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 was deferred in the absence of the witness. (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 received stating that he displayed dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour including shouting and cursing at a pedestrian. The driver’s representative noted that the report suggested that his licence had been suspended by the Sub Committee for 10 days in 2016, and clarified that this was not the case as no suspension was awarded upon appeal. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that two people were trying to cross the road in front of the New Theatre and the light was amber so he stopped. He didn’t know what triggered it but one of them came to his car and used foul language towards him. He straightened up his car and then drove off when the light turned green. Members asked whether the driver had seen the CCTV video of the incident, which he had. Members viewed the video and suggested that it contradicted what he had said in his statement about his taxi being stationary until the light was green. His statement also suggested that the female pedestrian was not using any sort of support to cross the road, which the video showed she was. The driver reiterated that he stood by his statement, and added that all other pedestrians had crossed the road by the time his taxi reached the crossing. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he and his wife were walking back to their car and approached the crossing as the light for it was green. As they crossed the road, the light turned flashing amber, so they continued as they had right of way, relatively slowly as his wife was using a crutch. The taxi came round the corner quickly and came close to him, which he found particularly worrying as he’d had two knee replacements. The driver used abusive language towards him regarding his age, but he did not recall using any bad language himself. The taxi drove off and he noted down the numberplate in order to make a complaint. The driver’s representative suggested that the crossing in front of the New Theatre often caused confusion between drivers and pedestrians as it lacked a crossing box. He acknowledged that the witness and the driver had different views about who had right of way, but disputed the suggestion that the driver was speeding round the corner. The driver’s representative added that the video seemed to show the pedestrian speaking to the driver first. The witness acknowledged that the video showed him going to speak to the driver, but suggested that this was only because the driver had wound down the window and shouted at him. Otherwise, he would have continued walking. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days. (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 from South Wales Police stating that the driver committed a number of speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had not been driving his vehicle on most of the occasions listed in the report. Friends of his had used the car for private use rather than as a taxi and received speeding tickets, and one of these friends who had committed three of the offences had left the country for family reasons so he was hard to contact. The driver didn’t want to lose his livelihood so he took responsibility for the offences, accepted nine points on his licence and paid a fine. After that, South Wales Police had made a complaint to the licensing authority. Members queried the details of specific offences provided in the report, where a number of different names were nominated as having been driving the vehicle at the time. The driver stated that one of the individuals was a friend of his, and another was the friend’s wife. Members noted that it had not been possible to trace either person and the police did not believe they existed. Members queried one of the offences where the driver had initially nominated his wife but then changed it to his own name and attended a speed awareness course. The driver apologised for making a mistake in this case. Members noted that the driver’s wife had nominated herself as the driver on one form, and asked if the driver understood that he was the only person insured to drive his taxi as it was a licensed vehicle. The driver suggested that a number of his friends borrowed his vehicle on occasion as it was a large van, and their insurance covered it. The Legal Officer clarified that this was not the case. Only the licensed taxi holder could use the vehicle, and it was not possible to get private insurance to drive someone else’s taxi. Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that there were historic offences going back to 2020, and the police took responsibility for failing to flag them up until now. He had been unable to track down several of the individuals nominated and suspected that they did not exist, and were certainly not insured to drive the vehicle. Other offences had been blamed on family members who had accepted they were driving at the time, which meant they would also have been uninsured. The witness also suggested that the times of the offences, several of which had occurred after midnight, including on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, suggested that the vehicle was being used as a taxi at the time. He noted that the driver had admitted to three of the offences, taking three points and paying a fine, after being challenged. It was the police’s view that the driver had been driving the vehicle on all of the occasions listed, and had done everything possible to avoid being banned. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (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 the driver committed three speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had misread the date of the offence on the first letter and nominated his wife as the driver of the vehicle at the time. This was an honest mistake rather than an attempt to falsify the form. He believed that the second offence was a mistake on the part of the authorities as his Uber log showed he was driving elsewhere at the time. On the third occasion, he believed he was giving his cousin a driving lesson and allowing her to drive the vehicle, but now realised that he had been the driver at that time. Members asked how often his wife drove the taxi, and heard that he often took off the plates and allowed her to use it to go shopping. Members asked whether there had been L plates on the car when it was photographed speeding when he believed his cousin had been driving the car. The witness, representing South Wales Police, confirmed that there were not. Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that it was an easy process to check who was driving the car at the time as he had access to logs through Uber. The driver was the only person insured to drive his licensed vehicle, and his wife and cousin were not. His cousin had taken the blame and attended a speed awareness course for an offence she had not committed. Regarding the driver’s suggestion that one of the offences was a mistake by the authority, the witness noted that the job records from the time and date in question showed that the vehicle had picked up a fare close to the camera several minutes before the offence was committed. The police’s view was that the driver had dishonestly attempted to avoid punishment for speeding offences on a number of occasions. 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 Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his licence in respect of three speeding offences. The Chair queried a pending driving offence from October 2024 referred to in the report. The driver responded that he had not received any information about this offence since then, and didn’t know why this was the case. The Chair suggested that the hearing be deferred to allow the pending offence to be resolved, so the Sub Committee could have the full information when considering the matter. RESOLVED – that the case be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had accumulated nine points from three offences, two of which had been on the same day when a speed limit on Western Avenue changed from 40mph to 30mph. He was doing less taxi work now and more school runs. Members asked whether the driver was aware of his responsibility to inform the licensing authority as soon as the offences were committed, rather than upon renewal more than a year later. The driver responded that he had not been aware of this and apologised for failing to do so. The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had apologised for his mistake and accepted his punishment. He had been caught speeding twice in one day in an area where the limit had just changed, and on both occasions was going below the previous limit, so it was clearly an honest mistake. Members queried how many points the driver had in total, and heard that he had received three in April 2023, six more in June 2023 and had three pending as of January 2025. Members noted that if the pending offence resulted in three more points, he would have to come before the Sub Committee again. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had six penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90). Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been convicted in January of this year, having unintentionally misidentified his wife as the driver of a vehicle he shared with her. He originally wrote her name down on the form but then realised he had been driving and took responsibility. He had received six points on his license as a result. Members queried the delay between the offence in May 2024 and declaring it to the licensing authority in January 2025. The driver explained that he had to wait until January for his court hearing, after which he had declared it to the authority. The driver also clarified that the offence took place before he became qualified as a taxi driver in Cardiff, having been licensed in Newport before. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken, (8) Application 8 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 previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his DVLA licence. The driver had been referred to the Sub Committee and subsequently had his licence revoked. The driver explained that he had been to the Sub Committee and been refused several times before. He didn’t have any additional evidence to prove his fitness but he had been a licensed driver for twelve years and never had any problems. He had tried to work in other jobs like security since losing his licence, but taxi driving was his passion. He was trying to support his family and getting his licence back would make a huge difference. Members noted that the Sub Committee had revoked his licence in 2022 in line with its guidance after he had received 15 points, and had suggested that he reapply after five years. The driver emphasised that his offences had all been only slightly above the 30mph limit, in a private car rather than his taxi, and had been committed nearly five years ago. 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.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 was deferred in the absence of the witness. (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 received stating that he displayed dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour including shouting and cursing at a pedestrian. The driver’s representative noted that the report suggested that his licence had been suspended by the Sub Committee for 10 days in 2016, and clarified that this was not the case as no suspension was awarded upon appeal. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that two people were trying to cross the road in front of the New Theatre and the light was amber so he stopped. He didn’t know what triggered it but one of them came to his car and used foul language towards him. He straightened up his car and then drove off when the light turned green. Members asked whether the driver had seen the CCTV video of the incident, which he had. Members viewed the video and suggested that it contradicted what he had said in his statement about his taxi being stationary until the light was green. His statement also suggested that the female pedestrian was not using any sort of support to cross the road, which the video showed she was. The driver reiterated that he stood by his statement, and added that all other pedestrians had crossed the road by the time his taxi reached the crossing. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he and his wife were walking back to their car and approached the crossing as the light for it was green. As they crossed the road, the light turned flashing amber, so they continued as they had right of way, relatively slowly as his wife was using a crutch. The taxi came round the corner quickly and came close to him, which he found particularly worrying as he’d had two knee replacements. The driver used abusive language towards him regarding his age, but he did not recall using any bad language himself. The taxi drove off and he noted down the numberplate in order to make a complaint. The driver’s representative suggested that the crossing in front of the New Theatre often caused confusion between drivers and pedestrians as it lacked a crossing box. He acknowledged that the witness and the driver had different views about who had right of way, but disputed the suggestion that the driver was speeding round the corner. The driver’s representative added that the video seemed to show the pedestrian speaking to the driver first. The witness acknowledged that the video showed him going to speak to the driver, but suggested that this was only because the driver had wound down the window and shouted at him. Otherwise, he would have continued walking. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days. (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 from South Wales Police stating that the driver committed a number of speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had not been driving his vehicle on most of the occasions listed in the report. Friends of his had used the car for private use rather than as a taxi and received speeding tickets, and one of these friends who had committed three of the offences had left the country for family reasons so he was hard to contact. The driver didn’t want to lose his livelihood so he took responsibility for the offences, accepted nine points on his licence and paid a fine. After that, South Wales Police had made a complaint to the licensing authority. Members queried the details of specific offences provided in the report, where a number of different names were nominated as having been driving the vehicle at the time. The driver stated that one of the individuals was a friend of his, and another was the friend’s wife. Members noted that it had not been possible to trace either person and the police did not believe they existed. Members queried one of the offences where the driver had initially nominated his wife but then changed it to his own name and attended a speed awareness course. The driver apologised for making a mistake in this case. Members noted that the driver’s wife had nominated herself as the driver on one form, and asked if the driver understood that he was the only person insured to drive his taxi as it was a licensed vehicle. The driver suggested that a number of his friends borrowed his vehicle on occasion as it was a large van, and their insurance covered it. The Legal Officer clarified that this was not the case. Only the licensed taxi holder could use the vehicle, and it was not possible to get private insurance to drive someone else’s taxi. Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that there were historic offences going back to 2020, and the police took responsibility for failing to flag them up until now. He had been unable to track down several of the individuals nominated and suspected that they did not exist, and were certainly not insured to drive the vehicle. Other offences had been blamed on family members who had accepted they were driving at the time, which meant they would also have been uninsured. The witness also suggested that the times of the offences, several of which had occurred after midnight, including on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, suggested that the vehicle was being used as a taxi at the time. He noted that the driver had admitted to three of the offences, taking three points and paying a fine, after being challenged. It was the police’s view that the driver had been driving the vehicle on all of the occasions listed, and had done everything possible to avoid being banned. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (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 the driver committed three speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had misread the date of the offence on the first letter and nominated his wife as the driver of the vehicle at the time. This was an honest mistake rather than an attempt to falsify the form. He believed that the second offence was a mistake on the part of the authorities as his Uber log showed he was driving elsewhere at the time. On the third occasion, he believed he was giving his cousin a driving lesson and allowing her to drive the vehicle, but now realised that he had been the driver at that time. Members asked how often his wife drove the taxi, and heard that he often took off the plates and allowed her to use it to go shopping. Members asked whether there had been L plates on the car when it was photographed speeding when he believed his cousin had been driving the car. The witness, representing South Wales Police, confirmed that there were not. Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that it was an easy process to check who was driving the car at the time as he had access to logs through Uber. The driver was the only person insured to drive his licensed vehicle, and his wife and cousin were not. His cousin had taken the blame and attended a speed awareness course for an offence she had not committed. Regarding the driver’s suggestion that one of the offences was a mistake by the authority, the witness noted that the job records from the time and date in question showed that the vehicle had picked up a fare close to the camera several minutes before the offence was committed. The police’s view was that the driver had dishonestly attempted to avoid punishment for speeding offences on a number of occasions. 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 Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his licence in respect of three speeding offences. The Chair queried a pending driving offence from October 2024 referred to in the report. The driver responded that he had not received any information about this offence since then, and didn’t know why this was the case. The Chair suggested that the hearing be deferred to allow the pending offence to be resolved, so the Sub Committee could have the full information when considering the matter. RESOLVED – that the case be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had accumulated nine points from three offences, two of which had been on the same day when a speed limit on Western Avenue changed from 40mph to 30mph. He was doing less taxi work now and more school runs. Members asked whether the driver was aware of his responsibility to inform the licensing authority as soon as the offences were committed, rather than upon renewal more than a year later. The driver responded that he had not been aware of this and apologised for failing to do so. The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had apologised for his mistake and accepted his punishment. He had been caught speeding twice in one day in an area where the limit had just changed, and on both occasions was going below the previous limit, so it was clearly an honest mistake. Members queried how many points the driver had in total, and heard that he had received three in April 2023, six more in June 2023 and had three pending as of January 2025. Members noted that if the pending offence resulted in three more points, he would have to come before the Sub Committee again. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had six penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90). Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been convicted in January of this year, having unintentionally misidentified his wife as the driver of a vehicle he shared with her. He originally wrote her name down on the form but then realised he had been driving and took responsibility. He had received six points on his license as a result. Members queried the delay between the offence in May 2024 and declaring it to the licensing authority in January 2025. The driver explained that he had to wait until January for his court hearing, after which he had declared it to the authority. The driver also clarified that the offence took place before he became qualified as a taxi driver in Cardiff, having been licensed in Newport before. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken, (8) Application 8 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 previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his DVLA licence. The driver had been referred to the Sub Committee and subsequently had his licence revoked. The driver explained that he had been to the Sub Committee and been refused several times before. He didn’t have any additional evidence to prove his fitness but he had been a licensed driver for twelve years and never had any problems. He had tried to work in other jobs like security since losing his licence, but taxi driving was his passion. He was trying to support his family and getting his licence back would make a huge difference. Members noted that the Sub Committee had revoked his licence in 2022 in line with its guidance after he had received 15 points, and had suggested that he reapply after five years. The driver emphasised that his offences had all been only slightly above the 30mph limit, in a private car rather than his taxi, and had been committed nearly five years ago. 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 was deferred in the absence of the witness. (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 received stating that he displayed dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour including shouting and cursing at a pedestrian. The driver’s representative noted that the report suggested that his licence had been suspended by the Sub Committee for 10 days in 2016, and clarified that this was not the case as no suspension was awarded upon appeal. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that two people were trying to cross the road in front of the New Theatre and the light was amber so he stopped. He didn’t know what triggered it but one of them came to his car and used foul language towards him. He straightened up his car and then drove off when the light turned green. Members asked whether the driver had seen the CCTV video of the incident, which he had. Members viewed the video and suggested that it contradicted what he had said in his statement about his taxi being stationary until the light was green. His statement also suggested that the female pedestrian was not using any sort of support to cross the road, which the video showed she was. The driver reiterated that he stood by his statement, and added that all other pedestrians had crossed the road by the time his taxi reached the crossing. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he and his wife were walking back to their car and approached the crossing as the light for it was green. As they crossed the road, the light turned flashing amber, so they continued as they had right of way, relatively slowly as his wife was using a crutch. The taxi came round the corner quickly and came close to him, which he found particularly worrying as he’d had two knee replacements. The driver used abusive language towards him regarding his age, but he did not recall using any bad language himself. The taxi drove off and he noted down the numberplate in order to make a complaint. The driver’s representative suggested that the crossing in front of the New Theatre often caused confusion between drivers and pedestrians as it lacked a crossing box. He acknowledged that the witness and the driver had different views about who had right of way, but disputed the suggestion that the driver was speeding round the corner. The driver’s representative added that the video seemed to show the pedestrian speaking to the driver first. The witness acknowledged that the video showed him going to speak to the driver, but suggested that this was only because the driver had wound down the window and shouted at him. Otherwise, he would have continued walking. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days. (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 from South Wales Police stating that the driver committed a number of speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had not been driving his vehicle on most of the occasions listed in the report. Friends of his had used the car for private use rather than as a taxi and received speeding tickets, and one of these friends who had committed three of the offences had left the country for family reasons so he was hard to contact. The driver didn’t want to lose his livelihood so he took responsibility for the offences, accepted nine points on his licence and paid a fine. After that, South Wales Police had made a complaint to the licensing authority. Members queried the details of specific offences provided in the report, where a number of different names were nominated as having been driving the vehicle at the time. The driver stated that one of the individuals was a friend of his, and another was the friend’s wife. Members noted that it had not been possible to trace either person and the police did not believe they existed. Members queried one of the offences where the driver had initially nominated his wife but then changed it to his own name and attended a speed awareness course. The driver apologised for making a mistake in this case. Members noted that the driver’s wife had nominated herself as the driver on one form, and asked if the driver understood that he was the only person insured to drive his taxi as it was a licensed vehicle. The driver suggested that a number of his friends borrowed his vehicle on occasion as it was a large van, and their insurance covered it. The Legal Officer clarified that this was not the case. Only the licensed taxi holder could use the vehicle, and it was not possible to get private insurance to drive someone else’s taxi. Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that there were historic offences going back to 2020, and the police took responsibility for failing to flag them up until now. He had been unable to track down several of the individuals nominated and suspected that they did not exist, and were certainly not insured to drive the vehicle. Other offences had been blamed on family members who had accepted they were driving at the time, which meant they would also have been uninsured. The witness also suggested that the times of the offences, several of which had occurred after midnight, including on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, suggested that the vehicle was being used as a taxi at the time. He noted that the driver had admitted to three of the offences, taking three points and paying a fine, after being challenged. It was the police’s view that the driver had been driving the vehicle on all of the occasions listed, and had done everything possible to avoid being banned. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (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 the driver committed three speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had misread the date of the offence on the first letter and nominated his wife as the driver of the vehicle at the time. This was an honest mistake rather than an attempt to falsify the form. He believed that the second offence was a mistake on the part of the authorities as his Uber log showed he was driving elsewhere at the time. On the third occasion, he believed he was giving his cousin a driving lesson and allowing her to drive the vehicle, but now realised that he had been the driver at that time. Members asked how often his wife drove the taxi, and heard that he often took off the plates and allowed her to use it to go shopping. Members asked whether there had been L plates on the car when it was photographed speeding when he believed his cousin had been driving the car. The witness, representing South Wales Police, confirmed that there were not. Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that it was an easy process to check who was driving the car at the time as he had access to logs through Uber. The driver was the only person insured to drive his licensed vehicle, and his wife and cousin were not. His cousin had taken the blame and attended a speed awareness course for an offence she had not committed. Regarding the driver’s suggestion that one of the offences was a mistake by the authority, the witness noted that the job records from the time and date in question showed that the vehicle had picked up a fare close to the camera several minutes before the offence was committed. The police’s view was that the driver had dishonestly attempted to avoid punishment for speeding offences on a number of occasions. 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 Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his licence in respect of three speeding offences. The Chair queried a pending driving offence from October 2024 referred to in the report. The driver responded that he had not received any information about this offence since then, and didn’t know why this was the case. The Chair suggested that the hearing be deferred to allow the pending offence to be resolved, so the Sub Committee could have the full information when considering the matter. RESOLVED – that the case be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had accumulated nine points from three offences, two of which had been on the same day when a speed limit on Western Avenue changed from 40mph to 30mph. He was doing less taxi work now and more school runs. Members asked whether the driver was aware of his responsibility to inform the licensing authority as soon as the offences were committed, rather than upon renewal more than a year later. The driver responded that he had not been aware of this and apologised for failing to do so. The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had apologised for his mistake and accepted his punishment. He had been caught speeding twice in one day in an area where the limit had just changed, and on both occasions was going below the previous limit, so it was clearly an honest mistake. Members queried how many points the driver had in total, and heard that he had received three in April 2023, six more in June 2023 and had three pending as of January 2025. Members noted that if the pending offence resulted in three more points, he would have to come before the Sub Committee again. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had six penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90). Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been convicted in January of this year, having unintentionally misidentified his wife as the driver of a vehicle he shared with her. He originally wrote her name down on the form but then realised he had been driving and took responsibility. He had received six points on his license as a result. Members queried the delay between the offence in May 2024 and declaring it to the licensing authority in January 2025. The driver explained that he had to wait until January for his court hearing, after which he had declared it to the authority. The driver also clarified that the offence took place before he became qualified as a taxi driver in Cardiff, having been licensed in Newport before. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken, (8) Application 8 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 previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his DVLA licence. The driver had been referred to the Sub Committee and subsequently had his licence revoked. The driver explained that he had been to the Sub Committee and been refused several times before. He didn’t have any additional evidence to prove his fitness but he had been a licensed driver for twelve years and never had any problems. He had tried to work in other jobs like security since losing his licence, but taxi driving was his passion. He was trying to support his family and getting his licence back would make a huge difference. Members noted that the Sub Committee had revoked his licence in 2022 in line with its guidance after he had received 15 points, and had suggested that he reapply after five years. The driver emphasised that his offences had all been only slightly above the 30mph limit, in a private car rather than his taxi, and had been committed nearly five years ago. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
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.