It was not uncommon for Uber drivers to cancel, and he often had to use the toilet in a hurry as he needed an operation. Members asked why the driver might cancel a fare without warning. The driver’s wife explained that he might need the toilet, or she might phone needing something, as they sometimes had emergencies relating to her mother. She felt there was no reason why he would have cancelled while so close to a job. Members discussed the Uber complaints process and heard that the company had not provided any evidence of the job being booked and cancelled. The driver and passenger did not automatically receive any record of cancellations. Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness stated that she had been waiting outside her son’s house on Rhymney Street. She had recently come out of hospital and was staying with her son for a few days. The taxi she had booked pulled up, then the driver looked at her and drove off. She looked at the app and saw that the fare had been cancelled as soon as he went round the corner. She re-booked the journey with another driver. Members asked what the witness’ rollator looked like, which the witness showed them. She recalled that the taxi had been a Toyota with a normal boot, so her rollator would have fit in. Addressing the Sub Committee, the second witness stated that he was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, who had investigated the complaint. It had taken some time to get details from Uber about the incident, and then he had sent a questionnaire to the driver, to which he had responded very quickly. Members asked if it was typical of Uber not to provide that information quickly. The second witness explained that they were normally very fast, and hadn’t mentioned any sort of issue in getting the data. The request for the full log of bookings and communications was sent to them on 20th February, and though there was a response it was not the full set of data requested. Members asked if the delay between the incident in January and the driver being contacted in April was normal. The second witness explained that they had been waiting on different statements coming in before they could go to the driver for his statement. Summing up, the first witness explained that if the driver had spoken to her about needing to cancel, she would have understood. Uber had not been able to give her the driver’s details, and it was only when the Licensing officer rang her that she knew who he was. Summing up, the driver’s wife explained that without the Uber data or the dashcam footage the driver had offered to provide, they felt it would be unfair to revoke his licence. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been disqualified from driving for six months. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been disqualified for totting up offences, having driven through a red light early in the morning and not realised. At the time he had 9 points on his licence, having committed several speeding offences in 20mph zones. He worked six or seven days a week, normally starting at 4:30am and working for 8-10 hours at a time. For each of the 20mph offences he had been caught going under 30mph. Three of the points had now expired, but as he had nine when the red light offence happened it made twelve in total and led to a ban. The driver’s representative added that his client had more than thirty years’ experience as a taxi driver, and if the offence had happened slightly later he would not have been banned as three of his points were about to expire. He was very contrite about it, and he was supporting his son through university, so the ban had already had a significant impact on his family. The driver added that the ban meant he couldn’t drive until February, but he was keen to carry on after that point. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his future conduct. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had six points on his licence. He had received three points for defective tyres, after he was pulled over for a headlight being out, on top of three more for a speeding offence. He worked as a delivery driver for Uber Eats. Members asked why he had only declared 3 points on his application, and not mentioned the offence with the tyres? The applicant explained that he didn’t know about those points then. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance which he did not declare on his application form. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had an accident in 2020 and went to court, where he was banned from driving for six months. He took a course afterwards and felt he had grown since. He had been convicted for failing to stop after an accident, and for driving without due care and attention. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that he had been working as a delivery driver on a 125cc scooter and had collided with someone. He had to complete his delivery and had returned afterwards, but was convicted of failing to stop. He was still working as a delivery driver at his shop and wanted to drive taxis. Members asked when the applicant got his driving licence, which he clarified was in June last year. Members asked why he had failed to declare his convictions, which the applicant explained was because his English wasn’t very good at the time, and the offence had been several years ago. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared previous criminal and motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been rejected for a taxi licence in the past. He had made serious errors in the past but felt he was a different person now and provided character references to prove this. He had also gained his HGV licence and was a safe and conscientious driver. He explained that when he was young, he fell in with the wrong crowd. He had done a lot of stupid things but wasn’t the same person any more. The most recent offence was in 2017 for being drunk and disorderly, and he didn’t remember it well but as a result didn’t drink any more. He hoped Members would look upon his new application favourably. Members asked if he had done any lorry driving work. The applicant responded that he worked for Müller and had previously worked for Owens and Tesco. He had obtained his Class 1 HGV licence in 2022. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance and previously had his licence revoked by Cardiff Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he appreciated the opportunity to have his application reviewed. He understood that the offences he had committed were wrong and had been punished by having his licence revoked. He had never had any complaints from customers in his time as a driver. Responding to questions from Members, he explained that he had committed three speeding offences after struggling to adapt to the 20mph limit. Two of the offences were in the same place on Newport Road within the space of a week, and the other was a few months later. He had then filled out the Notice of Intended Prosecution form inaccurately to say that someone else was driving. Members asked when the speeding points would expire. The driver explained that this would be between December 2027 and May 2028. Members asked when he was first licensed as a taxi driver, which he clarified was in 2013. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License 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 License given that a complaint had been made alleging that he refused to provide service to a disabled passenger. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s wife stated that the driver had been working that day for Uber, but didn’t recall the job in question. She emphasised that the accusation had caused him considerable stress. He had driven taxis since 2007, transporting countless disabled passengers since then with no complaints, and had worked with the council for several years on a city centre mobility scheme. He regularly looked after people with mobility issues, including her mother, and had a very good Uber rating and no points on his licence. She added that as soon as he was made aware of the complaint in January, he offered to provide his dashcam footage from that night. He was informed that Uber did not need it as they were treating the incident as feedback rather than a complaint, so it was never reviewed. He maintained that the incident as described in the witness’ statement did not happen, in particular because the shape of Rhymney Street made it difficult to pull in. She suggested that although he did not remember the particular journey, he might not have been aware that the passenger was disabled because her mobility aid would not have been visible between the cars. It was not uncommon for Uber drivers to cancel, and he often had to use the toilet in a hurry as he needed an operation. Members asked why the driver might cancel a fare without warning. The driver’s wife explained that he might need the toilet, or she might phone needing something, as they sometimes had emergencies relating to her mother. She felt there was no reason why he would have cancelled while so close to a job. Members discussed the Uber complaints process and heard that the company had not provided any evidence of the job being booked and cancelled. The driver and passenger did not automatically receive any record of cancellations. Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness stated that she had been waiting outside her son’s house on Rhymney Street. She had recently come out of hospital and was staying with her son for a few days. The taxi she had booked pulled up, then the driver looked at her and drove off. She looked at the app and saw that the fare had been cancelled as soon as he went round the corner. She re-booked the journey with another driver. Members asked what the witness’ rollator looked like, which the witness showed them. She recalled that the taxi had been a Toyota with a normal boot, so her rollator would have fit in. Addressing the Sub Committee, the second witness stated that he was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, who had investigated the complaint. It had taken some time to get details from Uber about the incident, and then he had sent a questionnaire to the driver, to which he had responded very quickly. Members asked if it was typical of Uber not to provide that information quickly. The second witness explained that they were normally very fast, and hadn’t mentioned any sort of issue in getting the data. The request for the full log of bookings and communications was sent to them on 20th February, and though there was a response it was not the full set of data requested. Members asked if the delay between the incident in January and the driver being contacted in April was normal. The second witness explained that they had been waiting on different statements coming in before they could go to the driver for his statement. Summing up, the first witness explained that if the driver had spoken to her about needing to cancel, she would have understood. Uber had not been able to give her the driver’s details, and it was only when the Licensing officer rang her that she knew who he was. Summing up, the driver’s wife explained that without the Uber data or the dashcam footage the driver had offered to provide, they felt it would be unfair to revoke his licence. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been disqualified from driving for six months. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been disqualified for totting up offences, having driven through a red light early in the morning and not realised. At the time he had 9 points on his licence, having committed several speeding offences in 20mph zones. He worked six or seven days a week, normally starting at 4:30am and working for 8-10 hours at a time. For each of the 20mph offences he had been caught going under 30mph. Three of the points had now expired, but as he had nine when the red light offence happened it made twelve in total and led to a ban. The driver’s representative added that his client had more than thirty years’ experience as a taxi driver, and if the offence had happened slightly later he would not have been banned as three of his points were about to expire. He was very contrite about it, and he was supporting his son through university, so the ban had already had a significant impact on his family. The driver added that the ban meant he couldn’t drive until February, but he was keen to carry on after that point. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his future conduct. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had six points on his licence. He had received three points for defective tyres, after he was pulled over for a headlight being out, on top of three more for a speeding offence. He worked as a delivery driver for Uber Eats. Members asked why he had only declared 3 points on his application, and not mentioned the offence with the tyres? The applicant explained that he didn’t know about those points then. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance which he did not declare on his application form. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had an accident in 2020 and went to court, where he was banned from driving for six months. He took a course afterwards and felt he had grown since. He had been convicted for failing to stop after an accident, and for driving without due care and attention. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that he had been working as a delivery driver on a 125cc scooter and had collided with someone. He had to complete his delivery and had returned afterwards, but was convicted of failing to stop. He was still working as a delivery driver at his shop and wanted to drive taxis. Members asked when the applicant got his driving licence, which he clarified was in June last year. Members asked why he had failed to declare his convictions, which the applicant explained was because his English wasn’t very good at the time, and the offence had been several years ago. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared previous criminal and motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been rejected for a taxi licence in the past. He had made serious errors in the past but felt he was a different person now and provided character references to prove this. He had also gained his HGV licence and was a safe and conscientious driver. He explained that when he was young, he fell in with the wrong crowd. He had done a lot of stupid things but wasn’t the same person any more. The most recent offence was in 2017 for being drunk and disorderly, and he didn’t remember it well but as a result didn’t drink any more. He hoped Members would look upon his new application favourably. Members asked if he had done any lorry driving work. The applicant responded that he worked for Müller and had previously worked for Owens and Tesco. He had obtained his Class 1 HGV licence in 2022. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance and previously had his licence revoked by Cardiff Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he appreciated the opportunity to have his application reviewed. He understood that the offences he had committed were wrong and had been punished by having his licence revoked. He had never had any complaints from customers in his time as a driver. Responding to questions from Members, he explained that he had committed three speeding offences after struggling to adapt to the 20mph limit. Two of the offences were in the same place on Newport Road within the space of a week, and the other was a few months later. He had then filled out the Notice of Intended Prosecution form inaccurately to say that someone else was driving. Members asked when the speeding points would expire. The driver explained that this would be between December 2027 and May 2028. Members asked when he was first licensed as a taxi driver, which he clarified was in 2013. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
There were none.
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.