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 – 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.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance, and had failed to declare both this conviction and that he had been refused a licence by Newport City Council on his application form.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had committed an IN10 offence in 2020 while caring for his grandparents. He drove their car to the shop without checking the insurance, and was stopped by the police. He took full responsibility for this and had accepted his punishment. He emphasised that it was a one-off mistake which would never happen again. He was a very careful driver who had received no points of any kind since, and the endorsement was now removed from his licence.
Members asked why he had incorrectly filled out his application when it asked about previous convictions and whether he had been refused by any other authorities. The applicant explained that he had declared the conviction on his Newport application, but when they refused him he panicked, feeling a lot of financial pressure as he needed a livelihood. He understood that he had made a mistake in being dishonest on his application, and was regretful of this decision and felt it didn’t reflect his character.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance, and had failed to declare that he had been refused a licence by Newport City Council on his application form.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had committed an IN10 offence by driving a short distance in an uninsured vehicle while his other car was being repaired. When he applied for a taxi licence, he misunderstood the question about whether he had been refused by another local authority, and believed it was only asking about Cardiff. He had come into the taxi office to apply and had mentioned being refused by Newport while he was there.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his driving licence. He was referred to the Public Protection Sub Committee and subsequently had his licence revoked.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had come before the Sub Committee in early 2025 and been advised to apply again at the end of the year. He recalled that he wasn’t driving a taxi when the offences occurred in 2020, because at the time he was running a shop in Newport instead. He committed a number of speeding offences in his personal vehicle and totted up too many points, but was allowed to continue driving after pleading exceptional hardship. He was then pulled over for having defective tyres and disqualified for six months. The disqualification had been served and he now had no points on his licence.
Members asked when he had first become a licensed taxi driver. The applicant explained that he had been licensed by Cardiff in 2010, and had operated for ten years without any issues. He had applied to Newport and Wolverhampton councils for a licence last year and been refused.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(5)
Application 5
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he accepted full responsibility for the MS90 offence he had committed. He hoped Members could take into account the exceptional circumstances he was going through at the time, as he and his family were dealing with a traumatic series of events. He had been constantly travelling from his home to the hospital, and didn’t pay due attention to the form he needed to fill out.
He emphasised that it was not an attempt to mislead anyone or any sort of dangerous driving offence, but rather an oversight, but he accepted responsibility for his mistake. He understood the standards expected of licensed drivers and felt he was a fit and proper person.
Members asked if he was licensed anywhere else. The applicant clarified that he had been licensed by Newport since 2022, but lived and worked in Cardiff, so would prefer to be licensed there.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control.
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 he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had worked as a taxi driver for over 30 years and this was his first time before the Committee. Members were advised that the two SP30 driving offences had both occurred outside Cardiff in the early hours of the morning. The vehicle was travelling at 26mph in a 20mph zone and there were no passengers in the vehicle at the time.
The driver accepted that he was at fault, and he was now extra vigilant when it came to complying with speed limits.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(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 he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the 3 SP30 driving offences had all occurred within a short space of time. The driver had taken fares to Swansea and was unfamiliar with the area. The speeds for the offences were 22mph, 22mph and 27mph respectively.
Members were advised that the offences were reported to the Hackney Office at the time. The driver was now very vigilant as he was fully aware that any conviction for a further driving offence would affect his livelihood.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(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 failed to remain with his taxi after parking it on a rank, failed to display the interior plate and was rude and aggressive to Licensing Enforcement officers.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that on the day in question the driver parked in a taxi rank in order to go to his bank. When he returned to his vehicle he became aware of somebody taking photographs of his vehicle.
When asked, the lady identified herself as a Licensing Officer. She asked why he had parked in the rank and was ‘shouting and raving’. The driver denied that he was rude and aggressive to the Licensing Officers and suggested that the statements made by the witnesses were concocted. He stated that he was calm and respectful throughout the incident and denied using bad language.
The driver confirmed that he was aware that parking on a taxi rank was not permitted.
The Sub Committee also received representations from two Licensing Officers. The officers were invited to explain their version of the incident. Members were advised that the driver was rude and aggressive and had used phrases such as “I don’t give a shit”. The officers attempted to defuse the situation by inviting the driver to attend an interview at a later date. At that point they were accused of being “on a power trip”.
The officers stated that there was no window badge on display in the vehicle at the time of the incident.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire licence be suspended for two weeks for unacceptable 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 Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging abusive and threatening behaviour towards a fellow driver whilst carrying passengers.
Members were asked to consider the circumstances which had led to a disagreement between two drivers in the Kingsway area of the City Centre. The Sub Committee watched a video of a driver in a heated argument with another driver and using very strong bad language in front of passengers in his vehicle.
The driver was invited to provide details of his recollection of the incident. Members were advised that the driver was parked at the front of an unofficial rank and was next in line to collect a fare. The complainant’s vehicle parked in front of him and attempted to hail passengers.
The driver asked the complainant to move his vehicle. The complainant refused stating that it was not a legal taxi rank. The complainant then left his vehicle and came to the side of the driver’s vehicle, provoking a reaction.
The driver accepted that his response was wholly inappropriate and unprofessional. He stated that he now wished he had left the area immediately and had taken his passengers home.
The complainant was invited to address the Sub Committee. Members were advised that after overtaking the parked vehicle the driver started swearing and spitting. He therefore started to record the incident. The complainant considered that the other driver’s behaviour fell far short of the standards expected.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire licence be suspended for 60 days for unacceptable conduct.
(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 requested a fixed price card payment once the passengers were in the vehicle and the journey had already started to an area outside of the Cardiff boundary.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had agreed a fare of £50 to first take a passenger to Barry and then make a second drop off returning to Dinas Powys. After commencing the journey, the driver asked whether the passenger would be paying by cash or card. The passenger stated that it would be a card payment and therefore the driver stopped the vehicle and attempted to take the payment before the end of the journey. The driver stated that he did this because he had had several incidents where card payments have been declined.
The driver accepted that he should have asked for the payment when the price for the fare was agreed at the taxi rank.
The complainant stated that at the start of the journey, whilst an indication of the cost had been provided, he was unaware whether the driver was using the meter or not. The vehicle stopped in Callaghan Square and the driver requested payment. The complainant considered this to be inappropriate and refused to pay until the end of the journey. The complainant felt uneasy and was concerned that this portrayed a pattern of behaviour rather than a simple misunderstanding.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
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 motoring conviction contrary to the guidance and had been refused a licence by another local authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that whilst working delivering food his vehicle had broken down. He therefore used his cousin’s vehicle. He updated his insurance policy to allow his to use the different vehicle. However, whilst he was able to drive the vehicle as a third party he was not allowed to use it for food deliveries. He was stopped by the police and charged with an IN10 offence. He accepted that he was uninsured at the time.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driving offences had occurred on the A470 over a short space of time. The driver stated that after an extended break in Canada he had returned to the UK and started working. The speed limit on a section of the A470 had changed during his period abroad and he was unaware.
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 Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driver had received 6 penalty points after taking a telephone call from his daughter whilst stopped at traffic lights on Newport Road. The driver accepted responsibility for the offence. There were no passengers in the vehicle at the time. The driver accepted that he should have declared the conviction at the time of the offence as required.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(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 Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was working a private hire driver at the time of the offence. He had mistakenly picked up a passenger who was not pre-booked, when he was not insured to do so. Prior to the incident, the driver had 17 years’ experience in the trade without any complaints. He was now licensed as both a hackney carriage and private hire driver. He considered that after receiving six penalty points and a fine in the magistrate’s court and having to pay higher insurance, he had learned a valuable lesson.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(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 and a previous criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained the nature of the convictions and the circumstances surrounding the speeding offences, and that he has now addressed his behaviour and drives to a professional standard.
The Sub Committee asked the applicant to explain his conviction for money laundering. The applicant stated that the conviction had occurred whilst he was at university. A friend had asked him to create a cryptocurrency account which was then used to send money to someone else.
RESOLVED – that the application for a hackney carriage / private hire drivers 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 he abandoned his passenger at 2am following the passenger refusing to rebook the journey with a different operator for a higher fee.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver welcomed the opportunity to put his case forward. He had been a taxi driver for ten years, worked to support his children and was a big part of his local community in Cardiff. He understood his responsibilities to his community and the city and could not understand how the incident had happened, and apologised to the witness.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had just finished work in the Red Dragon Centre, and as she didn’t drive at the time she booked an Uber home. After she got in, the driver asked where she was going and complained that it was too far, asking her to rebook it with another provider and pay cash. She had already paid through Uber, so she refused. The driver kept repeating that it was too far and got louder, so she felt uncomfortable and asked if he wanted her to leave. He said yes so she got out.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he worked for both Uber and Cabs 64. He was aware of the contracts that he was entering into as a driver when he accepted a fare, and that he should have completed the job.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness confirmed that she had cancelled the journey on Uber after getting out and had got her money back, and had booked a different Uber home.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 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 Licence given that he had declared 8 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received the penalty points for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. The driver’s representative added that he had a black and white hackney vehicle which he had converted to a private hire vehicle in May 2023.
On the night in question, he was due to finish his shift as a private hire vehicle before shifting to operate as a hackney carriage later in the evening. While still operating as a private hire driver, he was approached by a passenger and agreed to take them. He was only two weeks into operating as a private hire driver, using the same vehicle. He wasn’t thinking clearly and took the passenger, but knew now that he shouldn’t have taken them as they hadn’t pre-booked.
The driver’s representative noted that he had brought additional character references, and hoped the Sub Committee would take into account that his family depended on his income, as well as the difficult year that the driver had had. He suggested that the council must have been fully aware of his situation last October when the licence was renewed, and felt the matter should have been dealt with then rather than bringing the driver back to answer for it a year later.
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 he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences, the first two being shortly after the 20mph limit was brought in, both on Manor Way on the A470 late at night, and another in 2025. He had been licensed for 22 years with no other issues. Taxi driving was his livelihood and he did it to support his family.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 he had declared 6 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t use his phone while the car was moving but jobs appeared on it and you needed to tap the screen to accept them. He wasn’t sure when exactly the offence had taken place but emphasised that he respected the rules of the road. He had been a taxi driver since 2019 and had been driving for more than forty years.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that 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 picking up a member of his family before starting work in his taxi, he had been seen by a police officer touching his phone and received six points. When it came to the renewal process he forgot to declare this. He suggested that this was an oversight rather than attempt to hide it, and he understood that it was his duty to inform the licensing authority as soon as it happened.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points through a SP50 speeding offence and an MS90 offence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. He noted that the offence did not concern his taxi but rather a private car. His wife had travelled up north using the car, and let a friend drive it back, believing they were insured to do so.
The friend was caught speeding and the driver filled in the form accordingly, but was given an MS90 offence for not providing the driver’s name. The Legal Officer clarified that it was the responsibility of the person who had been driving to fill in the form.
The driver added that he had been driving taxis for nearly 40 years in Cardiff, enjoyed his job and had served the city well. The speeding points had recently expired so he now only had six.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 was disqualified from driving in October 2022 but did not advise the licensing authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had obtained a taxi licence in 2018 and started driving them in 2019, working for Uber. He was disqualified from driving in 2022 due to totting up 12 penalty points, and served his six month disqualification in 2023.
When he came to renew his taxi licence in 2024, he wasn’t sure how to answer the questions on fixed penalties and points since his last renewal, as he didn’t know if he still had the points. He left it blank and intended to come back to it, but ran out of time before the deadline and wanted to ask for clarification at the taxi office.
Upon renewal, he handed the forms in and completely forgot to draw their attention to the gaps in the form. He didn’t think anything of it until this was flagged up almost a year later. He emphasised that he had not intended to deceive, and it was just a simple mistake.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 Licence given that he had 18 penalty points on his driving licence and had been disqualified from driving for six months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had been before them this year and mentioned two pending offences that had since been confirmed, with his licence revoked as a result. He had since handed his licence in and was not currently driving.
The driver’s representative acknowledged that he had committed repeated speeding offences, but had learned the hard way from his mistakes. He asked the Sub Committee to consider that once he was able to drive again in four months’ time, he would be a fit and proper person who could be trusted to drive a taxi safely and responsibly.
The Chair noted that the driver had previously been suspended for seven days by the Sub Committee, and before then had received a written warning. The driver’s representative noted that the warning had been for a different offence.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 he had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in a few years ago he had gone through a red light on an electric bike, not realising that this was not legal on a bike. Another offence had occurred a few hours after he had bought a car, when the insurance on the vehicle was not under his name at that time. These offences combined resulted in a six month ban, which he had served.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(11)
Application 11
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence given that the applicant previously had a Private Hire Operator Licence revoked by Newport City Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was seeking an operating licence because Newport had revoked his previous one after a misunderstanding. He understood the error he had made, and would ensure full compliance if granted a licence by Cardiff to ensure it didn’t happen again. He now had a legal advisor in place to ensure compliance.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had operated in Newport from 2021 to 2025. His operator licence had been revoked after he lent friends licensed vehicles for personal use, misunderstanding the meaning of social, domestic, pleasure (SDP) insurance. His company’s compliance had also not been deemed up to standard.
He added that there had been no complaints against him as a driver, and his new company had a Cardiff office which Licensing were welcome to visit at any time. He was happy for any conditions to be attached to his operating licence to mitigate any previous concerns.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant (South Wales Police), representations made by the respondent, and all other oral and written representations:
1. Accepted that there had been some failings at the venue, but on this occasion did not resolve to remove the DPS they were satisfied that these matters were being adequately addressed through the measures outlined by the business;
2. Recognised that the business had moved away from using standard glass vessels, and did not consider it proportionate to attach the police condition in relation to non-glass vessels;
3. Did not consider it proportionate to mandate the use of ID scanners through a licensing condition at this time;
4. Felt that the police’s suggested condition around designated walkways would be impracticable and not appropriate.
The wording of the 16 conditions that had been accepted by the licensee were accepted, with the added amendment to condition 10 (bullet point D) to state: ‘All incidents of disorder which the premises is aware, including sexual assault’.
The Sub Committee also accepted the premises plan as detailed on page 240 of the bundle.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and 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 and Environmental Health / Pollution Control.
The Sub Committee noted that the applicant has agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control, leading to the withdrawal of their objections. It felt that while local residents and the Ward Member raised valid concerns, the agreed reduction in operating hours sufficiently addressed potential late evening public nuisance.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and 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 conditions agreed with South Wales Police, and with an additional condition reducing the hours when alcohol could be sold to 7am-11pm.
The Sub Committee noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police, leading to the withdrawal of their objection. The Sub Committee accepted the concerns raised by the local resident and ward member, particularly in relation to the late night sale of alcohol. Members felt that the sale of alcohol after 11pm in this case was likely to cause an increase in crime and disorder and public nuisance, and noted that the applicant was willing to reduce the hours accordingly.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and 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
The Sub Committee noted that the application was for a premises located in an area that covered by a cumulative impact assessment, and fell within the red category. There were issues of crime and disorder in the area linked to off-licences, as outlined in the cumulative impact policy and South Wales Police’s representations. The Sub Committee also gave sufficient weight to the Licensing Authority’s representation in respect of the applicant not being sufficiently aware their own application or the cumulative impact assessment, which raised significant concerns.
The Sub Committee considered that the granting of the licence would undermine the licensing objectives and add to the negative cumulative impact within the area.
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 refused to engage his meter or accept a card payment.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he was working on the night of the alleged incident but stressed that he never refused to use the meter as he knew it was the law.
He acknowledged that the vehicle in the picture provided was his, but felt it showed that he wasn’t at the front of the rank. He did not recognise the witness as he took many fares every night. It was clarified that the witness’ statement said that the photo was of the driver leaving the rank rather than being parked there.
The driver added that he had been a taxi driver for nearly thirty years and was now a senior citizen, and followed the rules of the taxi rank. He had been a community leader for many years too. He rejected the suggestion in the witness’ statement that he had demanded £10 up front for a short fare, and refused payment by card. He emphasised that he had been driving taxis for a long time and wouldn’t risk his livelihood for a couple of pounds.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he preferred to take payment up front when people wanted to pay by card, and refunded them at the destination if the final total was less. This was in case the card was declined at the end of the journey, and he asked politely rather than demanding it. Members suggested that while asking for a small deposit was reasonable, taking the whole fare in advance was not.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he caught taxis regularly because he worked in town. He often had issues with taxi drivers who either didn’t let him pay by card or tried to charge him to take his suitcase, but things had gotten better since the taxi wardens came in. On the night in question, he was directed to the vehicle by the warden and asked to go to Grangetown. After he had put his bags in the boot, the driver told him it would be £10.
The witness added that he immediately asked to use the meter instead because the normal fare was about £8, and the driver refused. He also said that he’d be paying by card, and the driver said ‘no card or no journey’. The witness decided that it wasn’t worth it and said he’d report him, got his bags out of the boot and took a photo of the taxi licence plate. He explained this to the taxi warden too, and they went to speak to the driver, who then left the rank.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he normally had a glass of wine after work, but only one. He also clarified that he had only added that he wanted to pay by card after the driver had refused to use the meter.
The driver denied the witness’ statement entirely and suggested that he didn’t allow passengers to put their bags in the boot before they had spoken at the window and agreed a fare. He was sure that he had not refused to use the meter or take a card payment, and did not recall the taxi warden speaking to him. Members asked how he could be sure of any of this if he didn’t remember the incident.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 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 declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences in 2023, which he had declared on his renewal application. Two of the offences had happened on the same day in February 2023, the day after he had received some bad personal news which had distracted him from his driving.
Members asked why he had only declared the offences upon renewal in August 2025. The driver responded that he wasn’t aware that was part of the conditions of his licence, but knew now.
Members asked if he had received any support during the difficult time in his personal life, and how he would react to similar circumstances now. The driver explained that it was hard to stop working for more than a day or two, but he would go and see his doctor if it was really affecting him.
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 he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been a taxi driver since 2008 and took the responsibilities of his role seriously, and treated the public with respect. He understood the authority’s concern over his fitness due to his speeding offences but felt he was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.
The driver explained that two of the offences were at the same location, when the speed limit on a road near him had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He acknowledged that it was his responsibility to ensure he was aware of all speed limits, and added that he had been driving privately rather than with a passenger in his taxi on all three occasions. He also added that he had received a previous complaint about parking, when he was in a rush to get to his mosque and parked on private property nearby.
He understood the council’s policy on taxi licensing and hoped that it could be taken into account that all three offences had occurred in a short period of time, between December 2024 and April 2025. He didn’t want to make excuses but had been going through a particularly stressful time. He was familiar with the roads in Cardiff and felt he was a safe driver who treated his customers well and undertook school run contracts. He was working to support his wife and children, and asked that the Sub Committee give him another chance.
Members asked whether the driver had notified his insurance company about the points, and heard that he had.
The driver’s solicitor added that he believed his client had addressed the licensing authority’s concerns, and that on balance he was a fit and proper person to continue driving a taxi. Two of the speeding offences had occurred in the same area within a week of each other, which he felt offered some mitigation as the driver might not have been aware of the first offence when the second happened. He had driven taxis for 17 years, and there had been no further issues of any kind since the third speeding offence.
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 Licence given that he had declared ten penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that one of the speeding offences had been in Pontypridd in in December last year, when the weather was very bad. He had only recently started driving taxis again after renting them out for some time.
Members queried why one of the offences had resulted in four penalty points rather than the usual three. The driver was not sure, adding that he only became aware of it when he came to renew. He didn’t go to court and had not yet paid the fine, but would do so because he accepted that he was speeding.
Members asked if he had paid the previous fine as well. The Legal Officer clarified that both convictions were on the same day, so he would have received the fines at the same time.
Members queried the previous complaints the driver had received regarding the condition of vehicles for which he was the proprietor. The Legal Officer clarified that previous complaints were not relevant to this hearing.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had unintentionally driven a car without insurance, not realising that he was not covered to do so. He had two different types of insurance from the same company, one of which was fine to drive the vehicle and the other one that wasn’t. It was a stupid mistake and one that wouldn’t happen again. He had been driving since 2017 and this was the first issue he’d had.
The Chair clarified that due to a recent change in the law he would not be able to drive any car regardless of comprehensive insurance, only the named vehicle.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he now had six points as three had expired in August. The offences had occurred in 2022 and 2023, and two of them were in 20mph zones when he had been going under 30mph. He had since upgraded his car to one with a speed limiter that was easier to keep within the limit.
He didn’t feel he was a reckless driver and had not had any other incidents in the last two years, and had declared the offences on his renewal application. He understood that it was his responsibility to stick to the rules and ensure he was aware when they changed.
Members asked why he didn’t declare the convictions until 2024. The driver responded that he didn’t realise he had to at the time.
The driver clarified that he did have a BTEC qualification, contrary to the papers provided, and was first issued a taxi licence in 1999 rather than 1980.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he used to buy and re-sell cars, and was in Caerphilly at the time. His car was slightly damaged so he used a different one for the journey, and made sure to get himself insured on it. He forgot to take himself off the insurance, and the car was later used by someone else who was caught speeding. He was advised that he was unlikely to win the case in court as he didn’t know who the driver was, so he accepted the punishment. However, he was able to show that he was in Wolverhampton and not where the offence was committed.
Members explained that the Sub Committee was only able to go on what the court had said. Members asked if the offence had taken place in his taxi, and heard that it hadn’t.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had had a clean licence for many years but had received nine points in the last six months. He worked for Uber and got a job through on the app, taking a fare to town via Cathedral Road. He was then offered a job on Westgate Street and did a U-turn, and his phone fell on the floor of his vehicle because the holder was broken. When his car was stopped at a red light, he leant down and picked up the phone to put it back in the holder. A cyclist next to him recorded this on a camera on their helmet, and reported him for using his phone while driving.
He had tried to fight the decision but the authorities told him that he should have known better as a professional driver. He emphasised that he never used his phone while driving, and didn’t even answer it over Bluetooth when he had a passenger. He felt it would have been much riskier to leave the phone on the floor as it was connected to a charger and the cable was next to the pedals. The court had made their judgement and fined him more than £700. He went to a solicitor who advised that he was unlikely to win on appeal, so he took the points and the fine.
Members queried the second offence, which the driver clarified was for doing 26mph in a 20mph zone in Coryton. Members asked what he would do if the same thing happened again, and heard that he would pull over and turn the engine off before touching his phone.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 Licence given that he had declared 24 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the number of points and explained that he wasn’t working as a taxi driver since 2017. He had a job in Cwmbran and his daily commute was on the M4, and at the time he didn’t realise that the limit had changed to 50mph. He tended to rush home at 8pm each day to see his child before bed, and was clocked numerous times going between 50mph and 70mph in the 50mph zone.
He added that the letters making him aware of this went to the transport manager of the company he worked for, because the vehicle was registered to the company, and he wasn’t told. He argued his case in court and was given a total of 31 points, seven of which had since expired. He apologised for the offences and noted that in court the judge had not deemed him to be a dangerous driver. His insurance costs had gone up hugely since.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that all the offences were caught by the same camera on the M4. He had renewed his licence several times since 2017 as a backup in case he lost his job. He had not declared the offences when they happened because he wasn’t driving his taxi at the time, so it didn’t occur to him to inform the licensing authority. He added that he had not received any complaints from members of the public when he was driving taxis between 2011 and 2017, and felt he was a fit and proper person.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(11)
Application 11
This item 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 Licence given that upon renewal of his licence there was an issue with the DBS process.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had not been informed of the DBS issue when he most recently renewed his plates in April, and had not received any correspondence from the council either. His updated DBS had arrived at the end of May and he had provided it to the council in September but not had any confirmation that they had received it.
The driver presented his full DBS certificate to the Sub Committee. The driver’s representative noted that there were no new matters to report on the certificate, and in their view the matter was closed.
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 Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had picked up two passengers in town and taken them to Roath, before being told by a licensing officer that he shouldn’t have taken the fare because he was a private hire driver and lacked the correct insurance. He acknowledged his mistake and apologised, explaining that he was on autopilot during a busy night.
The driver added that he had received six points and paid a £940 fine for the offence. Members noted that the papers referred to a fine of £350, which the Legal Officer clarified was likely to have been one part of a combined penalty for the separate offences of plying for hire and driving without the appropriate insurance.
The driver’s representative noted that the driver had already been punished for the offence in court, and emphasised that it was an honest one-off mistake after more than 30 years of driving taxis with a clean record. The driver also acknowledged that he should have informed the licensing authority as soon as he received the points.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 the Licensing Department had received six complaints regarding refusal of fares between 2018 and 2025, and that during the investigation of the most recent complaint on the 23rd June it was alleged that the driver may also have provided a statement contrary to CCTV obtained.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative emphasised that the driver was not plying for hire, but was rather waiting to pick up his daughter after a concert. It was a very busy night after a Millennium Stadium event and many roads were closed, so he parked on Mill Lane opposite the taxi rank with his light off to wait for his daughter.
The representative suggested that the evidence provided by the licensing department was inaccurate, as the vehicle was not at the front of the queue as it wasn’t in the official rank. He suggested that rather than accepting a fare from a passenger he didn’t know, as the statement from Licensing alleged, he had picked up his daughter’s friends before driving to pick up his daughter from outside a takeaway restaurant. He emphasised that if the driver had been plying for hire, he would have parked on the other side of the rank and put his light on. He also disputed the witness’ suggestion that the driver had been rude to her.
Members asked whether the driver felt Mill Lane was a suitable pickup spot for a journey back to Gabalfa. The driver’s daughter explained that she was not very familiar with the roads in Cardiff, so it seemed easier to pick her up from the place where he normally worked from. The driver added that a lot of roads were closed because of the concert.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she hadn’t realised how difficult it would be to get a taxi after the concert, having moved away from Cardiff some time ago. She and her friends had followed the crowds towards the Mill Lane rank to try and get a ride back to Penylan, and tried asking the taxi drivers there after they had no luck with Uber. She asked the driver in question if he was available, but he ignored her.
The witness added that she then saw the driver talk to other people who needed a ride and type their postcodes into his phone before turning them down, which made her think he was cherrypicking fares. One of the friends she was travelling with was neurodivergent and disabled, while the other had a young child and was desperate to get home.
The Sub Committee viewed CCTV footage of the taxi rank and confirmed that the vehicle had been parked on the other side of the road to the main rank, and that the light on top of the vehicle was off. Members viewed the taxi driving off after two women got in, whom the driver’s daughter confirmed were her friends.
The driver’s representative emphasised that it had not been the driver’s intention to refuse or offend anyone, and that he wasn’t plying for hire because he was waiting for his daughter.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences in the same 30mph zone on Western Avenue by the Gabalfa interchange.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had 14 years’ experience as a taxi driver and worked for Uber as well, and felt he was a good driver. He had committed three speeding offences, with the first occurring in June 2023.
He wasn’t sure of the details of all of the offences, but recalled that one of them was for going 27mph in a 20 zone near Pentwyn Leisure Centre, and noted that the 20 sign there was very close to the corner so it was easily missed.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 a conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that the conviction was for an incident that happened 35 years ago, when he was in his early 20s, and he hadn’t been in any sort of trouble since. He had been imprisoned for 18 months and released after six for good behaviour.
He added that when he applied for his licence, he didn’t realise he needed an enhanced DBS disclosure and instead applied for a basic one. He had been under the impression that if it happened more than ten years ago, it did not need to be disclosed, but realised now that he had been mistaken.
He added that he had spent the last decade working across the UK in the gas industry for various companies, but had decided to come home and do a different job. He had always worked in customer care and liked working with people.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License 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 Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been disqualified from driving last year after driving a friend’s car when he didn’t realise he wasn’t insured on it. On another occasion since then he had been stopped by the police because his brake light wasn’t working, and they found an issue with his tyre.
Members noted that he had been disqualified due to totting up points, and asked what other offences were involved. The driver clarified that there had been two insurance offences, both of which involved the same car that belonged to his friend. The second offence had happened before he was informed about the insurance issue.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(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 Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence, as well as one pending speeding offence which would bring his total points to twelve.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative clarified that the pending offence had now been confirmed, so the driver had twelve points on his licence. He had been driving taxis since 2001, and though there were two matters reported in that period, neither had been upheld.
He explained that he had received six points for accidentally driving through a red light in 2024 and had committed two speeding offences in January 2025, both at the junction of Newport Road and Claremont Avenue. All of the offences had occurred in the early hours of the morning after he had dropped off customers.
The driver’s representative added that when the case went to court, the driver had pleaded exceptional hardship as he was the principal breadwinner for his family, and supported his wife and child as well as his parents, which had enabled him to continue driving despite the twelve points. He was a law-abiding driver of long standing who was aware that any further offences would result in the loss of his licence.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control.
Members noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control, and that their objections had subsequently been withdrawn.
Members considered the objections made but felt the applicant had demonstrated that the granting of the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and 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 and Environmental Health / Pollution Control.
Members noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control, and that both parties had subsequently withdrawn their objections. They also noted that matters relating to commercial competition were not relevant to their determination.
Members considered the objections raised by local residents but were satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that granting the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. They acknowledged the concerns expressed in relation to litter and antisocial behaviour in the local area, but did not consider there to be sufficient evidence directly linking these issues to the applicant’s premises.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver accessed his emails on a tablet while driving with a passenger present.
The witness did not attend the Sub Committee.
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 Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his driving licence but did not disclose them until three had expired.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that upon renewal of his licence it had flagged up that he had nine points at one point during the triannual renewal period. He apologised for this and emphasised that it was an error rather than an attempt to hide it from the licensing authority. He ran his own business which was very busy and had made an oversight.
He added that he drove around 80,000 miles a year and never drove dangerously, but had been caught out on a few occasions by speed cameras in unfamiliar areas. Since the offences he had taken every precaution to ensure it didn’t happen again.
The driver also clarified that he had undertaken the NVQ qualification, which the report stated he had not.
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 the driver had a conviction for harassment.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he accepted responsibility for the mistakes he made which led to him being convicted of harassment in 2019. He did not want to make excuses but clarified that it was online harassment that had taken place over Facebook rather than face-to-face, and he regretted his actions.
He added that he saw the conviction as a turning point and had had no issues whatsoever since. He had worked hard to turn his life around and now had a stable family life with a wife and a child. He had been doing school transport for a decade now with no complaints, and understood the importance of trust, professionalism and safeguarding.
Members asked whether he had declared the conviction on his previous renewal, which the driver confirmed he had.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points due to three speeding offences, two of which happened on the same day on Western Avenue when he didn’t realise the limit had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He had been driving taxis for many years and had a clean record until the speeding offences in 2023 and 2024.
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 the driver had a caution for importing a controlled Class C drug with intent to evade prohibition and restriction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s solicitor explained that his client had brought bags of khat into the UK in 2021, which had led to a caution in 2022 for a drug-related offence. He suggested that the investigating authorities must have been satisfied that there was no commercial or distribution aspect to the importation, or he would have received more than a caution.
The driver’s solicitor emphasised that the driver had an exemplary record otherwise and was of good character. He was a family man who was working to support his children, and there had been no other substantial issues across 14 years of driving taxis, so they considered him to be a fit and proper person.
Members asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had not fully understood the process as his English wasn’t perfect. He had declared it on his most recent renewal, which was the first one since the caution. He had submitted the renewal application in July 2022, which was before the caution was finalised in August. The driver accepted that he should have informed the authority at the earliest opportunity.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days, and that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had six penalty points on her driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver accepted that she had failed to give information as to the identity of the driver, and explained that she hadn’t been driving the car at the time. After dropping off a customer, they had asked to drive her vehicle because she had mentioned she was selling it. She explained that they wouldn’t be able to drive it as they weren’t a taxi driver, which they said they were and showed a badge. They only drove it about 100 yards but went at 27mph in a 20 zone.
She added that when the ticket came, she was unable to provide any details of the driver’s identity, only their name and a phone number which they never responded on. She appealed the decision but the authorities were unable to track the individual down. She noted that she didn’t attend the court hearing, though the report said she did, as she accepted she was guilty of letting another person drive her car.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that she didn’t have CCTV in her car at the time as she was planning on selling it.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 a complaint had been received stating that he collided with a cyclist while driving on the wrong side of the road.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he was travelling on East Tyndall Street with a passenger on board and turned right up the hill onto Sanquhar Street. The road markings were not clear and he misjudged the turning, and collided with a cyclist who was knocked over. He emphasised that he had been following the speed limit and travelling at about 10mph.
He added that after pulling over, he stayed with the cyclist and provided his details. He asked whether the cyclist wanted to call the police, which he did not. He then carried on to drop the passenger off. Six weeks later he was contacted by the licensing authority and the police about the incident.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had not stopped before making the turn because there were no cars coming the other way. He also explained that the passenger had not said anything, and they just wanted to get home as he’d picked them up from a night shift. He apologised for the accident.
Members viewed a CCTV video of the incident.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events. He suggested that the driver had cut the corner and had been travelling faster than he had claimed. The Sanquhar Road corner was known for being a dangerous place for cyclists because cars sped up as they went up the hill before turning.
He also suggested that he had suggested contacting the police, not the driver, and that the driver had given him an incorrect phone number. The driver had stated that the road markings were faded, but he had provided pictures which showed they were reasonably clear.
The Sub Committee asked the driver how he responded to this. The driver acknowledged that he had cut the corner slightly but stressed that he had done so slowly and had misjudged his line due to the lack of road markings.
The driver’s representative noted that there was a dispute over the car’s speed, which he suggested did not look overly fast from the video but may well have seemed faster from the cyclist’s perspective. He suggested that it was a problem corner which the council needed to address. It was a genuine accident and the driver had accepted that he misjudged the corner, and it would never happen again. The driver had a clean record and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before.
The witness emphasised that while he had slowed down as he approached the junction, the driver had not. He added that he had found it difficult to cycle on that road since it happened. A lot of roads in Cardiff were dangerous to cycle on, and the conduct of many drivers made this worse. He felt that the driver had recklessly cut the corner and caused an accident that could have been much worse.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he had taken fares without bookings.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that a lot of Veezu drivers had recurring issues with registering fares and trips when they were in areas with poor signal. Sometimes they were called during the trip by an operator to see if they had picked up a passenger, but sometimes they had to call the operator themselves, which meant they had to wait until the journey complete.
He added that he worked for Uber too and didn’t have the same problem with them. He felt that the examples provided where he was accused of plying for hire could be explained by these technical issues, where he had pressed ‘no show’ but the system didn’t register it, so it thought he had refused to pick them up.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been working for Veezu since around 2014, when it was still Dragon.
Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of Veezu, the witness explained that the four bookings had been flagged up in their system because it was unusual to have so many ‘no shows’ in quick succession. Veezu had looked into the individual bookings and the corresponding GPS data and found that on each occasion, after pressing the ‘no show’ button, the driver had then travelled to each of the requested destinations without booking it as a journey. On three of the occasions the driver had also made a call to the passenger to confirm they were there. As far as the witness was concerned, this would only have been done for financial gain.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days.
(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 Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver had allowed three schoolchildren to exit his vehicle in the middle of a busy intersection without consideration for their safety.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was on Leckwith Road in stationary traffic on a school run. His three passengers, who were aged around 15, wanted to get out as the car had stopped. He tried to explain that they shouldn’t as they were in traffic, but they jumped out and went.
Members asked whether there was an automatic locking system in the car. The driver responded that he drove a Seat Alhambra and wasn’t sure whether the back doors could be permanently locked from the front, as it was never usually necessary.
The driver clarified that the journey was not part of a contracted school run, but rather a single booked journey that morning.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recounted her statement explaining what she had seen. It was on a very busy road connecting Leckwith to Canton, made up of two lanes of traffic that then turned into four by Asda. The taxi was less than a car length ahead of her and the sliding doors opened to let the passengers out. The vehicle was stationary at a red light but all the other lanes around it were moving.
The passengers got out onto the hatched road markings and made their way to the traffic island, before picking their way through the cars waiting to move. As the traffic moved off, she became aware of the taxi going around her and wrote down the taxi plate number and registration. The witness felt it was an extremely dangerous thing to do and was particularly worried that a contracted school run driver could have been responsible for it.
The driver’s representative asked what time this would have occurred, which the witness estimated was about 8:15am. The driver’s representative suggested that while it was a busy road, it would have been moving very slowly at this time. The witness disagreed and suggested it was a hectic road.
The driver’s representative sympathised with the witness and reiterated the driver’s recollection that he had asked the passengers not to get out in the wrong place, but had been unable to stop them due to the lack of automatic locking. He suggested that ensuring the locking was always on would prevent anything like this happening again.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(11)
Application 11
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had acquired six points for failing to fill in a Section 172 notice, which he had accepted responsibility for. The other three points were for exceeding the speed limit just off Newport Road near Fitzalan, which he had reported when he applied to renew his taxi licence.
He had been driving since 2005 and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before. He depended on his licence to support his family. He provided Members with a number of references in support of his character and record.
The driver’s solicitor summed up that his client had been driving taxis for more than 20 years without any disciplinary matters. He had made two mistakes, one being an administrative matter and the other being a failure to notice that a speed limit had changed. He was now on nine points and would have to drive very carefully to ensure he didn’t lose his licence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(12)
Application 12
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 200 and 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 and Pollution Control.
The Sub Committee heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and all the written material. Members also considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment. Members also heard the oral representations from the applicant and the local ward member.
The Sub Committee noted that the applicant has agreed the conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control and they have subsequently withdrawn their objections.
The Sub Committee carefully considered the objections, representations and written material and feel that the applicant has demonstrated that the application is exceptional and the granting of this licence will not undermine the licensing objectives. Members also accepted that the premises will continue to operate as a public house.
The Sub Committee therefore resolved to grant the licence subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating he was abusive and threatening to a parking enforcement officer.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that the driver regretted the way he had acted. In terms of extenuating circumstances, he explained that the driver had been having a very difficult day and getting a parking ticket was the culmination of this.
Members asked the driver for his reflections, having watched the video of the incident back, and heard that he understood it wasn’t appropriate to have reacted in that way. The driver apologised to the witness for his conduct.
The driver’s representative noted that the witness’ statement indicated that the car was unattended, which he disputed.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he was a parking enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, and had given an unattended vehicle on Albany Road an instant ticket for double parking. As he was issuing the ticket, the driver came out and challenged him about it. The driver started shouting so he activated his body camera, which also captured the 30 seconds before the button was pressed. The video of the incident showed the driver calling him a racist and a coloniser, and threatening the officer for giving him the ticket.
The witness added that while the driver was shouting, a security guard came over to try to calm him down. After a minute or two he got back in his car and took the ticket. He explained that he could appeal it and that it would cost £35 if he paid it within 14 days, at which point the driver got out of the car and started shouting again. Eventually he took the ticket and drove away.
Members asked how the incident had made the witness feel, and heard that he had been shocked. Although he got a lot of verbal abuse in his job, people normally calmed down when they were told they were being recorded, and sometimes they even apologised.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had paid the parking fine.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver was genuinely shocked looking back at his reaction in the video, which was totally out of order. It was out of character for him, and he had learned from the incident and would ensure it would never happen again.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Drivers’ licence 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 Licence given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged his mistake and emphasised that he would be more careful next time. He was aware that if he had any other offences in the next year, he would lose his licence. He had been driving taxis since 2003 with no other issues.
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 he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
The hearing took place in the absence of the driver.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning, and be required to complete the ‘Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver’ BTEC course within twelve months.
(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 15 penalty points on his driving licence and was disqualified from driving for six months.
Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of the driver, the driver’s friend explained that he had been licensed since 2001 but had now been disqualified from driving for six months after accruing 15 points. He was very regretful about what had happened and had informed the council and returned his badges immediately.
He added that if he got his licence back in December, he would take extra precautions to drive especially safely. He was 65 years old but was still keen to get back to work and not rely on benefits. He didn’t have any other sources of income, as this had been his job for more than 20 years, and he had five children to look after.
Members queried the circumstances of the offences, and heard that two of them were in the same location on Newport Road near St Mellons, where a 30mph zone changed suddenly to 20mph. He had been caught going at 27mph and then 30mph by the same camera.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning, and be required to complete the ‘Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver’ BTEC course within six months.
(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 he had 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been a taxi driver for 20 years with no issues or complaints in that time, and this was his first time before the Sub Committee. Driving his taxi was his only source of income.
He had received nine penalty points, three of which were for a speeding offence in 2023 where he didn’t realise a speed limit on Manor Way had recently changed from 40mph to 30mph, and was caught going at 37mph.
He added that the other six were for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. Members queried this and heard that he believed his car was in the garage at the time, but he had been unable to prove this and accepted the punishment.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had twelve penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points and a fine in May for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver, after he didn’t see a letter which was sent to his family’s house while he wasn’t living there.
He added that he had received a ticket on Manor Way for going 39mph in a zone that used to be a 40mph zone but had recently changed to a 30, and there was another offence where he went 55mph in a 50mph zone.
The driver’s representative added that the driver had been up front and honest about what had happened, and reported his offences to the authority as soon as possible. In his view, he was clearly responsible enough to continue driving taxis.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 9 penalty points on the driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s solicitor explained that he had received a fine and three points for misjudging going through a light when there were no passengers in the car. He had also exceeded the speed limit on two occasions very close to each other, which the driver explained were in the same place on Newport Road near Rumney, driving towards the city centre. The limit in this area had changed from 30mph to 20mph, and in both cases he was going under 30.
The driver added that he had been driving since 2001, and had only been before the Sub Committee once in that time. On that occasion, his licence had been revoked, but this decision was overturned on appeal. Other than that, there had been no issues in the last 24 years, and he felt he was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi. He had declared everything that was relevant to the authority, and had demonstrated his fitness over a long period of time.
The driver’s solicitor added that he had another speeding offence pending, which would go to court in September. He would plead special hardship reasons to be allowed to continue driving, and wouldn’t be able to drive if this was not accepted.
RESOLVED – that the hearing be deferred until the resolution of the pending speeding offence.
(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 nine penalty points on the driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been driving for a long time and had unfortunately collected nine points recently: three for exceeding a 30mph limit and six for using a mobile phone while driving. He was still not sure what had happened with the phone offence, having received a letter about it with no pictures of details.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that he did not have passengers in the car on either occasion. He never took phone calls when he had passengers because they wouldn’t like it.
Regarding the speeding offence, he explained that this was on Newport Road near St Mellons, and he had been caught going at 26mph in a 20mph zone that he thought was a 30.
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 motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had made a mistake some time ago when he was new in the country, and got the wrong type of insurance for his car while working as a delivery driver for Amazon. He had now sorted this out and had the correct business insurance, and wanted to drive taxis in addition to doing deliveries.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
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 stating that he behaved inappropriately and used offensive language with a passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that she had booked an Uber because she was late for work when the trains were cancelled. She got into the taxi and found the driver to be chatty, which she didn’t mind. The driver mentioned having a sore neck and asked her to rub his head, resting it on the seat, and then he then made a reference to an explicit bumper sticker, making her feel very uncomfortable. She wanted to leave the vehicle but couldn’t because she was on the way to work. The interaction left her feeling intimidated and uncomfortable. After getting home and having had time to reflect on it, she decided to make a complaint.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness clarified that she was sat in the back left passenger seat, and that the driver rested his head on the headrest of the seat in front of her. She also clarified that she had made the complaint either the next day or the day after that.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver disputed that he had put his head on the seat, and suggested that the passenger could have easily left the car if she had wanted to. The witness responded that she wished she had left there and then, but she had to get to work.
The driver acknowledged that he had mentioned a bumper sticker, but emphasised that this was in reference to a TV program. The driver suggested that the witness had made the complaint in order to get a refund from Uber. The witness responded that she had not asked for her fare to be reimbursed at any point, and it had not been.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had a very high Uber rating and no history of previous complaints.
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 a complaint had been received from South Wales Police stating he had admitted committing three speeding offences and falsely completing the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) form indicating that other persons had committed the offences. The complaint also alleged that the driver was suspected of falsely completing NIPs in respect of seven speeding offences in a previous taxi owned by him and licensed by Cardiff Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of South Wales Police, the witness stated that he was made aware in January of three outstanding speeding offences involving a car owned by the driver, and suspicions around the validity of nominations made in relation to speeding offences. All three offences had taken place in December 2024, and in each case an NIP was sent to the owner of the vehicle asking him to identify the driver. Each form was returned with a different name, with addresses in Southampton and Romsey.
The witness explained that none of the names provided, assuming they were real people, were insured either on the vehicle or as licensed taxi drivers. They had challenged the owner, who then named his wife as being responsible for the offences. She was also neither insured on it nor a licensed taxi driver. The driver then admitted to giving false details and to being the driver of the vehicle on each of the occasions.
The witness added that they had looked at other vehicles the individual had owned, and found seven separate offences dating back to 2019, with details provided for seven different men living all across England. Due to procedural problems in the central ticketing office, he had avoided prosecution by giving false details. The driver was now on 9 penalty points and three more offences had come to light which would go to court. Members queried the further offences mentioned by the witness, and heard that the driver had committed three speeding offences of May of this year, all in his taxi.
Members asked whether the police were pursuing any other action outside of the Sub Committee. The witness explained that there were some time constraints, as they had to take action within six months. There was a case for prosecution for perverting the course of justice, but it was not clear that there was value in taking it further as he was likely to lose his licence anyway due to totting up points.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been driving taxis for 20 years and not had a complaint until now. His son added that while he could not deny the facts of the hearing, he hoped that Members would take into account that his father was a hardworking man who provided for his children. It was a pressured and difficult job and it was only human to make mistakes.
The driver added that the three recent offences were all due to the speed limit changing from 40mph to 30mph on Western Avenue, which he hadn’t noticed. The witness clarified that the speed limit had changed there several years ago, though there had been a new camera added recently.
The driver suggested that when the police spoke to him, they suggested that if he accepted the points it wouldn’t go any further, so he took the 9 points and a fine. The witness disputed that he had been misleading, and added that the police had sent him a letter explaining the results of their investigation. They could have prosecuted him for perverting the course of justice, but chose to take a different approach. The driver had lied consistently, including naming his wife when it was discovered that the other named drivers weren’t real.
The driver’s son reiterated that his father was a respectful, experienced and empathetic person who went the extra mile for his customers, and asked for leniency in this case. He had lied to try and protect his livelihood but understood that this was wrong.
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 he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had collected nine points on his licence after not noticing a variable speed limit, and he didn’t realise he had committed them until he was notified. Three of the points would expire in October.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that he didn’t initially know that he had to declare the penalty points to the council, but then his brother, who was also a taxi driver, told him that he did.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive an advice letter.
(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 nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been driving since 2005 in Cardiff with no issues until very recently. He had made several mistakes when speed limits had changed and he hadn’t realised. One instance was on Western Avenue right after the change, and he was clocked at 36mph when the limit had just changed from 40 to 30. Another was for going at 29mph in a 20 which he thought was a 30, and the last one was on Manor Way, which he thought was a 40 but was actually a 30.
Members asked why he had only declared this now. The driver responded that he didn’t know that he needed to tell the authority until renewal, but he knew now.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive an advice letter.
(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 for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90) and failed to disclose the pending prosecution on his renewal application form.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had made a mistake on his renewal form in March, because he hadn’t been notified by the court at that point of his pending prosecution. He now had six points on his licence.
Members queried the circumstances of his prosecution, and heard that the driver had been caught speeding in Newport. He was given three points and sent a form confirming the identity of the driver. He filled the form in and sent it back but they never received it, so he got a further three points. He did not receive any documents from the court about it and did not attend.
The driver added that he did not have an excuse, only that he had a lot going at the time as his brother had recently passed away. He believed that he may have put the wrong address on the letter and that was why they never received it.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that there had been three offences, one of which was on the motorway. The second one was a recently changed speed limit on Western Avenue which he wasn’t aware of until he’d been caught out, and the third was late at night, he was rushing to get home to his wife who wasn’t well, and went at 26mph in a 20 zone. Taxi driving was his livelihood and he needed to support his wife and children.
Members queried the circumstances of his fine. The Legal Officer clarified that the first two would have been fixed penalties and then the third one went to court.
Members asked why it had taken so long for the driver to notify the council. The driver acknowledged that he had done that too late and should not have waited until renewal.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive an advice letter.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had six points on his licence due to failing to identify the driver of a vehicle when requested. He had been on holiday and let a friend use his car, who was caught speeding in a 50mph zone on the motorway. He received a letter about this and explained he wasn’t driving the vehicle, and gave his friend’s details. He clarified that his friend had been insured to drive the car.
After some time, he received another letter asking whether he had given permission to drive the car, but he didn’t see this letter because he lived in a shared house and someone else moved it. By the time he realised this, it was too late and he was fined more than a thousand pounds for failing to give information, as the registered keeper of the vehicle. He had decided not to appeal against the court’s decision, and had his licence revoked as he had been driving for less than a year. Since then, he had retaken the theory and practical test and got a new licence.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 200 and 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.
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 he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had informed the licensing authority when he received the last three points on his driving licence. Each of the offences was for exceeding the limit in a 20mph or 30mph zone, when he hadn’t realised there were new cameras were in place on roads he often drove on.
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 Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Cllr Michael declared an interest as he knew the driver personally, and did not take part in the hearing.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that each of the offences had taken place about two years ago, and involved going at 33 or 34 in a 30mph zone. He had been working late at night and gone slightly over the limit while being distracted by difficult customers.
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 he had nine penalty points on his driving licence but did not disclose it until three penalty points had expired.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had notified the authority when he committed two speeding offences on the same day, totalling six points. He emphasised that he had not been driving dangerously, but had gone slightly over a temporary 40mph limit on a road that was normally 50mph. Before then, he had one other speeding offence where the three points had expired in January.
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 the driver had twelve penalty points on his driving licence and was disqualified for driving for six months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for his actions, which included driving at 26mph in a 20mph zone on a road he was unfamiliar with. He wasn’t in his taxi at the time, so there were no passengers. He recognised the importance of the road traffic rules and the expectations on taxi drivers, and was committed to learning more about different routes and speed zones in Cardiff.
The Sub Committee queried the circumstances of an MS90 offence where he had been convicted of failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. The driver explained that he hadn’t been in the country at the time as he was on holiday. The letter requesting the information had gone to an old address where his family no longer lived.
Members asked whether he had showed evidence to the court that he wasn’t in the country at the time of the offence. The driver said he had, along with evidence of the incorrect address. He wasn’t represented by a solicitor and accepted a fine which he was still paying. He had appealed the decision, but the fine and six month ban remained in place.
The Legal Officer suggested that the driver must not have attended court, because the £660 fine was a Band C fine on an assumed income. The driver confirmed that this was correct.
Members asked whether he was driving the car that led to the MS90 offence. The driver responded that it was a rental, and the company he rented it from took it back when he went away. Members asked whether the driver had contacted that company to say that it wasn’t him driving. The driver responded that he had not, because he lost contact with them.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had a previous conviction for possessing an offensive weapon in a private place.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that many years ago he had bought a replica of a weapon from an Assassin’s Creed game from a souvenir shop. The law had then changed to make items that resembled offensive weapons illegal. He wasn’t aware of that at the time, and the item had been legal at the time of purchase.
In 2023, there had been an incident on his street which the police came to talk to him about, not related to the item. The police saw it on display in his house and confiscated it, leading to him being charged. There was no suggestion that he had tried to use it or threatened anyone, only that he had been in possession of it.
He added that he had been driving taxis for sixteen years and working for Uber for eight years without any complaints, and had a very high star rating.
Members asked what the item looked like. The driver explained that it was a hatchet with an extra point on it, and it had some feathers and the symbol of the computer game. It was now legally classed as a zombie knife as it was a blade with an additional point.
Members asked where exactly the item had been, which the driver explained was only in his house rather than his car. It was decorative and was put up on a display stand. It had since been destroyed after being seized by the police. He had explained the circumstances in court and they gave him the minimum fine.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had received a caution for common assault.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had declared the caution when he applied to renew his taxi licence. He felt he had learned his lesson from the incident, which occurred in the early hours in town with his ex-partner. They had argued and he had pushed her, and several months later he was contacted by the police, who gave him a caution for assault.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been involved in a car accident five years ago that led to the death of someone involved, and was convicted of driving without due care and attention. The accident had happened when he tried to go around a car parked on the pavement, and he didn’t see someone coming the other way and collided with them. He had reported it to the police and turned himself in.
RESOLVED – that the application 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 a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points on his licence for using a vehicle that was uninsured against third party risks. He was driving with business insurance which only allowed him to do food deliveries, rather than full personal insurance, and didn’t realise.
RESOLVED – that the application be granted.
(9)
Application 9
This hearing was deferred to the next meeting.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he engaged with sexual intercourse with a female passenger after an Uber-booked journey. It was also alleged that the driver made a comment suggesting that it was not the first time he had engaged in sexual activity with a passenger.
The driver did not attend the meeting. The Sub Committee were unanimous in the view that the hearing should proceed in his absence due to the seriousness of the complaint.
An officer from the Licensing department addressed the Sub Committee. Members were provided with details of the complaint and the details of the officer’s enquiries into the matter. The officer provided details obtained from GPS data which indicated that the vehicle had stayed in the vicinity of the complainant’s home for 40 minutes after the journey had ended.
The complainant indicated in her statement that the driver had stopped at a garage on route to the destination in order to purchase condoms. Following further investigations by the officer, Members were advised that GPS data proved that the vehicle had stopped at a garage on Newport Road for a short time during the journey.
Further enquires with the garage operators indicated that there was only one customer at the garage during the times in question. A till receipt in the amount of £7.15 for condoms was provided, purchased using a debit card. Officers cross-referenced the debit card with payments made by the driver at the Cardiff Hackney Office, and the same debit card was used.
Members were also provided with details of other complaints that had been received relating to the driver, including one pending allegation of assault.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence 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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he swore and shouted at members of the public and drove towards flag holders.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not working at the time of the incident. He had been running an errand for his mother, and his younger brother was in the vehicle. The driver apologised for his actions and stated that the incident happened on the first day of fasting for Ramadan, so he had perhaps acted impatiently.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that the St David’s Day march was well-organised and the organisers were trying to manage the flow of traffic. Other vehicles were also being delayed but no other drivers acted in this way.
RESOLVED – that the driver be given a written warning regarding unacceptable conduct.
(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 stating that he used offensive language towards the complainant.
The witness did not attend the meeting.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was working in Swansea that day but he had no recollection of the incident. He felt that he was a very experienced and professional driver, and this was supported by a number of references provided and a very high Uber rating.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(4)
Application 4
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 declared previous convictions and a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that the recent IN10 offence had occurred when he had driven his wife’s car without third party cover. At the time he was unaware that the insurance policy had been updated, and he was no longer a named driver.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.
(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 from South Wales Police stating that he had committed a speeding offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) form indicating that another person had committed the offence.
The complaint also alleged that the driver falsely completed NIPs in respect of three speeding offences in a previous taxi owned by him and licensed by Cardiff Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of South Wales Police, PC Ben Thomas explained that a vehicle owned by the driver had exceeded the speed limit and so a NIP was issued. The form was returned stating that another individual was driving the vehicle, but the police established that the vehicle was not insured for other people to drive, and the named individual did not appear on any databases other than court records.
PC Thomas suggested that there was no evidence that the named individual existed. Further investigation of court records indicated that a different vehicle owned by the driver had previously exceeded the speed limit on three occasions, with the NIP for each offence stating that the same individual had been driving the vehicle, again without having insurance to do so.
The driver accepted PC Thomas’ statement and apologised for a serious error in judgement. He explained that on the first occasion, the named individual was his father-in-law, and suggested that he was actually driving the vehicle. PC Thomas reiterated that there were no records to prove that this individual existed.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(6)
Application 6
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he overcharged a passenger by using the incorrect tariff for the fare, and also did not return the correct change.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that shortly after the commencement of the journey she noticed that the taxi meter was displaying ‘Tariff 2’ and queried this with the driver, who stated that Tariff 2 started at 6pm. The complainant suggested that it was 5:45pm at the time. The driver stopped the meter on route to the destination. At the destination it was alleged that the driver did not provide the correct change.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that the meter was displaying Tariff 2. He was unable to explain why this had happened, as drivers were unable to select which tariff was used. The meter automatically set the tariff depending on the time of day. The meter had since been checked by officers at the Hackney Office and was in working order. The driver denied providing the wrong change at the destination.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a verbal warning regarding his conduct.
(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 a complaint had been received stating that he made unwelcomed sexual conversation and references with a customer.
The driver stated that he could not remember the incident in question. He had been working as a taxi driver for 25 years without any problems. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he confirmed that he was no longer working for Cabs64. Cabs64 had provided a statement that indicated that the driver had been warned about his conduct on a number of occasions. The driver stated that he had only been asked not to ‘joke’ with customers.
Members asked whether joking with customers previously had including comments of a sexual nature. The driver replied that sometimes the comments were sexual. Members asked why the driver, who was in a position of responsibility, would make comments of a sexual nature when he had previously been warned not to do so.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that at the start of her journey she had difficulty with her seatbelt. The driver made a number of offensive sexual comments and used atrocious language throughout the journey. He also placed his hand on her leg and moved it up to rub her thigh. The journey was a horrible experience, and she was frightened and scared that she would have a seizure related to a health condition. The driver denied touching his passenger.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 200 and 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 heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and all the written material. Members considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment. The Sub Committee heard the oral representations from a local resident and the local ward member.
Having carefully considered the representations the Sub Committee did not feel that there is sufficient evidence that the granting of this licence will undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee was encouraged by the fact that the applicants have been trading for 4 months without complaints.
Members considered the comments relating to the use of Westgate Street after 9pm and how the granting of this licence could create a precedent, but considered that each application must be decided on its own merits.
The Sub Committee therefore resolved to grant the licence subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 200 and 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 heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and all the written material. Members considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment. The Sub Committee heard the oral representations from the local ward member.
Having carefully considered the representations the Sub Committee did not feel that there is sufficient evidence that the granting of this licence will undermine the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 200 and 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 and Environmental Health / Pollution Control; and the additional condition that the terminal hour for late night refreshment on Sundays be reduced from 1am to 12am.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy and oral representations made on behalf of the applicant, by ward members and by local residents, GRANTED the application subject to the agreed conditions with Pollution Control; and the additional conditions that any events must have the approval of the Highways Authority; and that the licence can only be used for six events per year.