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 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 the driver overcharged for a journey from St Mary’s Street to Cathays and did not use the calibrated meter in order to determine the fare. There was also a double charge on the card used to pay for the journey. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that late on a Sunday night, he saw an intoxicated woman who wasn’t being allowed back into bars on St Mary’s Street being refused by other taxis. He could see that she was frustrated and wanted to help her get home. She said that she didn’t have enough cash and wasn’t sure how to use the card on her phone, so he passed her his phone with the payment app open so she could practise paying. She asked to give a £15 tip, which would mean paying around £25 for the journey rather than around £10. Her card was declined several times before it went through. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events, emphasising that she had not asked to tip him and was entirely aware of how to pay by card using her phone. She had only realised the next morning that she had been charged two payments of £25.70, which she called her bank to cancel because they were still pending. The two payments were eight minutes apart, so it seemed that the driver had taken two separate payments at the start and end of the journey. The Sub Committee asked the driver about the double payment and heard that this may have been a technical issue with the payment app he used due to the declined payments. There was no physical receipt to give the passenger as the app sent him a notification of payments the next day. Members queried whether the driver had asked for payment before the journey began, which was not permitted for fares within Cardiff. The driver responded that he had tried to help the passenger because she wasn’t sure how to use her phone to pay. The witness reiterated that she knew how to use her phone to pay by card, and suggested that the driver had not passed her his phone. The driver’s representative suggested that there was evidence of the card being declined several times, and that the witness might have accidentally paid twice while drunk. He added that the money taken out of her account had been returned, and suggested that an honest mistake had been made. The witness emphasised that she was certain she had not accidentally tapped it twice. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he expressed sincere regret about his past actions and took full responsibility for what he had done. Members noted that the applicant had applied for a licence recently and was refused then, and asked what had changed. The applicant explained that he was working 60 to 70 hours a week to support his family as the cost of living was very high, and he could make more money driving taxis. RESOLVED – that the application be refused. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was arrested after a policeman pulled him over while driving and saw a bag of drugs in the car. He emphasised that they were not his and that he had passed a drug test, but had received a caution for possession of a Class A drug. He added that since this had all taken place, he had moved back home, gotten married and taken on new responsibilities, and was keen to drive taxis. He understood the gravity of the situation but felt he was a more responsible person now. RESOLVED – that the application be refused. (4) Item 4 was deferred to the next meeting in the absence of the witness. (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 a complaint had been received stating that the driver drove his licensed vehicle in a dangerous manner and used demeaning language. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was being accused of hitting a pedestrian and her luggage with his car. He explained that he had been working at the coach station when a coach came towards him so he had to pull into a parking bay on the side of the road. A woman was stood there with her luggage, so he beeped his horn and then rolled down his window and respectfully asked her to move. He added that the woman then started shouting at him and accusing him of knocking over her luggage, before telling everyone else on the rank that he was a dangerous driver who had tried to hit her, which meant he got no business that night. He had driven taxis for 33 years and had been licensed in Cardiff for 26 years without any complaints being made against him, and emphasised that his car had not touched her luggage. The Sub Committee viewed videos immediately following the incident provided by the witness. Members noted that the driver had cameras on the front and back of his vehicle and asked whether this footage was available. The driver explained that he normally deleted this after a week, and had not thought it was needed in this case as he was not contacted by the police. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she knew the area well and usually ordered a cab using her phone as the coach was getting in, before waiting in the same spot where there were several empty parking spaces. There was no pavement for pedestrians, only a muddy embankment, and she used a cane to help her walk. She recalled that the taxi came by without stopping and without the driver asking her to move, and so she had to jump back to avoid being hit, with the car knocking her bags over. She asked the driver whether he had seen her and he said yes, so she asked why he had continued reversing, and he told her to shut up. Both parties disputed whether or not the driver had beeped his horn or spoken to the witness before moving into the bay, and whether or not the taxi had knocked the luggage over. The driver’s representative acknowledged that the driver could have de-escalated the situation, and suggested that he keep the dashcam footage for longer than a week in the future. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had been issued with a caution by South Wales Police. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned in 2022 for a public order offence against a former partner who had stalked him. He did not feel he posed any danger to members of the public, and had driven taxis since 2006 with no complaints made against him. The Sub Committee asked why he had only declared the caution on his renewal form rather than as soon as it happened. The driver explained that he had mistakenly believed this was only required for convictions, and apologised for the oversight. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 declared a previous conviction. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, namely a small hammer which he had left on the seat of his taxi after using it to fix the wheelchair ramp. He explained that a passenger had run off without paying after going from Cardiff to Cwmbran. The driver had waited outside his house for some time before speaking to someone else there, who persuaded the passenger to come out and pay up. The passenger claimed that he had followed him with a weapon and threatened him with it, so the driver called the police to explain. The Sub Committee asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had emailed the council to inform them but had misspelt the email address. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
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 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 the driver overcharged for a journey from St Mary’s Street to Cathays and did not use the calibrated meter in order to determine the fare. There was also a double charge on the card used to pay for the journey. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that late on a Sunday night, he saw an intoxicated woman who wasn’t being allowed back into bars on St Mary’s Street being refused by other taxis. He could see that she was frustrated and wanted to help her get home. She said that she didn’t have enough cash and wasn’t sure how to use the card on her phone, so he passed her his phone with the payment app open so she could practise paying. She asked to give a £15 tip, which would mean paying around £25 for the journey rather than around £10. Her card was declined several times before it went through. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events, emphasising that she had not asked to tip him and was entirely aware of how to pay by card using her phone. She had only realised the next morning that she had been charged two payments of £25.70, which she called her bank to cancel because they were still pending. The two payments were eight minutes apart, so it seemed that the driver had taken two separate payments at the start and end of the journey. The Sub Committee asked the driver about the double payment and heard that this may have been a technical issue with the payment app he used due to the declined payments. There was no physical receipt to give the passenger as the app sent him a notification of payments the next day. Members queried whether the driver had asked for payment before the journey began, which was not permitted for fares within Cardiff. The driver responded that he had tried to help the passenger because she wasn’t sure how to use her phone to pay. The witness reiterated that she knew how to use her phone to pay by card, and suggested that the driver had not passed her his phone. The driver’s representative suggested that there was evidence of the card being declined several times, and that the witness might have accidentally paid twice while drunk. He added that the money taken out of her account had been returned, and suggested that an honest mistake had been made. The witness emphasised that she was certain she had not accidentally tapped it twice. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he expressed sincere regret about his past actions and took full responsibility for what he had done. Members noted that the applicant had applied for a licence recently and was refused then, and asked what had changed. The applicant explained that he was working 60 to 70 hours a week to support his family as the cost of living was very high, and he could make more money driving taxis. RESOLVED – that the application be refused. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was arrested after a policeman pulled him over while driving and saw a bag of drugs in the car. He emphasised that they were not his and that he had passed a drug test, but had received a caution for possession of a Class A drug. He added that since this had all taken place, he had moved back home, gotten married and taken on new responsibilities, and was keen to drive taxis. He understood the gravity of the situation but felt he was a more responsible person now. RESOLVED – that the application be refused. (4) Item 4 was deferred to the next meeting in the absence of the witness. (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 a complaint had been received stating that the driver drove his licensed vehicle in a dangerous manner and used demeaning language. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was being accused of hitting a pedestrian and her luggage with his car. He explained that he had been working at the coach station when a coach came towards him so he had to pull into a parking bay on the side of the road. A woman was stood there with her luggage, so he beeped his horn and then rolled down his window and respectfully asked her to move. He added that the woman then started shouting at him and accusing him of knocking over her luggage, before telling everyone else on the rank that he was a dangerous driver who had tried to hit her, which meant he got no business that night. He had driven taxis for 33 years and had been licensed in Cardiff for 26 years without any complaints being made against him, and emphasised that his car had not touched her luggage. The Sub Committee viewed videos immediately following the incident provided by the witness. Members noted that the driver had cameras on the front and back of his vehicle and asked whether this footage was available. The driver explained that he normally deleted this after a week, and had not thought it was needed in this case as he was not contacted by the police. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she knew the area well and usually ordered a cab using her phone as the coach was getting in, before waiting in the same spot where there were several empty parking spaces. There was no pavement for pedestrians, only a muddy embankment, and she used a cane to help her walk. She recalled that the taxi came by without stopping and without the driver asking her to move, and so she had to jump back to avoid being hit, with the car knocking her bags over. She asked the driver whether he had seen her and he said yes, so she asked why he had continued reversing, and he told her to shut up. Both parties disputed whether or not the driver had beeped his horn or spoken to the witness before moving into the bay, and whether or not the taxi had knocked the luggage over. The driver’s representative acknowledged that the driver could have de-escalated the situation, and suggested that he keep the dashcam footage for longer than a week in the future. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had been issued with a caution by South Wales Police. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned in 2022 for a public order offence against a former partner who had stalked him. He did not feel he posed any danger to members of the public, and had driven taxis since 2006 with no complaints made against him. The Sub Committee asked why he had only declared the caution on his renewal form rather than as soon as it happened. The driver explained that he had mistakenly believed this was only required for convictions, and apologised for the oversight. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 declared a previous conviction. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, namely a small hammer which he had left on the seat of his taxi after using it to fix the wheelchair ramp. He explained that a passenger had run off without paying after going from Cardiff to Cwmbran. The driver had waited outside his house for some time before speaking to someone else there, who persuaded the passenger to come out and pay up. The passenger claimed that he had followed him with a weapon and threatened him with it, so the driver called the police to explain. The Sub Committee asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had emailed the council to inform them but had misspelt the email address. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver overcharged for a journey from St Mary’s Street to Cathays and did not use the calibrated meter in order to determine the fare. There was also a double charge on the card used to pay for the journey. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that late on a Sunday night, he saw an intoxicated woman who wasn’t being allowed back into bars on St Mary’s Street being refused by other taxis. He could see that she was frustrated and wanted to help her get home. She said that she didn’t have enough cash and wasn’t sure how to use the card on her phone, so he passed her his phone with the payment app open so she could practise paying. She asked to give a £15 tip, which would mean paying around £25 for the journey rather than around £10. Her card was declined several times before it went through. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events, emphasising that she had not asked to tip him and was entirely aware of how to pay by card using her phone. She had only realised the next morning that she had been charged two payments of £25.70, which she called her bank to cancel because they were still pending. The two payments were eight minutes apart, so it seemed that the driver had taken two separate payments at the start and end of the journey. The Sub Committee asked the driver about the double payment and heard that this may have been a technical issue with the payment app he used due to the declined payments. There was no physical receipt to give the passenger as the app sent him a notification of payments the next day. Members queried whether the driver had asked for payment before the journey began, which was not permitted for fares within Cardiff. The driver responded that he had tried to help the passenger because she wasn’t sure how to use her phone to pay. The witness reiterated that she knew how to use her phone to pay by card, and suggested that the driver had not passed her his phone. The driver’s representative suggested that there was evidence of the card being declined several times, and that the witness might have accidentally paid twice while drunk. He added that the money taken out of her account had been returned, and suggested that an honest mistake had been made. The witness emphasised that she was certain she had not accidentally tapped it twice. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he expressed sincere regret about his past actions and took full responsibility for what he had done. Members noted that the applicant had applied for a licence recently and was refused then, and asked what had changed. The applicant explained that he was working 60 to 70 hours a week to support his family as the cost of living was very high, and he could make more money driving taxis. RESOLVED – that the application be refused. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was arrested after a policeman pulled him over while driving and saw a bag of drugs in the car. He emphasised that they were not his and that he had passed a drug test, but had received a caution for possession of a Class A drug. He added that since this had all taken place, he had moved back home, gotten married and taken on new responsibilities, and was keen to drive taxis. He understood the gravity of the situation but felt he was a more responsible person now. RESOLVED – that the application be refused. (4) Item 4 was deferred to the next meeting in the absence of the witness. (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 a complaint had been received stating that the driver drove his licensed vehicle in a dangerous manner and used demeaning language. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was being accused of hitting a pedestrian and her luggage with his car. He explained that he had been working at the coach station when a coach came towards him so he had to pull into a parking bay on the side of the road. A woman was stood there with her luggage, so he beeped his horn and then rolled down his window and respectfully asked her to move. He added that the woman then started shouting at him and accusing him of knocking over her luggage, before telling everyone else on the rank that he was a dangerous driver who had tried to hit her, which meant he got no business that night. He had driven taxis for 33 years and had been licensed in Cardiff for 26 years without any complaints being made against him, and emphasised that his car had not touched her luggage. The Sub Committee viewed videos immediately following the incident provided by the witness. Members noted that the driver had cameras on the front and back of his vehicle and asked whether this footage was available. The driver explained that he normally deleted this after a week, and had not thought it was needed in this case as he was not contacted by the police. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she knew the area well and usually ordered a cab using her phone as the coach was getting in, before waiting in the same spot where there were several empty parking spaces. There was no pavement for pedestrians, only a muddy embankment, and she used a cane to help her walk. She recalled that the taxi came by without stopping and without the driver asking her to move, and so she had to jump back to avoid being hit, with the car knocking her bags over. She asked the driver whether he had seen her and he said yes, so she asked why he had continued reversing, and he told her to shut up. Both parties disputed whether or not the driver had beeped his horn or spoken to the witness before moving into the bay, and whether or not the taxi had knocked the luggage over. The driver’s representative acknowledged that the driver could have de-escalated the situation, and suggested that he keep the dashcam footage for longer than a week in the future. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had been issued with a caution by South Wales Police. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned in 2022 for a public order offence against a former partner who had stalked him. He did not feel he posed any danger to members of the public, and had driven taxis since 2006 with no complaints made against him. The Sub Committee asked why he had only declared the caution on his renewal form rather than as soon as it happened. The driver explained that he had mistakenly believed this was only required for convictions, and apologised for the oversight. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 declared a previous conviction. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, namely a small hammer which he had left on the seat of his taxi after using it to fix the wheelchair ramp. He explained that a passenger had run off without paying after going from Cardiff to Cwmbran. The driver had waited outside his house for some time before speaking to someone else there, who persuaded the passenger to come out and pay up. The passenger claimed that he had followed him with a weapon and threatened him with it, so the driver called the police to explain. The Sub Committee asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had emailed the council to inform them but had misspelt the email address. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
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.