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 consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared a major motoring conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that in 2020, he had been the second driver on his cousin’s car, so he could help him with his work while studying at university. His cousin made a mistake typing the vehicle registration number so he wasn’t correctly insured. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted. (2) Application 2 was deferred to the next meeting. (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 alleging that the driver refused the fare of a wheelchair user. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver referred to the statement he had submitted. He had arrived at the rank and was approached by the marshal when it was his turn. The marshal immediately said that he didn’t have sufficient wheelchair access and directed the passengers to another cab. The driver emphasised that he did not refuse disabled customers, and that a folded-down wheelchair would fit in his vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses explained that they had approached the rank and waited until they were next in line to get a taxi. They spoke to the driver and asked to put the wheelchair in, and he said he didn’t have room. They noticed that he had seats up in the boot to take additional passengers, so they asked if he could fold them down. He said he wasn’t able to do this, so one of the passengers disclosed that she worked for Shared Regulatory Services and knew what taxi drivers were required to do. The marshal came over and spoke to him, before taking them to a different taxi which took them home. Members asked if there was a conversation between the marshal and the driver. One of the witnesses confirmed that there was but she hadn’t heard it. The Licensing Enforcement Officer added that after she received the initial complaint she had contacted the driver, who gave her the telephone number of the marshal. She rang the marshal, who told her over the phone that he was unaware that every taxi had to take a wheelchair, and thought it was only specially adapted vehicles that could. She had only been able to speak to him once since then, when he agreed to provide a statement which was very short on detail. His statement only said that he didn’t recall it very well and didn’t remember the driver. The driver added that only a few seconds passed between the marshal coming up to him and taking the customers to a different taxi. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was illegally parked and swore at a member of the public. The complainant was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative noted that the complainant had not witnessed anyone being picked up or dropped off, and that the driver had provided a screenshot of the Veezu booking in response to this. He added that the customer had come out of their house and got into the car, at which point the driver realised there was a safeguarding issue with them. The driver’s representative added that due to the nature of the customer, the driver had waited for a few minutes after dropping them off to ensure they were alright. It was a difficult area to park in and he acknowledged that it was not ideal to have to wait there, but he was only there for a few minutes. He emphasised that his client had not used the language he was accused of, and that he understood the responsibilities of a professional driver. Members asked what conversation had taken place, and heard that the driver assumed at first the complainant was his passenger, and asked him what was wrong. The complainant had knocked on his window twice before taking a photo. Members noted that he had been parked on double yellow lines, and asked if he had his engine or hazard lights on to show he was only there temporarily. The driver responded that his engine was on but not his indicator or hazards. He understood that yellow lines were there for a reason, but sometimes it was the only way to pick up and drop off quickly. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was illegally parked and swore at a member of the public. The complainant was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he worked for Veezu and took a job on Bishops Road. The address didn’t include a number so he pulled in and phoned the customer, then someone knocked on the window and told him he was parked on double yellows. He didn’t answer at first because he was on the phone, but the person knocked again and took a photo. As the driver pulled away to pick up the customer, he told the complainant his name and called him a dickhead. The driver added that although he admitted to swearing, he didn’t feel the complainant’s statement was entirely accurate. He was accused of having said ‘you’re one of those pricks’ when he was first approached, but he had been on the phone at the time and hadn’t said anything. He accepted that he should not have used bad language towards a member of the public. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had been parked for about three minutes in total, and was on the phone to the customer for most of that time. He wasn’t sure if his indicators or hazards were on, but his engine was running and he was clearly not permanently parked. The driver’s friend added that the photo submitted by the complainant showed that there was plenty of space on the road, and that the driver was not blocking any entrances or preventing anyone else from getting through. He had driven taxis for almost thirty years with no blemishes on his record. 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 License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver parked in a disabled bay and swore at a member of the public. The driver and complainant were not in attendance. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had been the subject of an immediate revocation of his Cardiff Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence following an allegation of sexual assault and false imprisonment, and in respect of which the Licensing Authority had subsequently been notified by South Wales Police that there would be no further action. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver understood why his licence had been revoked when the information first came to light. He had been working as a taxi driver for just over a year when he was arrested, after providing regular lifts for free to several young women. The representative felt that the allegations against the driver were false, and suggested that he was a victim who had lost his livelihood as a result of his naivety. He was appealing his revocation but this was a long and expensive process, so he was re-applying to make the case that he was a fit and proper person. Members noted that the driver’s statement acknowledged that he had engaged in sexual activity in his taxi but emphasised that it had been consensual. The driver explained that he hadn’t been working that night and wasn’t on duty, although he was in his licensed vehicle. He had intended to work, but he had then been contacted by the alleged victim, and had picked her up instead. Members queried whether activities that took place in a taxi while it was being used for private purposes were relevant to their assessment of fitness and propriety, which the Legal Officer clarified that they were. Members asked how the driver came to know the alleged victim, and heard that they met through a friend after exchanging messages. The evening in question was the first time they had met. The driver’s representative suggested that his client had been gullible and foolish, and felt that he had been the victim on this occasion. The driver added that he had made a mistake and regretted it. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused. (8) Item 8 was deferred to the next meeting. (9) Item 9 was deferred to the next meeting.
There were none.
There were none.
The following item is confidential and exempt from publication as it contains exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
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 consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared a major motoring conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that in 2020, he had been the second driver on his cousin’s car, so he could help him with his work while studying at university. His cousin made a mistake typing the vehicle registration number so he wasn’t correctly insured. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted. (2) Application 2 was deferred to the next meeting. (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 alleging that the driver refused the fare of a wheelchair user. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver referred to the statement he had submitted. He had arrived at the rank and was approached by the marshal when it was his turn. The marshal immediately said that he didn’t have sufficient wheelchair access and directed the passengers to another cab. The driver emphasised that he did not refuse disabled customers, and that a folded-down wheelchair would fit in his vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses explained that they had approached the rank and waited until they were next in line to get a taxi. They spoke to the driver and asked to put the wheelchair in, and he said he didn’t have room. They noticed that he had seats up in the boot to take additional passengers, so they asked if he could fold them down. He said he wasn’t able to do this, so one of the passengers disclosed that she worked for Shared Regulatory Services and knew what taxi drivers were required to do. The marshal came over and spoke to him, before taking them to a different taxi which took them home. Members asked if there was a conversation between the marshal and the driver. One of the witnesses confirmed that there was but she hadn’t heard it. The Licensing Enforcement Officer added that after she received the initial complaint she had contacted the driver, who gave her the telephone number of the marshal. She rang the marshal, who told her over the phone that he was unaware that every taxi had to take a wheelchair, and thought it was only specially adapted vehicles that could. She had only been able to speak to him once since then, when he agreed to provide a statement which was very short on detail. His statement only said that he didn’t recall it very well and didn’t remember the driver. The driver added that only a few seconds passed between the marshal coming up to him and taking the customers to a different taxi. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was illegally parked and swore at a member of the public. The complainant was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative noted that the complainant had not witnessed anyone being picked up or dropped off, and that the driver had provided a screenshot of the Veezu booking in response to this. He added that the customer had come out of their house and got into the car, at which point the driver realised there was a safeguarding issue with them. The driver’s representative added that due to the nature of the customer, the driver had waited for a few minutes after dropping them off to ensure they were alright. It was a difficult area to park in and he acknowledged that it was not ideal to have to wait there, but he was only there for a few minutes. He emphasised that his client had not used the language he was accused of, and that he understood the responsibilities of a professional driver. Members asked what conversation had taken place, and heard that the driver assumed at first the complainant was his passenger, and asked him what was wrong. The complainant had knocked on his window twice before taking a photo. Members noted that he had been parked on double yellow lines, and asked if he had his engine or hazard lights on to show he was only there temporarily. The driver responded that his engine was on but not his indicator or hazards. He understood that yellow lines were there for a reason, but sometimes it was the only way to pick up and drop off quickly. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was illegally parked and swore at a member of the public. The complainant was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he worked for Veezu and took a job on Bishops Road. The address didn’t include a number so he pulled in and phoned the customer, then someone knocked on the window and told him he was parked on double yellows. He didn’t answer at first because he was on the phone, but the person knocked again and took a photo. As the driver pulled away to pick up the customer, he told the complainant his name and called him a dickhead. The driver added that although he admitted to swearing, he didn’t feel the complainant’s statement was entirely accurate. He was accused of having said ‘you’re one of those pricks’ when he was first approached, but he had been on the phone at the time and hadn’t said anything. He accepted that he should not have used bad language towards a member of the public. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had been parked for about three minutes in total, and was on the phone to the customer for most of that time. He wasn’t sure if his indicators or hazards were on, but his engine was running and he was clearly not permanently parked. The driver’s friend added that the photo submitted by the complainant showed that there was plenty of space on the road, and that the driver was not blocking any entrances or preventing anyone else from getting through. He had driven taxis for almost thirty years with no blemishes on his record. 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 License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver parked in a disabled bay and swore at a member of the public. The driver and complainant were not in attendance. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had been the subject of an immediate revocation of his Cardiff Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence following an allegation of sexual assault and false imprisonment, and in respect of which the Licensing Authority had subsequently been notified by South Wales Police that there would be no further action. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver understood why his licence had been revoked when the information first came to light. He had been working as a taxi driver for just over a year when he was arrested, after providing regular lifts for free to several young women. The representative felt that the allegations against the driver were false, and suggested that he was a victim who had lost his livelihood as a result of his naivety. He was appealing his revocation but this was a long and expensive process, so he was re-applying to make the case that he was a fit and proper person. Members noted that the driver’s statement acknowledged that he had engaged in sexual activity in his taxi but emphasised that it had been consensual. The driver explained that he hadn’t been working that night and wasn’t on duty, although he was in his licensed vehicle. He had intended to work, but he had then been contacted by the alleged victim, and had picked her up instead. Members queried whether activities that took place in a taxi while it was being used for private purposes were relevant to their assessment of fitness and propriety, which the Legal Officer clarified that they were. Members asked how the driver came to know the alleged victim, and heard that they met through a friend after exchanging messages. The evening in question was the first time they had met. The driver’s representative suggested that his client had been gullible and foolish, and felt that he had been the victim on this occasion. The driver added that he had made a mistake and regretted it. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused. (8) Item 8 was deferred to the next meeting. (9) Item 9 was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared a major motoring conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that in 2020, he had been the second driver on his cousin’s car, so he could help him with his work while studying at university. His cousin made a mistake typing the vehicle registration number so he wasn’t correctly insured. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted. (2) Application 2 was deferred to the next meeting. (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 alleging that the driver refused the fare of a wheelchair user. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver referred to the statement he had submitted. He had arrived at the rank and was approached by the marshal when it was his turn. The marshal immediately said that he didn’t have sufficient wheelchair access and directed the passengers to another cab. The driver emphasised that he did not refuse disabled customers, and that a folded-down wheelchair would fit in his vehicle. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses explained that they had approached the rank and waited until they were next in line to get a taxi. They spoke to the driver and asked to put the wheelchair in, and he said he didn’t have room. They noticed that he had seats up in the boot to take additional passengers, so they asked if he could fold them down. He said he wasn’t able to do this, so one of the passengers disclosed that she worked for Shared Regulatory Services and knew what taxi drivers were required to do. The marshal came over and spoke to him, before taking them to a different taxi which took them home. Members asked if there was a conversation between the marshal and the driver. One of the witnesses confirmed that there was but she hadn’t heard it. The Licensing Enforcement Officer added that after she received the initial complaint she had contacted the driver, who gave her the telephone number of the marshal. She rang the marshal, who told her over the phone that he was unaware that every taxi had to take a wheelchair, and thought it was only specially adapted vehicles that could. She had only been able to speak to him once since then, when he agreed to provide a statement which was very short on detail. His statement only said that he didn’t recall it very well and didn’t remember the driver. The driver added that only a few seconds passed between the marshal coming up to him and taking the customers to a different taxi. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was illegally parked and swore at a member of the public. The complainant was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative noted that the complainant had not witnessed anyone being picked up or dropped off, and that the driver had provided a screenshot of the Veezu booking in response to this. He added that the customer had come out of their house and got into the car, at which point the driver realised there was a safeguarding issue with them. The driver’s representative added that due to the nature of the customer, the driver had waited for a few minutes after dropping them off to ensure they were alright. It was a difficult area to park in and he acknowledged that it was not ideal to have to wait there, but he was only there for a few minutes. He emphasised that his client had not used the language he was accused of, and that he understood the responsibilities of a professional driver. Members asked what conversation had taken place, and heard that the driver assumed at first the complainant was his passenger, and asked him what was wrong. The complainant had knocked on his window twice before taking a photo. Members noted that he had been parked on double yellow lines, and asked if he had his engine or hazard lights on to show he was only there temporarily. The driver responded that his engine was on but not his indicator or hazards. He understood that yellow lines were there for a reason, but sometimes it was the only way to pick up and drop off quickly. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (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 a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was illegally parked and swore at a member of the public. The complainant was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he worked for Veezu and took a job on Bishops Road. The address didn’t include a number so he pulled in and phoned the customer, then someone knocked on the window and told him he was parked on double yellows. He didn’t answer at first because he was on the phone, but the person knocked again and took a photo. As the driver pulled away to pick up the customer, he told the complainant his name and called him a dickhead. The driver added that although he admitted to swearing, he didn’t feel the complainant’s statement was entirely accurate. He was accused of having said ‘you’re one of those pricks’ when he was first approached, but he had been on the phone at the time and hadn’t said anything. He accepted that he should not have used bad language towards a member of the public. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had been parked for about three minutes in total, and was on the phone to the customer for most of that time. He wasn’t sure if his indicators or hazards were on, but his engine was running and he was clearly not permanently parked. The driver’s friend added that the photo submitted by the complainant showed that there was plenty of space on the road, and that the driver was not blocking any entrances or preventing anyone else from getting through. He had driven taxis for almost thirty years with no blemishes on his record. 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 License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver parked in a disabled bay and swore at a member of the public. The driver and complainant were not in attendance. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had been the subject of an immediate revocation of his Cardiff Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence following an allegation of sexual assault and false imprisonment, and in respect of which the Licensing Authority had subsequently been notified by South Wales Police that there would be no further action. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver understood why his licence had been revoked when the information first came to light. He had been working as a taxi driver for just over a year when he was arrested, after providing regular lifts for free to several young women. The representative felt that the allegations against the driver were false, and suggested that he was a victim who had lost his livelihood as a result of his naivety. He was appealing his revocation but this was a long and expensive process, so he was re-applying to make the case that he was a fit and proper person. Members noted that the driver’s statement acknowledged that he had engaged in sexual activity in his taxi but emphasised that it had been consensual. The driver explained that he hadn’t been working that night and wasn’t on duty, although he was in his licensed vehicle. He had intended to work, but he had then been contacted by the alleged victim, and had picked her up instead. Members queried whether activities that took place in a taxi while it was being used for private purposes were relevant to their assessment of fitness and propriety, which the Legal Officer clarified that they were. Members asked how the driver came to know the alleged victim, and heard that they met through a friend after exchanging messages. The evening in question was the first time they had met. The driver’s representative suggested that his client had been gullible and foolish, and felt that he had been the victim on this occasion. The driver added that he had made a mistake and regretted it. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused. (8) Item 8 was deferred to the next meeting. (9) Item 9 was deferred to the next meeting.
There were none.
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.