Trwyddedau ar gyfer tafarndai, tacsis a digwyddiadau, ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol a safonau masnach.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Mae cynghorau'n gweithio gyda'r heddlu ac eraill ar ddiogelwch cymunedol, yn rhedeg teledu cylch cyfyng, yn trwyddedu tafarndai, tacsis a mangreoedd gamblo, ac yn delio ag ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol fel sŵn.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Mae penderfyniadau trwyddedu'n cael eu gwneud gan bwyllgor neu is-bwyllgor trwyddedu o gynghorwyr, sy'n clywed gan ymgeiswyr a gwrthwynebwyr.
Dweud eich dweud
Gallwch wrthwynebu cais am drwydded yn ystod ei gyfnod ymgynghori. Rhowch wybod i'r cyngor am sŵn ac ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol.
Wrthi'n llwytho
Fesul cyngor, y 12 mis diwethaf
Faint o eitemau agenda ar y pwnc hwn y deliodd pob cyngor â nhw, a faint oedd â phenderfyniad wedi'i gofnodi.
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 determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been made alleging that he refused to provide service to a disabled passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s wife stated that the driver had been working that day for Uber, but didn’t recall the job in question. She emphasised that the accusation had caused him considerable stress. He had driven taxis since 2007, transporting countless disabled passengers since then with no complaints, and had worked with the council for several years on a city centre mobility scheme. He regularly looked after people with mobility issues, including her mother, and had a very good Uber rating and no points on his licence.
She added that as soon as he was made aware of the complaint in January, he offered to provide his dashcam footage from that night. He was informed that Uber did not need it as they were treating the incident as feedback rather than a complaint, so it was never reviewed. He maintained that the incident as described in the witness’ statement did not happen, in particular because the shape of Rhymney Street made it difficult to pull in.
She suggested that although he did not remember the particular journey, he might not have been aware that the passenger was disabled because her mobility aid would not have been visible between the cars. It was not uncommon for Uber drivers to cancel, and he often had to use the toilet in a hurry as he needed an operation.
Members asked why the driver might cancel a fare without warning. The driver’s wife explained that he might need the toilet, or she might phone needing something, as they sometimes had emergencies relating to her mother. She felt there was no reason why he would have cancelled while so close to a job.
Members discussed the Uber complaints process and heard that the company had not provided any evidence of the job being booked and cancelled. The driver and passenger did not automatically receive any record of cancellations.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness stated that she had been waiting outside her son’s house on Rhymney Street. She had recently come out of hospital and was staying with her son for a few days. The taxi she had booked pulled up, then the driver looked at her and drove off. She looked at the app and saw that the fare had been cancelled as soon as he went round the corner. She re-booked the journey with another driver.
Members asked what the witness’ rollator looked like, which the witness showed them. She recalled that the taxi had been a Toyota with a normal boot, so her rollator would have fit in.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the second witness stated that he was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, who had investigated the complaint. It had taken some time to get details from Uber about the incident, and then he had sent a questionnaire to the driver, to which he had responded very quickly.
Members asked if it was typical of Uber not to provide that information quickly. The second witness explained that they were normally very fast, and hadn’t mentioned any sort of issue in getting the data. The request for the full log of bookings and communications was sent to them on 20th February, and though there was a response it was not the full set of data requested.
Members asked if the delay between the incident in January and the driver being contacted in April was normal. The second witness explained that they had been waiting on different statements coming in before they could go to the driver for his statement.
Summing up, the first witness explained that if the driver had spoken to her about needing to cancel, she would have understood. Uber had not been able to give her the driver’s details, and it was only when the Licensing officer rang her that she knew who he was.
Summing up, the driver’s wife explained that without the Uber data or the dashcam footage the driver had offered to provide, they felt it would be unfair to revoke his licence.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been disqualified from driving for six months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been disqualified for totting up offences, having driven through a red light early in the morning and not realised. At the time he had 9 points on his licence, having committed several speeding offences in 20mph zones. He worked six or seven days a week, normally starting at 4:30am and working for 8-10 hours at a time. For each of the 20mph offences he had been caught going under 30mph. Three of the points had now expired, but as he had nine when the red light offence happened it made twelve in total and led to a ban.
The driver’s representative added that his client had more than thirty years’ experience as a taxi driver, and if the offence had happened slightly later he would not have been banned as three of his points were about to expire. He was very contrite about it, and he was supporting his son through university, so the ban had already had a significant impact on his family.
The driver added that the ban meant he couldn’t drive until February, but he was keen to carry on after that point.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his future conduct.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had six points on his licence. He had received three points for defective tyres, after he was pulled over for a headlight being out, on top of three more for a speeding offence. He worked as a delivery driver for Uber Eats.
Members asked why he had only declared 3 points on his application, and not mentioned the offence with the tyres? The applicant explained that he didn’t know about those points then.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance which he did not declare on his application form.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had an accident in 2020 and went to court, where he was banned from driving for six months. He took a course afterwards and felt he had grown since. He had been convicted for failing to stop after an accident, and for driving without due care and attention.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that he had been working as a delivery driver on a 125cc scooter and had collided with someone. He had to complete his delivery and had returned afterwards, but was convicted of failing to stop. He was still working as a delivery driver at his shop and wanted to drive taxis.
Members asked when the applicant got his driving licence, which he clarified was in June last year. Members asked why he had failed to declare his convictions, which the applicant explained was because his English wasn’t very good at the time, and the offence had been several years ago.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared previous criminal and motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been rejected for a taxi licence in the past. He had made serious errors in the past but felt he was a different person now and provided character references to prove this. He had also gained his HGV licence and was a safe and conscientious driver.
He explained that when he was young, he fell in with the wrong crowd. He had done a lot of stupid things but wasn’t the same person any more. The most recent offence was in 2017 for being drunk and disorderly, and he didn’t remember it well but as a result didn’t drink any more. He hoped Members would look upon his new application favourably.
Members asked if he had done any lorry driving work. The applicant responded that he worked for Müller and had previously worked for Owens and Tesco. He had obtained his Class 1 HGV licence in 2022.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance and previously had his licence revoked by Cardiff Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he appreciated the opportunity to have his application reviewed. He understood that the offences he had committed were wrong and had been punished by having his licence revoked. He had never had any complaints from customers in his time as a driver.
Responding to questions from Members, he explained that he had committed three speeding offences after struggling to adapt to the 20mph limit. Two of the offences were in the same place on Newport Road within the space of a week, and the other was a few months later. He had then filled out the Notice of Intended Prosecution form inaccurately to say that someone else was driving.
Members asked when the speeding points would expire. The driver explained that this would be between December 2027 and May 2028. Members asked when he was first licensed as a taxi driver, which he clarified was in 2013.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under Section 182 of the Act, and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application.
The Sub-Committee heard from the Pollution Control Officer and considered all of the oral and written evidence presented at the hearing.
The Sub-Committee gave regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Statutory Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Act and the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy.
Members further noted that the applicant did not attend the hearing and was therefore unable to address the concerns raised within the representations or answer questions from the Sub Committee regarding the operation of the premises during the extended hours sought.
The Sub-Committee attached significant weight to the representations made by Pollution Control. Members accepted Ms Jones' evidence that the premises is situated within a residential area and that the proposed operating hours would extend activity at the premises into the early hours of the morning when nearby residents would reasonably expect a greater degree of peace and quiet.
Members carefully considered the concerns relating to delivery drivers and associated vehicle movements. Whilst the applicant had proposed that delivery drivers be permitted to wait inside the premises, Members were not satisfied that this measure adequately addressed the wider impact of vehicles arriving and departing from the premises throughout the proposed operating period. Members accepted the evidence presented by Ms Jones that complaints relating to delivery drivers and riders are a recognised issue associated with late-night takeaway premises and considered that there remained a genuine risk of disturbance to nearby residents.
The Sub-Committee also considered the written representations submitted by other persons. Members attached weight to the concerns expressed regarding noise disturbance, delivery activity and the effect that extended late-night trading may have on residential amenity in the surrounding area.
Members noted that South Wales Police had withdrawn their representation following agreement with the applicant in respect of additional conditions. However, Members were satisfied that the concerns relating to the prevention of public nuisance remained unresolved.
The Sub-Committee noted the discussion regarding nuisance odours. Whilst no complaints had been received by Pollution Control in respect of cooking smells from the premises, Members considered that the principal issue before them was the likely impact of extended operating hours and associated delivery activity rather than odour nuisance.
Having considered all of the evidence before it, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the application would promote the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that complaints had been received relating to inappropriate sexual language used towards female passengers.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t remember the particular passengers who had complained, having driven thousands of people around, and didn’t feel there was any evidence against him that was strong enough to merit any consequences. Responding to questions from Members, he explained that he felt the incidents didn’t happen and that the complaints were false feedback. He had a dashcam but it deleted footage after 24 hours so he couldn’t prove otherwise.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness explained that she had ordered an Uber from Cardiff Central. The driver was pleasant and chatty at first but then asked if she was rich and called her a ‘high value woman’. He said she was very attractive, then talked about his own sexual experience and made suggestive comments about her body.
Members asked if the experience had affected her confidence in getting taxis. The witness explained that she had made the complaint because she didn’t want it to happen to other people. It was the first bad experience she had had with Uber, and it made her question how they monitored their drivers. She felt that he was using his job to try to pick up women, and that young women could not feel safe and comfortable in his taxi.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the second witness explained that she had booked a short journey with Uber because she was running late, but the driver went a very long way around and took a while to get there. They chatted about normal things at first but then the driver asked if she was a lesbian. She said no, and he said that must mean she would like his dick. She reported this to Uber at the time, and emphasised that he should not be allowed to drive young women around.
The driver added that he didn’t recognise either witness, and asked if they had any video or audio evidence. The Chair clarified that Members would take the witness statements from all parties into account when making their decision. The second witness added that she had spoken to friends about it as soon as she got to their house.
The driver added that he was married with children and had no intention of harassing women in his taxi. He felt that Uber did not care about drivers, as it didn’t have a process like the Sub Committee where he could make his case in response to complaints. He drove for Bolt and Veezu too without any issues.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that he parked his licensed vehicle in a bay subject to a temporary suspension, failed to comply promptly with instructions from authorised personnel to move his vehicle, and behaved in an aggressive and confrontational manner.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had driven taxis for 20 years and was used to major events. He was on Fitzhamon Embankment when someone in a high-vis came over and said ‘bloody taxis think they can park anywhere’, which he felt was rude. He wound his window down and spoke to the official, who said he was going to get him sacked.
Members asked whether the driver accepted that he had parked in a temporarily suspended bay. The driver acknowledged that he had. The whole street was normally temporary parking but the cones were moved depending on the event. What he disputed was the witness’ suggestion that he had been rude and aggressive. Members asked how long it had taken him to move after he was asked, which the driver felt was about 5 minutes.
Members asked why he had been on that particular street, which the driver explained because he lived close by. He had been waiting for a resident to pull out so he could use the resident bay. He pulled into a pay and display bay which was suspended for the day because of the rugby, and wasn’t picking up or dropping off a passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had worked in Transport Services for more than 30 years, and was doing his usual walkabout to make sure the road was safe for buses to pick up and park. Two council officials had asked the driver to move, and he had told them to ‘piss off’ and to mind their own business. The witness went over to the driver himself, who refused to move several more times, so he told him he would be reported. He estimated that 15 minutes passed in total before the driver finally moved.
Members asked how the traffic management system worked on major event days. The witness explained that he and other officers tried to keep vehicles away to ensure that buses could safely park and pick up, but taxis refusing to leave was a recurring issue that affected public safety. The driver would only have been allowed into the coned off area by Clare Gardens if he lived there or was dropping off a passenger who did. Even if he lived there, he should have moved when asked.
The driver suggested that it wouldn’t have made sense for him to refuse to move, when he could lose his licence if Transport Services made a complaint. He lived in the area, and reiterated that he would have moved if asked. He had just been waiting for a residential parking bay to open up, and hadn’t sworn at anyone.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License 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 License given that he had been disqualified from driving for six months.
(Cllr Driscoll left his seat as a member of the Sub Committee for this item in accordance with his prejudicial interest.)
The driver was not in attendance.
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 License given that he had six penalty points on his driving licence which he had not declared to the licensing authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that while coming from Newport towards Rover Way, tried to turn left and was caught by a red light. He didn’t receive a letter about this, and only found out when he was given six points for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver.
Members asked why he hadn’t received the letter, and why he hadn’t reported the points to the licensing authority. The driver explained that his post often went to a neighbour whose house had the same number, and he hadn’t realised at the time that he was obligated to report any offences to the council.
Responding to questions from Members, the Legal Officer clarified that the £660 fine was likely due to the driver not attending court.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had six penalty points on his driving licence which he had not declared to the licensing authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received 6 points on his licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver after being caught speeding on Manor Way, after the limit had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He had received a letter about the offence but didn’t respond, and plead guilty to this in court.
Members asked why he had failed to report the points. The driver explained that he wasn’t aware at the time of the obligation to report them to the licensing authority, but was now.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6 was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 declared a major motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received 12 points for driving without the correct insurance on two occasions. The first time, he had been pulled over while driving a friend’s car. He had third party insurance and thought that was enough. The second time, he was driving a new car and believed that his insurance would carry over, but had not informed his insurer of the change of vehicle.
The driver added that he also had a conviction for driving with a defective tyre, after being pulled over for a broken brake light. The two insurance offences had led to a six-month disqualification from driving in 2024.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance and had previously had his licence revoked by Cardiff Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been convicted of domestic abuse in 2013. He had worked hard since arriving in the country and felt he now had a good reputation and had demonstrated good character. He had worked as a mechanic for many years but wasn’t able to do tough physical work any more and wanted to drive taxis instead.
Members asked about the circumstances of his conviction. The applicant explained that he had been convicted of domestic abuse after pushing his wife, and during the probation was prohibited from contacting her. He wasn’t aware of this and sent her a letter asking to see his daughter, not realising that this wasn’t allowed.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.
(9)
Application 9
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 motoring convictions and criminal convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant felt he was a fit and proper person to drive taxis, and that he had learned from his experiences. He had been fined and disqualified from driving for six months in 2025 for totting up points. This was partly due to receiving six points for failing to provide details of the driver, after an offence was committed while he was out of the country getting married, and he believed someone else had been driving his car.
Members asked whether the offence had been committed in his own vehicle. The applicant explained that it was, though it was hired from the fleet operator. He was registered as the vehicle operator but was on holiday at the time, so someone else must have been driving it. He didn’t know at the time that he could appeal the conviction, as he was trying to cope with a lot of different things and didn’t fully grasp what was going on with the case.
The applicant explained that another offence related to school runs, when the private fleet operator who hired him assigned him to specific school runs that he wasn’t qualified for or comfortable doing. He also explained that he had been convicted of possession with intent to supply Class C drugs in 2008. This was many years ago, and he had been young and stupid and felt he was a very different person now.
Members queried the circumstances of one of the motoring offences, which related to using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. The applicant clarified that this involved a personal vehicle rather than a taxi. It had a mechanical fault and he put temporary insurance on it, which he thought covered six hours, but he did this in a rush on the phone so may have made a mistake.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared 12 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s friend stated that he hoped Members would consider that he had been a taxi driver for more than 30 years, and had received no complaints from the public in that time. The driver apologised for the first mobile phone offence, as he had touched his phone while at a traffic light, but felt that the second offence had been unfair, so he had wanted to appeal it but been unable for financial reasons.
The driver’s friend added that in their community the driver was known as somebody who gave free rides to people who were vulnerable or on their own. He had never had an argument or an incident with his passengers, was a compassionate and considerate person, and supported his four children.
Members asked about the second mobile phone offence and heard that the driver felt he had been looking behind him to check his passenger was getting out of the vehicle safely when the police suggested he had been using his phone. He understood the gravity of the offence and the need to meet the standards of professional driving.
Members asked whether the driver had been disqualified for totting up 12 points when he went to court, and heard that he had not because he had made an application for exceptional hardship.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that since renewal of his licence he had failed to provide his DBS certificate.
The driver was not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he was disqualified from driving for six months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had totted up points and then notified the council when he was disqualified. He had gone over the speed limit in a couple of 20mph zones that he thought were 30mph. He was not a fast driver and tried to take due care and attention. The disqualification had taken away his income and his insurance had gone up as well, so it had been a difficult time.
Members asked how fast he had been driving for the offences. The driver recalled that one had been 35mph in a 30 zone, and another was 26mph in a 20 zone. He had passengers in the taxi on two occasions, both in 20mph zones. He suggested that one of the speed cameras that caught him had been hard to see, which Members stressed was irrelevant. Members asked whether the driver had applied for exceptional hardship, and heard that his solicitor had advised otherwise.
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 the driver had declared six points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been caught twice going 36mph in what he thought was a 40mph zone, the same day the limit had changed. He received six points for this, which had since expired, and there were now only three points on there.
Members queried the other three points on his licence, which the driver explained was for a speeding offence in January 2025. He had gone slightly over the limit due to tiredness at the end of a long shift, and had since reduced his hours. He didn’t have a passenger at the time and was on his way home.
The driver’s representative added that the last offence was still under consideration because the driver had put in an appeal due to camera not being properly calibrated, but he had taken responsibility for going over the limit. He had paid a fine which had been refunded, and had made a hardship application which had been granted.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(5)
Application 5
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
AGREED.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, designation of the Council’s ‘Qualified Person’ for purposes of the Section 36 Exemption.
Adding this as delegated authority to the Monitoring Officer.
AGREED.
Trusts governance – to reference the Trusts Cabinet Committee and approved officer delegation; and amend the Procedure Rules for the Acquisition or Disposal of Land to reference land held in trust.
Clarification points.
AGREED.
Delegation for responses to Government consultations.
AGREED.
Protocol on Member / Officer Relations, update.
AGREED.
Councillor Call for Action.
Criteria be considered, and a further report will be brought to the Committee.
AGREED.
Allocation of certain local choice licensing function
Refresh to ensure that the Constitution reflects the law.
AGREED.
Joint Committee delegations, update.
Refresh of Constitution.
AGREED.
Delegated authority for amendments to operational HR employment policies
Discussed with Chief Executive and Chief HR Officer.
AGREED.
Delegated authority to update RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers) policies and procedures.
Monitoring Officer to make timely amendments
AGREED.
Allocation of Non-Executive Functions; Committee membership requirements.
Minor changes required.
AGREED.
A number of other minor amendments
· Committee Membership requirements – Article 8.
· Clarification point - Independent Members voting at Standards & Ethics Committee in addition to Council Members.
· Aligning Finance Contract provision thresholds at £75,000.
AGREED.
The Chair requested that consideration of a summary of Officers Decisions and their call in status be presented to Council for information.
RESOLVED:
· To approve the minor Constitution amendments made under the Monitoring Officer’s delegated authority, as referenced in the report for the Committee’s information
· To approve the substantive Constitution amendments recommended in the report, including any agreed changes
· Authorise the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair, to draft any further amendments to reflect the views of the Committee
Recommend the agreed substantive Constitution amendments to full Council for approval.
Penderfyniad: Mabwysiadodd y Cyngor llawn y Datganiad Polisi Trwyddedu diwygiedig, i'w gyhoeddi a dod i rym o 8 Gorffennaf 2026. Awdurdododd hefyd Bennaeth Gwasanaethau Rheoleiddio a Rennir i wneud newidiadau gweinyddol os bydd angen.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, REFUSED the application.
Members noted that the applicant demonstrated a significant lack of understanding of the licensing objectives and the legal requirements of the licensing regime. In particular, the applicant was unable to explain the licensing objectives when asked and provided inconsistent information regarding the operating hours of the premises. In particular, the applicant initially suggested that the premises had previously operated until 3am, which was later clarified as incorrect following advice from the Licensing Officer, and subsequently revised again during the hearing. The Sub Committee considered that this inconsistency reduced the weight that could be attached to the applicant’s evidence.
Members further noted that the applicant was unable to provide clear or detailed explanations as to how the licensing objectives would be promoted. In particular, limited detail was provided in relation to staff training, with reliance placed on unspecified training to be delivered by a franchisor, without any clear understanding of its content or implementation. There was insufficient evidence of measures to manage customers during late night hours, including how difficult or intoxicated individuals would be dealt with. No robust dispersal policy or noise management measures were outlined, despite the premises seeking to operate until the early hours of the morning. The Sub Committee also found that the applicant did not demonstrate an understanding of the risks associated with late-night operation in a busy and densely populated area.
The Sub Committee took into account the representations of the Ward Member, who highlighted existing issues on Crwys Road relating to noise, anti-social behaviour, and crime, particularly during late night hours. It was noted that the road already contained a substantial number of licensed premises and that residents had raised complaints about disturbance, waste management, and sleep disruption. The Sub Committee considered that the introduction of an additional premises operating until 3am was likely to add to the potential for noise and disturbance in the area, particularly in the absence of robust control measures.
Whilst the Sub Committee acknowledged the applicant’s submission that the premises had not previously been the source of complaints, it gave this limited weight given that the premises had not been operating under a premises licence permitting late-night refreshment beyond 11pm.
The Sub Committee also gave weight to the fact that this was the applicant’s first experience of the licensing process. However, this did not outweigh the concerns regarding the lack of understanding and the absence of appropriate safeguards.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence, the Sub Committee was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that the licensing objectives would be promoted. In particular, the Sub Committee found that granting the application would be likely to undermine the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance, having regard to the nature of the area, the proposed hours, and the lack of adequate control measures.
The Sub Committee resolved to refuse the application.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he was disengaged as a driver from Veezu for multiple complaints of using his phone while driving, for a poor standard of driving making passengers feel unsafe, and for being rude, hostile and threatening.
The Sub Committee received representations from witnesses to an incident which had occurred at Llandough Hospital. Members were advised that the driver locked a passenger with a brain injury inside the vehicle when he was advised that the passenger’s mother would pay the fare at the destination. The passenger refused to travel in the vehicle and was very upset and anxious following the incident. The driver was reported to have been rude, hostile and threatening.
Further representations were received from a different witness relating to a separate incident when the driver was said to have displayed a poor standard of driving and watched TikTok videos on his mobile phone during the journey.
A third witness provided a statement regarding the driver using his mobile phone during a journey.
Members were advised that Veezu had received reports of each incident from their customers and they had disengaged the driver from their platform as a result.
Members questioned the witnesses to each incident and sought clarification from the driver regarding his actions.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days for unacceptable conduct.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he urinated into a bottle on a public street.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. The driver accepted that his actions were unacceptable and apologised unreservedly for his actions. Members were advised that his actions would not be repeated in the future.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 he displayed intimidating, unprofessional and unacceptable behaviour to a passenger.
Members received representations from two witnesses who were passengers in the vehicle. Members were advised that the passengers were having a conversation regarding the payment method. The driver was said to have suddenly become very angry and began shouting and using bad language. He then refused the fare and ordered the passengers out of his vehicle.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his conduct.
(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 he failed to use the meter for a journey within the Cardiff boundary and overcharged for a fare.
Members received representations from a witness who was a passenger in the vehicle. Members were advised that the passenger was in Mill Lane in the city centre and wanted to travel to Manor Way. The fare was usually in the region of £15. The witness approached the driver’s taxi and was advised that the fare would be £25 as it was after midnight and she would have to pay the fare in advance. The witness stated that four other taxi drivers surrounded her and attempted to convince her that the fare she was quoted was correct. She felt intimidated as she was a single female. The passenger also stated that the fare meter was not used during the journey.
Members also received representation from an officer from Cardiff Licensing. Members were advised that a fare from Mill Lane to Manor Way should be around £12.70.
The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that the driver accepted the seriousness of the allegations and was aware that the meter should be used for all journeys in the city. The driver acknowledged that a payment of £25 was received but could not recall any other details of the journey.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days for overcharging and not using the meter.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared 7 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had four penalty points on his driver’s licence before he was licenced as taxi driver. He then received 3 further points for going through a red light in Bridgend.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that since the renewal of his licence he had failed to provide his DBS certificate.
The driver did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(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 a relevant conviction contrary to the guidance.
The applicant did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
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 motoring convictions and previous criminal convictions contrary to the guidance.
The applicant did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
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 a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he had received six penalty points for not disclosing the identity of a driver. Members were advised that the applicant had moved from Sheffield to Cardiff. He had updated the address details on his drivers licence. He was caught speeding in Newport but the letter had been sent to Sheffield and he was unaware.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(9)
Application 9
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 a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
The applicant advised Members of the circumstances relating to a conviction for using a mobile phone whilst driving. The applicant stated that his phone was sitting in a cradle on his dashboard when he hit a pothole. The phone fell between his feet and he reached down to get it. This was witnessed by a police officer. The driver accepted that he should have pulled over first in order to retrieve his phone.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Act, and the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application for the grant of a Personal Licence.
The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s reasons for applying, namely that he and his wife had been offered an opportunity and that obtaining the licence would enable him to return to employment and give back to the community. This was taken into account as part of their overall consideration.
However, Members attached significant weight to the fact that he did not declare his conviction on the application form. This non-disclosure meant that his application did not present a full and accurate account of his background. Members considered his explanation for this omission, which was that it was an error on his part and that he had relied on advice from the licensing office.
Members also considered the nature and circumstances of the conviction, which arose from an offence of failing to provide a specimen at the roadside. The applicant had explained that this occurred after a long day, that he had panicked when approached by the police, and that he suffered from breathing difficulties following Covid-19. He further acknowledged that this was a significant mistake in his life.
Members attached significant weight to the seriousness and recency of the conviction, which was recorded in November 2024. They did not find that the explanation provided for either the offence itself or the failure to declare the conviction was sufficient to allay their concerns regarding the applicant’s reliability, judgment, and ability to uphold the responsibilities associated with holding a Personal Licence.
Having weighed all of the evidence before them, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the mistakes he had made and emphasised that he had been a responsible driver for nearly thirty years. He believed that he had briefly been distracted on a couple of occasions while chatting to passengers, which led to him not paying enough attention to the speed limit.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had three convictions for speeding, one in a 30mph zone and two in 20mph zones. One was on Greenway Road in Rumney and another on Manor Way. He had not realised that he had to declare each offence to the licensing authority as soon as it happened.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s friend explained that he had made several mistakes in the same spot within just over a week, in an area that he was unfamiliar with.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the offences had all happened in the CF72 area near Llantrisant. He normally worked in the city centre and didn’t know the area very well. He had been caught going 25mph on two occasions and 26mph on the other. He had reported the offences upon renewal, not being aware that he had to before then.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 the driver had a conviction for common assault which he failed to declare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that it had stemmed from a family argument, after which he was arrested for assault. He didn’t feel he had done anything wrong but had been to court and been convicted, having pleaded guilty on the advice of his solicitor. He needed his job to support his family.
Members queried the timeline of events and heard that the assault had occurred in 2021 and he was convicted in 2022. The driver had submitted his renewal application the day after going to court and had not declared the pending conviction, nor had he declared it in 2025 when he renewed his licence. The driver suggested that he had made a mistake and had not intended to hide it.
Members queried a further traffic offence declared on his latest application, and heard that he had been pulled over for going through a red light on Newport Road last year. The driver explained that he didn’t believe the light had been red at the time.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had admitted to making mistakes and served his punishment.
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 License given that the driver had declared he was disqualified from driving for 6 months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was ashamed of himself for being there, and that he was a responsible member of the community in Cardiff who respected the city. He had been disqualified from driving due to totting up offences, having been caught speeding twice and failing to comply with a red light. The speeding offences had been for going 28mph in a 20 zone and 37mph in a 30.
Members asked when the disqualification had taken place, and heard that it lasted from July last year until January.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 the driver had 6 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that a friend had been driving him back from Birmingham, but struggled to do the last leg of the journey due to back pain. He wanted to help his friend get home so he drove his car, believing that this was legal because he was fully insured on his own vehicle. He was pulled over for not having his lights on, and found out that he had committed an offence of driving without the correct insurance.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that his friend’s car was a private vehicle rather than a taxi. He had been driving in the UK since 2019 and the offence had happened in 2024.
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 License given that a complaint had been received alleging he gave a fixed charge for a journey within the Cardiff boundary, refused to use the meter and became angry when questioned.
The Sub Committee received representations from witnesses who were passengers in the vehicle. Members were advised that the fare was for six passengers with three stops in Radyr, Morganstown and Pentyrch. The driver requested £30 for the journey but the fare was usually in the region of £20. The witness requested the driver to use the meter and he refused to do so.
The driver accepted that there was a dispute regarding the fare but felt that the passengers were becoming aggressive so he asked them to leave his vehicle. The marshal at the taxi rank spoke with the customers and they were advised to get into another vehicle.
The Sub Committee viewed CCTV evidence of the incident and questioned all parties in order to clarify the sequence of events.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for refusing a fare.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 6 points on his driving licence.
The driver accepted that he had been using a mobile phone whilst driving. He was unable to recall whether he had passengers in the vehicle at the time and accepted that he should have notified the Licencing Office.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(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 the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence. Members were advised that all the offences were reported to the Licensing Office at the time they occurred.
RESOLVED – that the driver receives a written warning for driving offences.
(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 he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
The driver did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(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 the driver declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driver received 3 penalty points for speeding and 6 points for permitting the use of his vehicle whilst uninsured.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(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 he had failed to declare that he had been disqualified from driving for six months.
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 License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence for speeding.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(8)
Application 8
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. Members were advised that Veezu had disengaged the driver from their platform following multiple complaints from customers.
The driver was not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 8 weeks.
(9)
Application 9
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 the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver was not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(10)
Application 10
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 the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence for speeding.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(11)
Application 11
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 a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Members were advised that the applicant had was convicted of money laundering in 2023 for an offence that had occurred in 2019. The applicant advised that he gave a friend a lift, and the car was surrounded by plain-clothes police officers who arrested them. His friend was selling drugs and had a large amount of cash on him.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he pushed in at the Heath hospital rank, and in a separate incident on the same date, said he would beat another driver and pushed them.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been a taxi driver for ten years with a clean record. He believed that the complaint was part of a targeted campaign of harassment against him. He recalled that as he had attempted to leave the rank, another driver had blocked his car and he had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting him. He felt the other driver had been aggressive and unprofessional, while he had remained inside his car to protect his passenger and prevent the situation escalating.
The driver also disputed the complainant’s suggestion that he had followed him afterwards. He just wanted to work without being harassed, but felt he was being bullied by other drivers because he followed the official rules rather than an unofficial system. The driver’s representative added that there was no official rank in place at the Heath hospital, where the incident had taken place.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he saw the driver pick up an old lady by the hospital and drive away. When he returned, the witness went over and asked why he was pinching fares from the back of the rank. The driver then threatened him, saying he was going to smash his face and that he couldn’t fight back because he was old. He also used abusive language which the witness found very offensive.
The witness added that he believed he had been followed by the driver on more than one occasion, and that other drivers had an issue with how he didn’t follow the queuing system. He emphasised that he was not an aggressive person and had not received any complaints himself. He was less concerned about the driver pinching fares than his conduct towards other drivers, and the language he used towards him.
Members asked how much time had passed between the initial pickup and the confrontation when the driver returned. The witness estimated that it was 30-45 minutes later. Members asked whether there was anyone else present, and heard that three other taxis were parked there in addition to the driver and the witness.
The driver’s representative emphasised that it was not an official rank, and the driver was entitled to pick up the fare from where he was. He did not feel that the witness’ description of the incident fit with the video Members had viewed. He considered it to be a he-said-she-said situation that was not deserving of sanction.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken, with the driver receiving an advice letter about their professional conduct towards other drivers.
(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 receiving alleging that he did not have a card reader and did not display his vehicle or driver’s ID badges.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not have anything to add to his written statement. The driver’s representative suggested that his badges had been visible in the window.
Members asked whether the driver was aware that he was not allowed to ply for trade without a card machine, so continuing to work after leaving it at home was a breach of his licence. The driver confirmed that he was aware of this, and added that he only realised he had forgotten it when the customer asked to pay by card. It was his first fare of the night, at around 1am, having started working at 12:30am. He didn’t charge passenger for the journey and then went home.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that the driver did not attempt to look for the card reader at any point, and just asked for cash immediately. He added that the badge holders on the windscreen appeared to be empty. The driver’s representative disputed this, suggesting that the photo provided was not clear, and it may have been a transfer rather than the physical badge.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had not charged for the fare upon realising his mistake, and then finished his shift and went home. He had made a mistake but would learn from it and always have a card machine available in the future.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 alleging he charged more than the legal fare by applying a £1 charge for payment by card.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t recall the incident but did not normally charge for card payments. His representative added that there had been a long gap between the incident and his interview about it, which wasn’t the driver’s fault.
Members asked whether the driver was aware that he wasn’t allowed to charge additional fees for card payments. The driver confirmed that he was, and that he only charged the meter price within the city boundary. The driver’s representative suggested that it may have been an honest mistake as he didn’t recall it.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled getting into a taxi at the train station to go to the Hilton as she had a suitcase. Upon arrival she took out her card to pay the fare and saw that the driver had added an additional £1. She challenged this as she thought it wasn’t legal, but the driver said he was allowed to add a charge. The witness wasn’t sure if the law was different in Wales so she paid the extra pound, but took a picture of his plate just in case.
She added that the driver’s demeanour had changed when she took a photo, and he had hurried her away. She had made the complaint because she was concerned that vulnerable passengers who were unaware of the rules might be taken advantage of.
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 Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he was rude and dismissive about a passenger’s mobility issues.
The driver was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had booked a taxi and then requested a different route. The driver became rude and said that she shouldn’t give him orders. When they arrived at the drop-off point, he refused to go any closer than 30 metres away because there was a van there, even though he had plenty of space to go around. He raised his voice and was intimidating and disrespectful towards her, and asked repeatedly if she was going to leave his taxi.
She added that she had felt unsafe and intimidated by the experience. She had mobility problems, but even if she didn’t, the driver should have stopped at the agreed spot.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 he had failed to provide a DBS certificate since renewal of his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had had an issue with the renewal process, and provided his previous DBS certificate to the committee. He had not yet received his new DBS but would provide it as soon as possible.
Members noted that the previous DBS showed a conviction in 2020 for possession of a knife, blade or sharp pointed article in a public place, and for threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour with the intention of causing fear or violence. The driver explained that this had been the result of a confrontation with a bailiff who clamped his car and then called the police on him. The driver added that he had learned his lesson and had had no problems since, and worked to support his children. He had declared the conviction to the licensing authority when it happened.
Members noted that he had been asked to provide a DBS in August, several months into the renewal process. The driver apologised for not producing it yet and said that he would follow up as soon as possible.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days for failure to provide a DBS certificate in a timely manner.
(7)
Application 7
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(8)
Application 8
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 he had been issued with a Simple Caution by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council in respect of a plying for hire offence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had taken a fare from Cardiff to Pontypridd, and having dropped them off, was flagged down and stopped by an Rhondda Cynon Taf licensing enforcement officer. He accepted that he wasn’t licensed to pick up fares in Pontypridd, and accepted a caution from RCT council.
The driver added that he genuinely didn’t realise he had to report the caution to Cardiff as well. He had declared it upon renewal as it was a question on the application.
The driver’s representative added that the driver been licensed since 2017 without incident and was clearly a fit and proper person. He had pulled over when hailed and been caught out by a licensing enforcement operation, and had been cautioned rather than prosecuted. He also felt it was understandable that the driver had not realised he had to report it to a different authority immediately.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
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 had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that several years ago he had unwittingly laundered money for a friend who used him to transfer money between accounts. He only became aware of the full details when the case went to trial for fraud. It was several years ago and he had not been involved in anything illegal before or since. Members asked about the timeline and heard that the offences had taken place in 2022 and gone to court in 2024.
He added that in the last few years he had been training as an apprentice carpenter and would soon be fully qualified. He had tried to turn his life around and expected it to be difficult to be self-employed as a carpenter, so he hoped to become a taxi driver to support himself further.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(10)
Application 10
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 had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been convicted of two domestic common assault offences in 2022, which he understood shouldn’t have happened. His record was otherwise clean, and he had driven taxis in Cardiff for 18 years before his licence had been revoked in 2024. He felt that he had changed his life since the offences and was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.
A friend of the applicant added that after he was found guilty, he received a 14 week sentence and a community work requirement. It was a minor assault and an isolated incident, and there was no serious likelihood of him reoffending. He had also completed a six month program on building better relationships.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application, subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police.
The Sub Committee noted the concerns raised regarding antisocial behaviour, drug supply, and the general character of the area. However, no evidence had been presented to demonstrate that these issues could be directly attributed to this premises.
Members further noted that the premises had been operating for approximately eight months and that no evidence had been presented of breaches, enforcement action or complaints during that time. While the applicant had limited experience of running a licensed premises, they placed weight on the absence of any issues during the period the premises has been trading.
Members also noted that the premises was not located within a Cumulative Impact Area, and therefore negative cumulative impact was not a matter they could take into account when determining the application, and the commercial demand for a premises was not a consideration for the Sub Committee.
Having considered all the evidence and representations, they were satisfied that the grant of the premises licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. Members noted that the Licensing Act allowed for any person to apply to review a licence in future should evidence arise that the operation of the premises was undermining any of the licensing objectives.
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 alleging that he failed to use the meter for a journey within the Cardiff boundary and overcharged a passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that when the complainant had approached his taxi and asked to go to St Mellons, he told her it would likely cost more than usual as it was an event day. She said she normally paid around £20 to get to that area. Throughout the journey she was very quiet and eventually asked to be dropped off by the roundabout by Tesco, but he felt it wasn’t safe there. She paid £20 in total but no more.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver estimated that the meter had read £25 or £26 when she got out. He was used to customers trying not to pay, especially when drunk, so he occasionally asked for a deposit, and his card machine wasn’t working at the time. He knew he had to provide that option but it had stopped working just before the journey.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that when she got in and asked to go to St Mellons, she told the driver she had £20 cash or could pay by card. He said it would be £30, and then immediately asked for the £20 cash. His meter wasn’t running, which he claimed was due to the event that day but she knew that wasn’t how it worked.
She added that the driver then insisted she pay another £5 by bank transfer. She tried to do this but her banking app wasn’t working, so he said he’d drive her to a cash machine to get the money. She didn’t feel safe doing that so she asked to get out. The driver asked for her name and address as she left, which she did not provide. She emphasised that whether or not she had been drinking was irrelevant.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver suggested that he had asked for the extra money because the meter had gone above £25. The witness suggested that the meter had not been on at any time during the journey.
The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, clarified that all journeys within the Cardiff boundary should be on the meter. He calculated the journey taken as being worth approximately £19.65, at most a couple of pounds more depending on stops and traffic lights. The £30 requested was significantly more than that in any case.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for 28 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item 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 Licence given that he had been stopped by a Licensing Enforcement Officer carrying passengers within the Cardiff boundary failing to use the meter.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been waiting at the rank for a while as it was a quiet night. The customers had approached him and asked to go to Llanishen, which he said would cost £17-18 on the meter. They were happy with this so he didn’t turn the meter on, despite knowing it was a requirement.
The witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, added that the vehicle had been pulled over during a licensing operation which found that the meter was either not on or not working. He spoke to the passengers, who confirmed that they were advised at the outset of the journey that it would be a cash fare of £17, and he cautioned the driver for failing to use the meter. He asked him to reset the meter afterwards, which he reluctantly accepted.
Members asked the driver if he had used the meter on his previous journeys that day, and heard that this was his first fare of the day. Members asked why the vehicle had been stopped in the first place, and heard that this was due to a defective numberplate light.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(4)
Application 4
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 alleging that he failed to use the meter and charged a fare in excess of the legal tariff.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t remember the exact trip or the fare he charged, but if a customer felt they had been overcharged then he understood it was a serious issue. He knew he had to use the meter correctly and charge the approved fare, and he had reflected carefully since he learned of the complaint. He suggested that personal and financial pressure may had affected his judgement, and he took full responsibility and was willing to refund the customer if needed.
Members asked why the payment receipt had showed a different name to the driver, and heard that he had been temporarily using his daughter’s card reader because his was damaged. He understood that using someone else’s account was not allowed, but wanted to be able to continue working while his was broken.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he had been visiting Cardiff from Glasgow last summer. He had arrived at the central railway station with a lot of bags and sought a taxi from the rank there to the Premier Inn on Pentwyn Road. He didn’t have any cash so asked the driver if he had a card reader before getting in. It had been a pleasant journey where he and the driver chatted a lot, but he was shocked when the driver told him the price was £34.50. He couldn’t see any meter to prove this was a fair price but didn’t feel he could walk away without paying, so he did so by card.
The witness added that he spoke to an Uber driver the next day who was appalled when he mentioned the cost. The other driver suggested that he make a complaint as it reflected very poorly on the city for visitors to be ripped off. The witness used several more taxis during his time in Cardiff and none of the fares were anywhere close to £34.50.
The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, explained that he had investigated the complaint and initially found it difficult to identify the driver due to the different card reader and bank account. He had calculated the fare as having been worth approximately £19.30, and then interviewed the driver for potentially overcharging and failing to use a meter.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver reiterated that he didn’t recall the journey in question but had learned a lesson from the complaint. The witness suggested that it was unlikely he didn’t remember it, as he had a distinctive Glaswegian accent and they had spoken in detail about the city and both of their family links there. He did not want to be refunded for the journey, only to ensure it didn’t happen to anyone else.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(6)
Application 6
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(7)
Application 7
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 had a criminal conviction and a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was enthusiastic about driving and wanted it to be his livelihood. He had made mistakes in the past which had led to being disqualified, but felt he was a different person now and was fit and proper to drive taxis in Cardiff.
Members asked about his convictions and disqualification, which the applicant clarified had been for six months in 2022. He didn’t feel that his convictions had been correct decisions but he had accepted them. He had been accused of attempting to drive with a drug level above the specified limit, but emphasised that he had just been sitting in his car and not trying to drive it.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(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 had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he wanted to contribute positively to the city. He had several convictions from 2024 but hoped he would be considered a fit and proper person. He wanted to work to support his family rather than being on benefits, and hoped he would be allowed to drive taxis as he liked driving and had a clean licence.
Members asked for more details about his convictions, which the applicant explained had been for threatening or disorderly behaviour, resisting arrest and criminal damage to a police vehicle. He accepted he had done something wrong and emphasised that he would not do it again, and had undertaken an unpaid work requirement and paid the fines. He felt that the offences had been based on a misunderstanding as he had been very new in the country at the time.
Members asked why he had not declared his convictions on his application, and heard that he had misunderstood the question as being about his driving licence rather than his personal life.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(9)
Application 9
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 had motoring convictions and a previous criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he his first conviction had been in 2018 for possession of cannabis, and he had plead guilty in court and took full responsibility for his actions. He had since been sent back to court four times for not completing a community order, but felt this was partly due to an administrative error and provided evidence that he had completed the necessary requirements.
He clarified that the other offence had involved driving a family member’s car while he didn’t have a licence. He had refused to provide a specimen following this, not realising at the time that this was a crime.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(10)
Application 10
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 had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that she had been disqualified from driving for six months in 2023 after totting up points on her licence. She hadn’t been in a good place and had been going through a difficult family time, but had overcome that now and felt she’d grown up, and the points had expired. She drove coaches for a living and was seeking a taxi licence to expand her options.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.
RESOLVED – The Sub?Committee heard from the applicant, considered all evidence, submissions, and written material, and reviewed the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the National Licensing Policy Framework, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, and the Cumulative Impact Assessment. The Sub?Committee also heard the oral representations made by the local ward member on behalf of a local resident.
The Sub?Committee noted that the premises had been trading for a significant number of years and had established a positive track record of management. It also noted that no representations had been received from either South Wales Police or Environmental Health, and the Sub?Committee attached appropriate weight to the absence of objections from the responsible authorities.
The Sub?Committee considered the explanation provided on behalf of the applicant that the current door restriction was imposed more than two decades ago in different regulatory circumstances, and that subsequent planning decisions had permitted later use of the Westgate Street entrance. The Sub?Committee also acknowledged the applicant’s position that extending the operational hours of that entrance would improve customer flow and support effective management, particularly during peak times, without undermining the licensing objectives.
However, the Sub?Committee also acknowledged the concerns raised by the local ward member on behalf of residents, particularly in relation to the unique characteristics of Westgate Street, its proximity to the Principality Stadium and Cardiff Arms Park, and the limitations faced by some residents due to conservation area restrictions preventing the installation of double glazing. The Sub?Committee accepted that residents regularly experience elevated levels of disturbance during major events and that the reopening of an additional access/egress point could potentially increase the risk of public nuisance if not carefully managed.
The Sub?Committee had regard to the fact that the objections centred primarily on the prevention of public nuisance and considered whether the proposed variation, if granted, would adversely impact that licensing objective. In doing so, the Sub?Committee took account of the applicant’s assurances regarding continued responsible operation, the existing use of door staff, and the willingness of the applicant to adopt additional controls through a formal management plan.
Balancing all the evidence, the Sub?Committee concluded that the premises had demonstrated a history of compliance, that responsible authorities had raised no objections, and that the proposed variation could be permitted without undermining the licensing objectives, provided that additional safeguards were applied. The Sub?Committee therefore considered it appropriate and proportionate to grant the variation subject to additional conditions designed to address concerns relating to public nuisance, particularly on major event days.
Accordingly, the Sub?Committee resolved to GRANT the application subject to the following additional conditions:
• There will be no exiting from the doors on Westgate Street on major event days after 9pm.
• The premises shall operate a documented door management plan designed to minimise disturbance to nearby residents. The plan must outline procedures for controlling entry and exit, managing external areas, preventing noise from patrons, and addressing any incident that may impact local residents. The plan shall be kept on the premises and made available for inspection by authorised officers.
The Sub?Committee further noted that the application sought to include the following wording:
“The entrance doors to the Westgate Street frontage shall not be used by customers or staff for the purpose of exit/egress to and from the premises between the hours of 23:15 and 09:00 Monday to Saturday and between 22:45 and 09:00 on Sundays except in the case of emergency.”
For clarity, the Sub?Committee resolved to amend this to read:
“entrance/egress to and from the premises.”
The Sub?Committee considered that these conditions struck the appropriate balance between supporting the needs of the business and addressing the concerns of local residents. The Sub?Committee concluded that, with these measures in place, the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance would be promoted.
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 Driver’s License given that a complaint was received alleging he placed a customer in another vehicle in danger by opening the rear passenger door of that Hackney Carriage whilst it was in
motion.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had driven taxis since 2016 and had never been before the Sub Committee. He recalled that he had been waiting a long time at the rank by the Heath hospital, and helped an elderly gentleman who needed directions before allowing another driver to take a short fare as they needed to leave soon. He then saw another driver come from the back of the rank and call over a customer, which happened regularly as customers tended not to know about the queuing system.
He walked over to the vehicle to tell the customer that she should have got in his car, and put his hand on the door. He disagreed with the witness’ recollection that he had run over to them, as he wasn’t able to run due to a series of knee operations. He recalled that the vehicle was stationary when he put his hand on the door, but it moved away and then stopped again. He asked the driver why he had jumped the queue, and the passenger got out and got into a separate cab as she didn’t want to travel in either of theirs. The driver acknowledged that the passenger had been scared and distressed and apologised for this.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness (the passenger) recalled that she had been in a hurry because she had gone to the wrong hospital and needed to get to Llandough. She knew to go to the front of the rank but saw that the first driver was talking to someone, so she went to the next available car and got in the back. As it pulled away, she realised that the passenger door was being opened, and was certain that this happened while the car was moving. The person opening the door then remonstrated with the driver, which she found very distressing. The door shut and she asked the driver to stop so she could get out. The man who had opened the door seemed out of control and was shouting and threatening.
The second witness, who had picked up the passenger and had his door opened, recalled that when the customer first came over, he told her to go to the front of the rank, but she was in a rush and the first two drivers were unavailable, so she got in and he started driving away. He was focusing on joining the lane on the right when the other driver opened the door and started shouting at him, which he found shocking as it put him and the customer in danger.
The Sub Committee viewed two videos of the incident, one being CCTV of the rank and the other having been recorded afterwards by the driver whose taxi door was opened.
Members noted that the car was clearly moving when the door was opened and asked how the driver responded to this. He suggested that he had meant it was stationary until he came near it, and he opened the door because the window was closed.
Members discussed the queuing system and noted that this was an informal arrangement between drivers. They suggested that allowing another driver to take a short fare just beforehand could have been interpreted as meaning that he was not accepting fares at that time, and that this minor misunderstanding had only escalated into a serious issue when he came over and opened the door of a moving vehicle.
The driver’s representative asked if the witness had seen the CCTV video at the time she made her statement, which she confirmed she hadn’t. The representative asked if she recalled the second driver signalling her to get in, which she was not sure about, but she remembered that at the time he seemed to be the next available car on the rank.
In summing up, the driver’s representative emphasised that his client had been waiting patiently at the front of the queue, following the system set up by council officers to ensure fairness. He felt the other driver had picked up a fare he wasn’t entitled to and sought to speak to him about it. Opening the door was a momentary situation, and he let go almost immediately as the driver stopped the vehicle. The representative also provided further references on behalf of his client.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(3)
Application 3
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 he had been reported for hostile behaviour and shouting and for not providing details after an accident.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that on the day in question he picked up a passenger in Whitchurch and stopped behind a bus. Moving around the bus to overtake, he saw oncoming traffic and moved back. As the bus pulled out, he tried to maintain his position and moved back into traffic. He heard beeping behind him and then the person behind him said he had hit her car so he pulled over to speak to her.
The driver emphasised that he had been respectful throughout the conversation. He had said that he didn’t think his car had touched hers because there was no damage to either, and had explained that her car was now facing the wrong way on a one way street. He took a video of both cars to show the lack of damage, and noted that any contact would have left paint marks as the cars were different colours. He added that she had asked to use his phone, and when he said no she tried to grab it, which he found intimidating. He didn’t feel she had a claim, and she didn’t ask for any details even though he was wearing his taxi badge.
Members asked whether the driver had a dashcam on his vehicle. He explained that he didn’t at the time but had since installed front and back ones. He added that his car had sensors for reversing and automatic brakes, which did not make it impossible for him to hit another car, but made it less likely.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that rather than rolling back, the driver had reversed out of a side street while she was waiting stationary to the side of the bus at a red light. She beeped her horn but his car hit hers. She had not sought to make an insurance claim afterwards, and was concerned by his behaviour rather than her car. She felt that his driving had been reckless and his tone aggressive, and he had driven away without providing details.
The driver’s representative asked if the witness had contacted Veezu afterwards. She confirmed that she had, regarding the driver’s behaviour rather than as an insurance complaint, and Veezu had advised her to contact the council. She wasn’t seeking to gain anything from the situation and felt it was about accountability.
Members viewed a video taken by the driver after the incident. The witness clarified that the incident had happened on Merthyr Road, before they pulled over in a side street. The driver had parked in a bay and the witness alongside him.
The driver’s representative asked the witness why she had asked for his phone. She explained that hers was in her car and she wanted to call her husband, having felt like the driver was being confrontational and twisting the facts to make it seem like the incident had happened somewhere else.
Summing up, the driver’s representative suggested that there was no clear evidence that a collision had taken place, with no damage to either car, and that there was no evidence to support the allegation that his client’s conduct had been poor.
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 he had been reported for intimidating and abusive behaviour towards a member of the public.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he had been working at the Cardiff Central rank, and when it was his turn he said to the passenger that he was the next driver and helped put her suitcase in the boot. She explained that she always took a photo of the taxi badge when she took a cab. He responded that he was licenced by the council, and that if she wasn’t comfortable with him she could go with any other driver, and he helped get her suitcase back out. In his memory that was the end of the incident, and he didn’t use any bad language, call her a racist, or speak in any other language.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that when she got to the train station rank, the driver came straight over and took her bag so she got her phone out and took a photo of the licence plate. She had done this as a safety precaution for many years since having a bad experience in a taxi, and either took a photo of the numberplate or screenshotted the driver’s Uber profile to sent it to her husband. She felt this was entirely reasonable as it was a dark night and she was a woman on her own in an unfamiliar city.
She added that when she explained what she was doing to the driver, he thought she was accusing him of being dangerous, and said she was being racist. He took her suitcase out and put it on the road, and started shouting to other drivers and waving his arms. Two or three other drivers put up their windows and turned away from her, and none seemed willing to take her so she walked away. A different driver saw she was upset and was very helpful, and explained it was better to take a picture of the taxi badge rather than the numberplate. She emphasised that she never said she wouldn’t travel with the driver, but he made it clear he wouldn’t take her after she took the photo.
Members asked if she had told the driver what she was doing before she took the photo, and heard that she didn’t have the chance to as it happened very quickly. He picked up her bags immediately and put them in the boot so she took the photo at the same time. She did not feel it was out of the ordinary to take a photo of the numberplate, and was surprised by the reaction.
Members asked the driver why he had an issue with the passenger taking a photo of his numberplate, which he insisted that he didn’t. He had driven taxis for 27 years and had never had a problem with customers taking precautions for their own safety. He suggested that the passenger had thought he was an Uber driver, and he had assured her that he was licensed by the council. The witness disagreed with this, as she had sought directions to the official rank and knew he was a licensed Hackney Carriage driver.
Members asked whether the driver understood that saying something along the lines of ‘if you don’t like it you can leave’ might have sounded like he didn’t want to take the passenger, regardless of intention. The driver emphasised that he hadn’t been aggressive and didn’t accuse the passenger of being racist. The driver’s representative suggested that he understood how the passenger felt, and in hindsight it would be a learning point for the driver.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his future conduct.
(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 he had 15 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that contrary to the details in the report, his first licence had been awarded in January 2010 and he had completed the BTEC course. He valued his work highly and fully appreciated the seriousness of the situation, and didn’t want to lose everything he had worked for.
He explained that none of the speeding offences concerned had been dangerous or reckless. They included going at 68mph in a 60mph variable speed limit zone on the motorway, and 62 in a 50mph zone where he had failed to see a sign, and he acknowledged that both of these were poor driving. In court, he had pleaded excessive financial hardship if he was unable to continue driving, and this was granted alongside a significant fine.
He had submitted testimonies from numerous clients and hoped this gave Members confidence in his ability to provide safe and secure passenger transfer. Most of his work involved government contracts and he had always had good reviews. He now used a speed limiter and cruise control at all times.
Members queried one of the offences which involved failing to provide information as to the identity of a driver. The driver explained that he normally waited for the reminder of a ticket to come through, and when he didn’t receive one he thought it might have been withdrawn. It was only when the summons came through six months later that he realised the seriousness of the situation.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.