Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 This item was deferred to a later meeting. (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 information had been received stating that he allegedly committed four speeding offences, but when contacted by police regarding these offences, returned documents with details stating that other drivers committed these offences. It was also alleged that when questioned by Licensing Officers, the driver stated that someone in his household had returned the documents. The driver had also disclosed a driving offence which was not on his licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he accepted responsibility for the speeding offences as he was the only person who drove his taxi, but he believed that someone else had filled out the inaccurate forms. He had had some family problems in the last few years and was worried that someone might have filled in the forms maliciously to get him in trouble. The driver’s representative reiterated that the driver accepted responsibility for the speeding offences, and added that he would have filled in the paperwork accurately and responsibly had he received it. He had been driving a taxi in Cardiff for nearly twenty years with a very good record. He hoped that the Sub Committee would take into account that taxi driving was his sole source of income and he needed to support his family. Responding to questions from Members, the driver confirmed that he did not know any of the names provided in the paperwork, and did not think the forms were in his handwriting. The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that in his view, the only reason the forms would have been filled in falsely would have been to help the driver avoid a penalty for speeding. He did not accept the explanation that they had been filled out maliciously by someone else, as they had resulted in the driver getting away with several speeding offences until he was eventually caught out. Members queried the supporting documentation and heard that the driver had initially provided a copy of an informal rental agreement with another individual for temporary use of the vehicle. South Wales Police had not been able to track down this person and confirm that they either existed or had the required licence and insurance to drive a taxi. The witness suggested that having initially been caught speeding, the driver had claimed someone else was driving, only to realise that this would be a breach of the insurance and then admit it was him. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that he refused to take an assistance dog, claiming he had a medical condition. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that on the day in question he was suffering from bad hay fever which was making him itch and sneeze. He accepted the job, but when he saw it was a dog he called Dragon Taxis and apologised for not being able to take the passenger. The operator explained that he wasn’t allowed to refuse a guide dog but he had to insist because it was a medical issue. He was very sorry to have inconvenienced the passenger, and would not do it again. The driver’s daughter added that he had a history of hay fever and medical records to support that. It could be triggered around pets and it was hard to drive when he was sneezing and coughing. He felt it was better to arrange an alternative, but did not intend to offend or dismiss the customer in any way. He had never had another complaint and had already been suspended by Dragon Taxis for a month for this incident. Responding to questions from Members, the driver said that he was unaware that he could apply for a medical exemption certificate which would allow him to not take assistance animals. Rather than a specific allergy to dogs, it was hay fever which could sometimes be exacerbated by them. He understood that without an exemption certificate, he was legally required to take them. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that she booked a taxi from Leckwith to Barry at about 8:15pm. She could see on the Dragon app that the driver who had accepted the job was at the traffic lights nearby, so she went out to wait for him, only to see him do a U-turn and park on the opposite side of the road. It was dark so she didn’t approach the car. She then got a call from Dragon asking whether it was a guide dog, which she confirmed. The witness emphasised that the driver should have come over and spoken to her in person if he was unable to take her and her dog. The operator had not explained why the driver was not willing to take the dog. She found it humiliating and exhausting to have to fight for equality to access a taxi. The Sub Committee listened to recordings of the two calls in question provided by Dragon Taxis, one with the passenger and one with the driver. The driver apologised to the witness for his mistake, which he assured her would never happen again. He had never turned down taking a dog before and understood that it was required as part of his licence. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning, and be required to complete the relevant SQA course within twelve weeks. (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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that he had 11 points and £300 in fines on his driving licence. This was in respect of 3 speeding offences, 2 other speeding offences where he was fined £290 and £250, and a further speeding offence for which he attended a speed awareness course. None of this information was provided by the driver, as required in Section M of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers Licence Conditions. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had committed six speeding offences and made a mistake when filling out the necessary forms, because he thought he was driving his private car when it was actually his taxi. He went to court for the offences and received 11 points in total, and had sent evidence of his offences to the licensing authority. The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that this case had been flagged due to the six offences occurring in a short space of time, and during the investigation it was discovered that the driver had nominated two different people who were found not to be insured on the taxi. He was sceptical of the suggestion that the driver could have been confused about which car was involved, as each NIP form displayed the make, model and registration in bold capital letters on the front page. The witness suggested that the driver had only now decided to tell the truth having gone to court for the six offences, where he had agreed a deal to take 11 points and be able to continue driving. The driver responded that his confusion over the vehicle was due to him being new to driving the taxi at the time, and the two cars having similar numberplates. He had also suffered a number of family tragedies around that time which would have contributed to his stressful situation. Members queried whether a picture of the vehicle would have been provided in the letter, which the Legal Officer clarified was not automatic although it could be requested. The driver’s representative summarised that the driver had believed the speeding offences had each been committed in his private vehicle rather than his taxi, and had provided the real names of his friends and family who had been using the other car at that time. He now accepted that he was mistaken and had been driving his taxi on each occasion. He had since been punished in court for each offence with fines and penalty points. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (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 License given that he had declared a caution for battery. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not feel that battery was an accurate description, as it related to a domestic dispute where he and his wife had both pushed each other. The Legal Officer clarified that the definition of battery included physical contact and not necessarily hitting or wounding. The police had found sufficient evidence to charge him with it, and by accepting the caution, he had admitted the offence. The driver’s wife added that he was not a violent person at all but they had had a bad day, and he had then misunderstood what he was admitting to when he accepted the caution due to not speaking English as a first language. She hoped that Members would take into account that they had a mortgage and children to support. Responding to questions from Members, the driver stated that he had been unaware of the duty to inform the licensing authority of any offences, and would do so straight away if anything happened in the future. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for one week, and that the driver receive a written warning. (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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver was alleged to have provided false information to South Wales Police in relation to identifying the driver following a speeding offence notification. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had received a speeding ticket and spoken to a friend about it, who advised him to put down a false name as it was his second offence. This was a stupid mistake which he never should have done. He had learned the hard way and apologised. The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that the driver had now accepted that he lied on his form, but previously sent a fraudulent insurance document to back it up. The witness had spoken to the company in question, who made clear that they had not issued the policy. The driver had been able to plead guilty to the original speeding ticket rather than to lying on his form, receiving three points rather than six and a smaller fine. He had knowingly and deliberately lied to the police, and offered no defence other than that he didn’t want a ticket. The driver’s representative asked that the Sub Committee take into account the circumstances of the case. The driver had accepted that he had lied and given the reasons behind that. There was a scam going round where drivers were misled by individuals promising that they could make offences go away in return for money. The driver had not been honest at the outset but had been now, and he understood the importance of honesty and integrity when serving the public. He categorically assured Members that he would never do anything like this again, and would help with further inquiries into the issue. The witness suggested that the driver knew from the start what he needed to do to declare his offence properly, having previously received a speeding ticket and complied with the legal requirements, but chose not to this time. He compounded the issue by continuing to knowingly lie, and only told the truth after being caught. Members asked how many points the driver had on his licence in total, and heard that he had six. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
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.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 This item was deferred to a later meeting. (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 information had been received stating that he allegedly committed four speeding offences, but when contacted by police regarding these offences, returned documents with details stating that other drivers committed these offences. It was also alleged that when questioned by Licensing Officers, the driver stated that someone in his household had returned the documents. The driver had also disclosed a driving offence which was not on his licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he accepted responsibility for the speeding offences as he was the only person who drove his taxi, but he believed that someone else had filled out the inaccurate forms. He had had some family problems in the last few years and was worried that someone might have filled in the forms maliciously to get him in trouble. The driver’s representative reiterated that the driver accepted responsibility for the speeding offences, and added that he would have filled in the paperwork accurately and responsibly had he received it. He had been driving a taxi in Cardiff for nearly twenty years with a very good record. He hoped that the Sub Committee would take into account that taxi driving was his sole source of income and he needed to support his family. Responding to questions from Members, the driver confirmed that he did not know any of the names provided in the paperwork, and did not think the forms were in his handwriting. The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that in his view, the only reason the forms would have been filled in falsely would have been to help the driver avoid a penalty for speeding. He did not accept the explanation that they had been filled out maliciously by someone else, as they had resulted in the driver getting away with several speeding offences until he was eventually caught out. Members queried the supporting documentation and heard that the driver had initially provided a copy of an informal rental agreement with another individual for temporary use of the vehicle. South Wales Police had not been able to track down this person and confirm that they either existed or had the required licence and insurance to drive a taxi. The witness suggested that having initially been caught speeding, the driver had claimed someone else was driving, only to realise that this would be a breach of the insurance and then admit it was him. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that he refused to take an assistance dog, claiming he had a medical condition. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that on the day in question he was suffering from bad hay fever which was making him itch and sneeze. He accepted the job, but when he saw it was a dog he called Dragon Taxis and apologised for not being able to take the passenger. The operator explained that he wasn’t allowed to refuse a guide dog but he had to insist because it was a medical issue. He was very sorry to have inconvenienced the passenger, and would not do it again. The driver’s daughter added that he had a history of hay fever and medical records to support that. It could be triggered around pets and it was hard to drive when he was sneezing and coughing. He felt it was better to arrange an alternative, but did not intend to offend or dismiss the customer in any way. He had never had another complaint and had already been suspended by Dragon Taxis for a month for this incident. Responding to questions from Members, the driver said that he was unaware that he could apply for a medical exemption certificate which would allow him to not take assistance animals. Rather than a specific allergy to dogs, it was hay fever which could sometimes be exacerbated by them. He understood that without an exemption certificate, he was legally required to take them. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that she booked a taxi from Leckwith to Barry at about 8:15pm. She could see on the Dragon app that the driver who had accepted the job was at the traffic lights nearby, so she went out to wait for him, only to see him do a U-turn and park on the opposite side of the road. It was dark so she didn’t approach the car. She then got a call from Dragon asking whether it was a guide dog, which she confirmed. The witness emphasised that the driver should have come over and spoken to her in person if he was unable to take her and her dog. The operator had not explained why the driver was not willing to take the dog. She found it humiliating and exhausting to have to fight for equality to access a taxi. The Sub Committee listened to recordings of the two calls in question provided by Dragon Taxis, one with the passenger and one with the driver. The driver apologised to the witness for his mistake, which he assured her would never happen again. He had never turned down taking a dog before and understood that it was required as part of his licence. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning, and be required to complete the relevant SQA course within twelve weeks. (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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that he had 11 points and £300 in fines on his driving licence. This was in respect of 3 speeding offences, 2 other speeding offences where he was fined £290 and £250, and a further speeding offence for which he attended a speed awareness course. None of this information was provided by the driver, as required in Section M of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers Licence Conditions. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had committed six speeding offences and made a mistake when filling out the necessary forms, because he thought he was driving his private car when it was actually his taxi. He went to court for the offences and received 11 points in total, and had sent evidence of his offences to the licensing authority. The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that this case had been flagged due to the six offences occurring in a short space of time, and during the investigation it was discovered that the driver had nominated two different people who were found not to be insured on the taxi. He was sceptical of the suggestion that the driver could have been confused about which car was involved, as each NIP form displayed the make, model and registration in bold capital letters on the front page. The witness suggested that the driver had only now decided to tell the truth having gone to court for the six offences, where he had agreed a deal to take 11 points and be able to continue driving. The driver responded that his confusion over the vehicle was due to him being new to driving the taxi at the time, and the two cars having similar numberplates. He had also suffered a number of family tragedies around that time which would have contributed to his stressful situation. Members queried whether a picture of the vehicle would have been provided in the letter, which the Legal Officer clarified was not automatic although it could be requested. The driver’s representative summarised that the driver had believed the speeding offences had each been committed in his private vehicle rather than his taxi, and had provided the real names of his friends and family who had been using the other car at that time. He now accepted that he was mistaken and had been driving his taxi on each occasion. He had since been punished in court for each offence with fines and penalty points. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (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 License given that he had declared a caution for battery. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not feel that battery was an accurate description, as it related to a domestic dispute where he and his wife had both pushed each other. The Legal Officer clarified that the definition of battery included physical contact and not necessarily hitting or wounding. The police had found sufficient evidence to charge him with it, and by accepting the caution, he had admitted the offence. The driver’s wife added that he was not a violent person at all but they had had a bad day, and he had then misunderstood what he was admitting to when he accepted the caution due to not speaking English as a first language. She hoped that Members would take into account that they had a mortgage and children to support. Responding to questions from Members, the driver stated that he had been unaware of the duty to inform the licensing authority of any offences, and would do so straight away if anything happened in the future. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for one week, and that the driver receive a written warning. (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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver was alleged to have provided false information to South Wales Police in relation to identifying the driver following a speeding offence notification. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had received a speeding ticket and spoken to a friend about it, who advised him to put down a false name as it was his second offence. This was a stupid mistake which he never should have done. He had learned the hard way and apologised. The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that the driver had now accepted that he lied on his form, but previously sent a fraudulent insurance document to back it up. The witness had spoken to the company in question, who made clear that they had not issued the policy. The driver had been able to plead guilty to the original speeding ticket rather than to lying on his form, receiving three points rather than six and a smaller fine. He had knowingly and deliberately lied to the police, and offered no defence other than that he didn’t want a ticket. The driver’s representative asked that the Sub Committee take into account the circumstances of the case. The driver had accepted that he had lied and given the reasons behind that. There was a scam going round where drivers were misled by individuals promising that they could make offences go away in return for money. The driver had not been honest at the outset but had been now, and he understood the importance of honesty and integrity when serving the public. He categorically assured Members that he would never do anything like this again, and would help with further inquiries into the issue. The witness suggested that the driver knew from the start what he needed to do to declare his offence properly, having previously received a speeding ticket and complied with the legal requirements, but chose not to this time. He compounded the issue by continuing to knowingly lie, and only told the truth after being caught. Members asked how many points the driver had on his licence in total, and heard that he had six. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 This item was deferred to a later meeting. (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 information had been received stating that he allegedly committed four speeding offences, but when contacted by police regarding these offences, returned documents with details stating that other drivers committed these offences. It was also alleged that when questioned by Licensing Officers, the driver stated that someone in his household had returned the documents. The driver had also disclosed a driving offence which was not on his licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he accepted responsibility for the speeding offences as he was the only person who drove his taxi, but he believed that someone else had filled out the inaccurate forms. He had had some family problems in the last few years and was worried that someone might have filled in the forms maliciously to get him in trouble. The driver’s representative reiterated that the driver accepted responsibility for the speeding offences, and added that he would have filled in the paperwork accurately and responsibly had he received it. He had been driving a taxi in Cardiff for nearly twenty years with a very good record. He hoped that the Sub Committee would take into account that taxi driving was his sole source of income and he needed to support his family. Responding to questions from Members, the driver confirmed that he did not know any of the names provided in the paperwork, and did not think the forms were in his handwriting. The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that in his view, the only reason the forms would have been filled in falsely would have been to help the driver avoid a penalty for speeding. He did not accept the explanation that they had been filled out maliciously by someone else, as they had resulted in the driver getting away with several speeding offences until he was eventually caught out. Members queried the supporting documentation and heard that the driver had initially provided a copy of an informal rental agreement with another individual for temporary use of the vehicle. South Wales Police had not been able to track down this person and confirm that they either existed or had the required licence and insurance to drive a taxi. The witness suggested that having initially been caught speeding, the driver had claimed someone else was driving, only to realise that this would be a breach of the insurance and then admit it was him. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that he refused to take an assistance dog, claiming he had a medical condition. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that on the day in question he was suffering from bad hay fever which was making him itch and sneeze. He accepted the job, but when he saw it was a dog he called Dragon Taxis and apologised for not being able to take the passenger. The operator explained that he wasn’t allowed to refuse a guide dog but he had to insist because it was a medical issue. He was very sorry to have inconvenienced the passenger, and would not do it again. The driver’s daughter added that he had a history of hay fever and medical records to support that. It could be triggered around pets and it was hard to drive when he was sneezing and coughing. He felt it was better to arrange an alternative, but did not intend to offend or dismiss the customer in any way. He had never had another complaint and had already been suspended by Dragon Taxis for a month for this incident. Responding to questions from Members, the driver said that he was unaware that he could apply for a medical exemption certificate which would allow him to not take assistance animals. Rather than a specific allergy to dogs, it was hay fever which could sometimes be exacerbated by them. He understood that without an exemption certificate, he was legally required to take them. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that she booked a taxi from Leckwith to Barry at about 8:15pm. She could see on the Dragon app that the driver who had accepted the job was at the traffic lights nearby, so she went out to wait for him, only to see him do a U-turn and park on the opposite side of the road. It was dark so she didn’t approach the car. She then got a call from Dragon asking whether it was a guide dog, which she confirmed. The witness emphasised that the driver should have come over and spoken to her in person if he was unable to take her and her dog. The operator had not explained why the driver was not willing to take the dog. She found it humiliating and exhausting to have to fight for equality to access a taxi. The Sub Committee listened to recordings of the two calls in question provided by Dragon Taxis, one with the passenger and one with the driver. The driver apologised to the witness for his mistake, which he assured her would never happen again. He had never turned down taking a dog before and understood that it was required as part of his licence. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning, and be required to complete the relevant SQA course within twelve weeks. (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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that he had 11 points and £300 in fines on his driving licence. This was in respect of 3 speeding offences, 2 other speeding offences where he was fined £290 and £250, and a further speeding offence for which he attended a speed awareness course. None of this information was provided by the driver, as required in Section M of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers Licence Conditions. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had committed six speeding offences and made a mistake when filling out the necessary forms, because he thought he was driving his private car when it was actually his taxi. He went to court for the offences and received 11 points in total, and had sent evidence of his offences to the licensing authority. The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that this case had been flagged due to the six offences occurring in a short space of time, and during the investigation it was discovered that the driver had nominated two different people who were found not to be insured on the taxi. He was sceptical of the suggestion that the driver could have been confused about which car was involved, as each NIP form displayed the make, model and registration in bold capital letters on the front page. The witness suggested that the driver had only now decided to tell the truth having gone to court for the six offences, where he had agreed a deal to take 11 points and be able to continue driving. The driver responded that his confusion over the vehicle was due to him being new to driving the taxi at the time, and the two cars having similar numberplates. He had also suffered a number of family tragedies around that time which would have contributed to his stressful situation. Members queried whether a picture of the vehicle would have been provided in the letter, which the Legal Officer clarified was not automatic although it could be requested. The driver’s representative summarised that the driver had believed the speeding offences had each been committed in his private vehicle rather than his taxi, and had provided the real names of his friends and family who had been using the other car at that time. He now accepted that he was mistaken and had been driving his taxi on each occasion. He had since been punished in court for each offence with fines and penalty points. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (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 License given that he had declared a caution for battery. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not feel that battery was an accurate description, as it related to a domestic dispute where he and his wife had both pushed each other. The Legal Officer clarified that the definition of battery included physical contact and not necessarily hitting or wounding. The police had found sufficient evidence to charge him with it, and by accepting the caution, he had admitted the offence. The driver’s wife added that he was not a violent person at all but they had had a bad day, and he had then misunderstood what he was admitting to when he accepted the caution due to not speaking English as a first language. She hoped that Members would take into account that they had a mortgage and children to support. Responding to questions from Members, the driver stated that he had been unaware of the duty to inform the licensing authority of any offences, and would do so straight away if anything happened in the future. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for one week, and that the driver receive a written warning. (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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver was alleged to have provided false information to South Wales Police in relation to identifying the driver following a speeding offence notification. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had received a speeding ticket and spoken to a friend about it, who advised him to put down a false name as it was his second offence. This was a stupid mistake which he never should have done. He had learned the hard way and apologised. The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that the driver had now accepted that he lied on his form, but previously sent a fraudulent insurance document to back it up. The witness had spoken to the company in question, who made clear that they had not issued the policy. The driver had been able to plead guilty to the original speeding ticket rather than to lying on his form, receiving three points rather than six and a smaller fine. He had knowingly and deliberately lied to the police, and offered no defence other than that he didn’t want a ticket. The driver’s representative asked that the Sub Committee take into account the circumstances of the case. The driver had accepted that he had lied and given the reasons behind that. There was a scam going round where drivers were misled by individuals promising that they could make offences go away in return for money. The driver had not been honest at the outset but had been now, and he understood the importance of honesty and integrity when serving the public. He categorically assured Members that he would never do anything like this again, and would help with further inquiries into the issue. The witness suggested that the driver knew from the start what he needed to do to declare his offence properly, having previously received a speeding ticket and complied with the legal requirements, but chose not to this time. He compounded the issue by continuing to knowingly lie, and only told the truth after being caught. Members asked how many points the driver had on his licence in total, and heard that he had six. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.