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.
Mae penderfyniadau trwyddedu'n cael eu gwneud gan bwyllgor neu is-bwyllgor trwyddedu o gynghorwyr, sy'n clywed gan ymgeiswyr a gwrthwynebwyr.
Gallwch wrthwynebu cais am drwydded yn ystod ei gyfnod ymgynghori. Rhowch wybod i'r cyngor am sŵn ac ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol.
| Cyngor | Eitemau | Gyda phenderfyniad |
|---|---|---|
| Caerdydd | 43 | 27 |
| Abertawe | 26 | 4 |
| Bro Morgannwg | 15 | 12 |
| Sir Gâr | 8 | 3 |
| Casnewydd | 4 | 0 |
| Rhondda Cynon Taf | 2 | 0 |
| Ceredigion | 2 | 1 |
| Powys | 1 | 0 |
| Sir Fynwy | 1 | 0 |
| Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr | 1 | 0 |
| Torfaen | 1 | 0 |
| Blaenau Gwent | 1 | 1 |
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he was disqualified from driving and had received a driving ban from the DVLA. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been involved in an accidental collision in the early hours of the morning in February 2023. As he was heading back into town on the bypass having dropped some passengers off, a drunk man walked out in front of him. He tried to avoid a collision by swerving into the other lane but it was not possible. He was in shock and carried on driving. When he got home he realised he should have stopped, so he called the police and let them know he’d been involved in an accident. Members queried the delay between the incident occurring and Cardiff Council being notified. The driver explained that when he was interviewed by the police, they told him they would notify the licensing authority as well as his insurance. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were 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 convicted of 3 motoring offences amounting to 9 penalty points. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver outlined the three incidents that had led to him receiving the points. One had taken place on Newport Road, where he had been distracted by a passenger who had a small child who had taken off their seatbelt, and was clocked at 33mph in a 30mph zone. The second had occurred on a country lane on the way to Newport, when he assumed the speed limit was 40 rather than 30. The third incident took place in Trowbridge, and he did not have any excuse for it. The most recent offence was in 2022 and he had not made the same mistake since. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that in each case there had been passengers in the car. Members queried why the council had not been notified until now when the third offence had taken place in November 2022. The driver acknowledged that this was an oversight on his part. He had informed his insurance immediately but didn’t realise he was expected to do the same for the licensing authority. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that information was received by the Licensing Authority alleging suspected drug misuse. The Chair noted that the driver had attended the previous Sub Committee meeting and had disputed the results of the drug test which had led to his suspension. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recounted the events that had led to him coming before it previously. He had challenged the testing company’s results which indicated active drug use and had consistently fought to clear his name but had been unable to fund a second test for a long time. His partner had been an active drug user so he would have been exposed to the substances through her, but he had been clean throughout. He did not smoke or drink alcohol either. He had now received the results of the 12 month drug test, which did detect cocaine in his hair as the first test did, but was not able to determine whether this was from active use or exposure. He felt this sufficiently contradicted the results of the first test and proved his innocence. He was willing to do further tests if necessary. He also provided a letter from his GP which suggested there was no indication he was a drug user. The Licensing Officer outlined the report of the second test, which concluded that from these results alone, it was not possible to determine whether they were due to active use, passive exposure or residual presence from use prior to the testing period. The report also suggested that external environmental contamination was likely to be a potential contributor. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee were 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 Newport City Council but was convicted of an offence in 2023 resulting in his licence with Newport being revoked. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been caught speeding in March 2022. A few of his friends told him to change the name on the declaration form so it didn’t look like it was him driving. This was the worst decision he had ever made, and he would never have done it if he had understood the consequences. He was interviewed first by Newport Council and then by the police, and in December 2023 he was convicted of perverting the course of justice. He received a suspended sentence and a fine, and was required to do community service. Since then, he had struggled to pay rent and bills. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that Newport had revoked his licence immediately after the conviction. He had applied to Cardiff because Newport had told him he wouldn’t be able to reapply there until 2029. Members asked how he had let his friends persuade him to put a false name down. The driver responded that he panicked and didn’t know what to do. He thought he was protecting his family by avoiding losing his licence and livelihood. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had been clocked at 35mph in a 30 zone, having been under the impression that the limit was 40mph. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application.
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Licensing Enforcement.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were 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 a different local authority and had the licence revoked. He also had a motoring conviction for CU80 (use of mobile phone while driving) which resulted in 6 penalty points. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was a hard worker who just wanted the best possible life for his children. He was a courteous and friendly driver who treated customers well and had experience driving for Uber before. He had received the penalty points in 2021 for parking on a double yellow line. A police officer informed him he had committed an offence but then acted unprofessionally, which another police officer apologised for, so he didn’t realise he had actually received the points until he applied for a change of licence in Newport. Newport City Council then revoked his licence because of his failure to declare the points. Members queried the history of complaints highlighted by Newport council. The driver acknowledged he had received some complaints while working for Uber but felt that this was because some customers would complain about anything. Since leaving Uber he had worked for Amazon but wanted to serve the public as a taxi driver again. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that the six points on his licence were made up of 3 points for parking on a double yellow line and 3 for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t feel this was a fair punishment and believed the police had fabricated their charges. He had not put in an official complaint because he didn’t have the money to go to court. Members asked if the driver would be happy for his children to travel in a taxi driven by someone who had six points on his record. The driver responded that he would not. The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident with the police officer provided by the driver. Members queried why he hadn’t shown the video to the authority until now. The driver responded that he hadn’t seen the point, and added that he had given it to Newport council at the time of his hearing. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that information was received by the Licensing Authority alleging suspected drug misuse that was a cause for concern with Adult and Children’s Services. Due to the nature of his role as a taxi driver and the high likelihood of transporting vulnerable passengers, these concerns were shared with the licensing authority, including a DNA test that was requested by the Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the DNA test stemmed from a family matter where he had voluntarily put himself forward to be tested as a possible carer for a child. He was shocked when he saw the results, having never used drugs in his life, and disputed it immediately with the testing company, his solicitor and the local authority. He had managed to arrange a new test through the local authority the day before the hearing and believed the results would show he had not taken drugs at any point in the last 12 months. He added that he was dependent on the school run for his livelihood, as it was about 80% of his income. He had driven schoolchildren and children with special needs around for more than six years and loved it. He had no support from Universal Credit as he was self-employed, and was only just about keeping his cab running to pay the bills. This experience had turned his life upside down and been very damaging. He wanted to clear his name and get back to working the school runs. Members asked about the time period the new test would cover, and when the results would be available. The driver confirmed that it would cover the last 12 months, so that it included the time of the original test and could clear his name properly, and the results would take up to two weeks. The Sub Committee discussed the possibility of deferring the case until the results of the new test were available. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the next scheduled date was 5th June, and the driver would remain suspended from the school contract and able to drive his taxi in the meantime. RESOLVED – that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee
RESOLVED: That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application. The Sub Committee noted that neither South Wales Police nor Environmental Health or Pollution Control had objected to this application. Members carefully considered the objection from the local Ward Members but did not consider that there was any evidence that the granting of this licence would undermine the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was aggressive, made rude gestures and drove his vehicle in a way as to cause concern. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that the parking layout outside Heath Hospital had recently changed, and this had caused some confusion for the public. As taxi drivers they often needed to explain to people where they could park and where they might get a ticket. People were normally very understanding and grateful for the advice but in this case the people he spoke to got aggressive and told him to go away. He was only trying to help but the way they responded made him feel terrible. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that her recollection of events was very different. She and her son were picking up her husband after major surgery, and her son dropped her off at the entrance before driving off and coming back to pick them up. Her son made sure to go to the designated pick-up point, which was clearly signposted. As he pulled up, the taxi driver got out of his car and started shouting that they couldn’t park there. Her son calmly responded that they would only be 30 seconds, but the driver continued shouting and put his middle finger up at them. He then reversed his car very close to theirs in order to make it difficult for her son to pull out. She wound the window down and said she was going to report him, and he said ‘go ahead’. The driver suggested that the witness had parked in the taxi rank and he was telling them they couldn’t park there. The witness insisted that they had not parked in the taxi rank at any point, and had followed the signs instead. The driver added that his vehicle had a parking sensor and camera so he would not have reversed right up against the complainant’s car as they claimed. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he confirmed that the camera did not record video footage. Members queried how the parking system at the hospital worked, which the Licensing Officer clarified was not regulated in the normal way as the taxi rank was not designated by Highways. Instead, there was a private agreement for taxis to be allowed to use certain bays, with a private company issuing tickets when people contravened the signs. It was a notoriously busy area which used a one-way loop to prevent cars pulling into the A&E bays. The Sub Committee discussed the contrasting stories in detail and highlighted the need for taxi drivers operating at a hospital to be especially empathetic and patient with the public, even if they sincerely felt they were doing something wrong. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver had notified the authority he had been convicted of a motoring offence CU80 (use of a mobile device while driving). Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated he was sitting in stationary traffic with the handbrake on when he took a moment to plug the charging cable into his phone. He didn’t realise that there was a policeman next to him who informed him that he had committed an offence. He had been driving for more than 20 years and never had a single point on his licence before this, and had learnt his lesson and would be much more careful in the future. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he hadn’t appealed the penalty because he accepted that he had touched his phone. He didn’t see the point in taking it to court because he had done what he was accused of, and he declared the offence to the council as soon as possible. He added that he had already been punished further for his actions in addition to the initial fine, because his insurance had gone up significantly. The driver’s representative added that while the offence of using a mobile device while driving was a serious one, his vehicle was stationary at the time and he didn’t have any passengers, meaning that he wasn’t actually causing any risk to other road users. However, it was an offence, and he had accepted his punishment. The representative suggested that the driver had been punished enough already, and that his spotless prior record and clear remorse should be taken into account. He was an honest and reliable driver who would never make a mistake like this again. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver reported to the licensing office that he had his DVLA licence revoked due to accumulating speeding points over a short duration of time, and that his licence was within 2 years from first grant. It was disposed of that he would need to reapply and complete his theory and practical tests again, which he had done. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that he had received 3 points on three consecutive days in July 2023 at the exact same place on Western Avenue. He hadn’t realised that the speed limit had changed from 40 to 30, and the clocked speeds (37mph, 38mph and 38mph) indicated that he genuinely believed he was under the limit. He was a very good and reliable driver who had never had any issues before or since. The representative added that the driver had lived a difficult life and had to work very hard to get where he was today, and his income was vital to his family and to get both of his children through university. He was certainly a fit and proper person to drive a taxi, and he just wanted to support himself and his family. He accepted that having 9 points on his licence was a serious thing, and would be particularly observant of speed limit changes in the future. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a conviction contrary to the guidance. The driver was not in attendance so the application was deferred. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the driver previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted of causing injury whilst dangerous driving. The driver had not held a relevant licence with the authority since this application. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was convicted for dangerous driving in 2013, after an accident which he deeply regretted. He had never had an accident before this and he hadn’t since. He went to jail for it and served his time but still lived with it today. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s colleague gave a character reference. He explained that the driver had been associated with the taxi industry for a very long time, and a long time had passed since his offence. He had seen how he behaved with other drivers, passing on knowledge and experience to students coming through, and transporting children as a contractor for the local authority. He had proved he was a fit and proper person, and there was no value in continually punishing people for the same thing. He was not the same person he was 11 years ago, he now had a family and wanted to get his licence back. The Sub Committee queried a recent offence on the driver’s DVLA licence history, where he had received 6 penalty points for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. The driver clarified that at this time he was renting out more than 400 cars, and this particular one was being driven in Hampshire. His business was in difficulty at the time and he wasn’t able to access the building where the letters arrived regarding this offence. He wasn’t the driver of the vehicle but as the director of the company he was responsible for it. RESOLVED – that the application be refused. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that a motoring conviction had been declared on the application. The offence was IN10, using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the offence happened in November 2022. Immediately prior to that, he had been out of the country due to a family emergency. There weren’t enough funds in his account for the direct debit for his insurance to go through so it was cancelled, but he didn’t receive any notification of this. He was then pulled over by police (in his own car rather than in a private hire vehicle), fined £400 and given seven points on his licence. He added that he was currently licensed by Newport City Council, who were aware of the offence and had recently renewed his licence. RESOLVED – that the application be granted.
RESOLVED - That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits and considered all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, written submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicants during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application.
RESOLVED – That the sub-committee, having carefully considered the objections from Pollution Control and accepted that there was a genuine basis for concern regarding noise outbreak from the premises, GRANTED the licence with the following amendments/conditions which were considered appropriate in the circumstances for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives: The Sub-Committee considered the application on its individual merits and considered all 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 and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicants during the hearing in its determination of the matter. The Sub-Committee noted that a representation was received from South Wales Police, objecting to the application. However, the South Wales Police objection was withdrawn prior to the hearing as the applicant agreed a number of conditions. Opening hours: Sunday to Thursday: 09:00 to 00:00 hours Friday and Saturday: 09:00 to 01:00 hours New Years Eve: until permitted hours the following day Sale of alcohol: Sunday to Thursday: 09:00 to 23:30 hours Friday and Saturday: 09:00 to 00:30 hours New Years Eve: until permitted hours the following day The provisions of films: Sunday to Thursday: 09:00 to 23:30 hours Friday and Saturday: 09:00 to 00:30 hours New Years Eve: an additional hour Regulated entertainment and late night refreshment: Sunday to Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30 hours Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 00:30 hours New Years Eve: an additional hour Non-standard timings: Maundy Thursday, Christmas Eve, Sundays preceding Bank Holidays: an extra hour Any external area associated with the premises shall not be used after 22:30 hours.
RESOLVED: that 1) It be approved in principle for the Council to procure its Microsoft Software renewal via either the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) Technology Products and Associated Services framework agreement (using Microsoft Spring 2024 aggregation - NFC166), or Welsh Government’s WGCD (Welsh Government Commercial Delivery) / NPS (National Procurement Service) IT Products and Services (ii) Framework Agreement. 2) authority be delegated to the Corporate Director, Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation and Performance and the Monitoring Officer to determine which framework to utilise and generally deal with all aspects of the procurement process and associated matters up to and including the awarding of the contract.
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application in part, with the applicant being permitted to provide late night refreshment from 23:00 to 04:00 hours on Friday and Saturday. The Sub-Committee considered the application on its individual merits and considered all 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 and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter. The sub-committee also recognised the support for the application from other persons and the popularity of the premises. The Sub-Committee noted that South Wales Police initially objected to the application; however, this objection was withdrawn prior to the meeting as the applicant agreed their proposed conditions. The Sub-Committee noted that there was evidence that the premises had previously carried on licensable activity without a relevant authorisation. However, they accepted that this occurred during a period that the premises was under different management and the business is now under new management. The Sub-Committee gave weight to the representation from Cllr Mackie during the hearing. They accepted that the premises is located in an area that experiences a significant amount of crime and disorder and is nearby residential properties. The Sub-Committee noted the applicant’s comment that the application will help promote the licensing objectives as it will help alleviate the queues from nearby premises that are permitted to trade later, which will help disperse those from the area more quickly. The Sub-Committee considered this and felt that this would be unlikely to occur during weekdays and the premises is likely to result in an increase in the number of customers attracted to the area that would undermine the licensing objectives. After carefully considering all the information, the Sub-Committee resolved to the grant the application in part, authorising late night refreshment starting at 23:00 hours until 04:00 hours on Friday and Saturdays.
RESOLVED – That: The following conditions be added to the hackney carriage conditions of licence: - All hackney carriages must have an electronic payment device to accept debit/credit card and contactless payments. As a minimum, Visa and MasterCard must be accepted; - The electronic payment device must be kept in the vehicle, be fully operational and available for immediate use at all times the vehicle is being used for hire and reward (including whilst standing or plying for hire); - All hackney carriages must display prominent signage to prospective passengers that states card and contactless card payments are accepted; - No additional costs as a result of card payments may be passed onto the passenger; The proposal be implemented on 1st September 2024.
RESOLVED – That: The application be approved.
RESOLVED – That: - Members commend the updated Cumulative Impact Assessment for it be approved by Council prior to its publication.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License following a mystery shopper operation which resulted in the driver failing to use the meter and charging more than the legal fare. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he wasn’t able to recall the incident in question but was extremely sorry, and assured Members that it would never happen again. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that he had taken part in a joint operation alongside the licensing department in his role as a special constable, operating in plain clothes alongside a police support volunteer. They had undertaken test purchases to check the compliance of private hire and hackney carriage vehicles throughout the evening. Late in the evening, they approached the cab in question as it was plying for hire on Albert Street and requested a journey to the Tramshed. The driver requested £10 up front, which they paid. The meter was not used at any point during the journey and the driver made no attempt to give them any change. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not sure whether he had used the meter, but he understood that he was supposed to. It might have been broken but he didn’t remember. Members asked how often the driver asked for a fare up front. He responded that it depended on the customer and the journey, but he would generally do it at the end. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days, and that the driver be required to undertake the relevant SQA qualification (Level 2 Certificate Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver) at his own cost. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License following a mystery shopper operation which resulted in the driver failing to use the meter and charging more than the legal fare. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he had asked for payment up front before taking two passengers from near the castle to an address in Cathays. He had asked for this because it was common on a Saturday evening for passengers to do a runner. He also did not have a card reader in his cab and had had problems before with people who weren’t able to pay at the end of the journey. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the meter had been running throughout the journey, and had calculated a fare of £7.10. He had tried to give the passengers their £2.90 change at the end but they left before he was able to. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that he had taken part in a joint operation alongside the licensing department in his role as a special constable, operating in plain clothes alongside a police support volunteer. They had undertaken test purchases to check the compliance of private hire and hackney carriage vehicles throughout the evening. This particular journey was from Castle Street to the Blackweir Tavern, and the driver asked for £10 up front which they paid. The witness added that he had an unobstructed view of the meter throughout the journey, and while it was switched on it was not recording a fare. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he confirmed that the driver had not said anything about it being broken, and neither he nor the other passenger had requested that it be switched on. Members asked the driver if he regularly charged passengers up front. The driver responded that he did on the weekend, as this was when people doing a runner was most common. Members asked whether he had told the passenger up front that he would give him change at the end, which he confirmed he did not. Members asked the witness if he had noticed the driver trying to give him the £2.90 change. The witness responded that he had not noticed this, and added that they made sure within the test purchasing process to give the driver every opportunity to do this. It was not intended to trip drivers up, just to check compliance. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 14 days. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint alleging rudeness and swearing at a passenger. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had arrived at the main entrance of Heath Hospital to pick up a pre-booked fare. The passenger was in a wheelchair and had some difficulty getting into the car, so he helped her get in and folded up her wheelchair to put in the boot. She became stressed and shouted at him. It was a frustrating situation as cars were waiting behind them and being very impatient. The passenger said she was going to make a complaint because he had been rude to her. After paying the fare, she said that he wasn’t fit for the job and swore at him before leaving. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he regularly picked up passengers from Heath Hospital, and many of them were disabled. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed that she had sworn at the driver. She did not swear other than when she was giving her explanation of what had happened to Dragon Taxis. The driver insisted that he had not sworn at her either. The witness added that she was very tired at the time and had needed more help than usual to get into the car. She understood that it was a stressful situation but emphasised that she did not raise her voice or shout. She got the impression that he didn’t want to help her despite taking the fare. He swore and complained constantly, so she told him he wasn’t fit to be a taxi driver. It was a horrible experience and she felt threatened as she was unable to leave the car with her wheelchair in the boot. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness confirmed that she regularly used taxis, including Dragon ones. She normally asked for a wheelchair accessible vehicle but they were few and far between, and her chair folder, so she often used regular ones. The driver asserted that when he first opened the door for the passenger, she shouted at him to get her chair before he had a chance to do so, and that she argued and swore throughout the journey. The witness denied that she had used bad language. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint alleging attempted overcharging. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he and other drivers regularly asked for money up front late at night at the weekend. He accepted that he had asked the passengers for money up front but stressed that he had turned the meter on and intended to give them their change at the end. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses stated that they approached the taxi on Castle Street in the early hours and asked to go to an address in Gabalfa and then on to Whitchurch. The driver asked them for £30 up front, which they felt was excessive. They asked him to put the meter on but he said it was broken. The witnesses added that they did this journey regularly and the fare would normally be significantly less than £30, and they were aware that drivers were required to use the meter, so they challenged him on this. They did not get in the cab and instead went to the next driver, who agreed to take them on the meter straight away. Members queried how much they usually paid, which the witnesses estimated was between £12 and £14. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he knew he should not be driving if his meter was broken. He added that his meter was not broken and disputed that he had told the passengers that it was. A licensing officer had checked his meter the next day and found it to be working. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that in his experience, all drivers asked for money up front after a certain time of night as this was the only way to stop passengers running off without paying. Members emphasised that his job was to take passengers with the meter on, and that the council’s regulations did not permit taxi drivers to charge up front for fares starting and ending within Cardiff. The Licensing Officer clarified that drivers were allowed to ask for a reasonable deposit, but this should not be more than half of the total fare. The £30 allegedly requested up front in this case was far in excess of the value of the journey. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 14 days. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been convicted of 3 motoring offences amounting to 9 penalty points. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver highlighted that he had declared the 9 points at the earliest possible moment rather than waiting until the renewal date. He explained how each of the offences had occurred and stressed that he now drove much more carefully as a result. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been convicted of an offence which resulted in a prison sentence. The driver was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s solicitor stated that he was unable to attend as he was serving a custodial sentence. He was not able to advance any further information on behalf of the driver. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire driver’s licence be revoked. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee were asked to consider a driver’s application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that he had a conviction contrary to the guidance. In the absence of the applicant, the item was deferred. (8) Application 8 The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that upon renewal of his licence there was an issue with the DBS process. Following a committee hearing in January where the initial case was discussed, the driver was given a month’s suspension in order to complete the new DBS process, and was told that failure to provide the certificate would result in the case being brought back to committee. The driver also failed to return his badges during the time period required. The driver was not in attendance. The Licensing Officer explained that the driver had asked for more time to provide the DBS, and suggested that the committee extend the suspension imposed at the January meeting until he did so. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for one month.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application. The Sub Committee understood the concerns of the objectors in relation to the problems which already existed in the area. However, Members considered that the premises was not located in an area covered by a cumulative impact policy and did not consider that the granting of the licence would undermine the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the addition of a condition stating that there would be no sale of individual cans of beer, cider or lager. Members accepted that there were issues associated with problem street-drinkers in the area and that a condition restricting the sale of single cans was appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. Members accepted the concerns raised by local residents in relation to the undercroft and the use of the car park. However, the undercroft was beyond the direct control of the premises and did not form part of the application. Members did not feel that any evidence had been presented that the licensing objectives would be undermined except for the issue in relation to the sale of single cans. Members therefore agreed to approve the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the additional condition set out above.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s License given that one of the directors had been prosecuted by the local authority for his involvement in a case that resulted in an unlicensed driver undertaking a journey in a private hire vehicle for a school transport service. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that his former business partner had given a vehicle to an unlicensed driver without consulting him and stopped paying insurance, and this was what led to the prosecution. He highlighted that he held a clean operator’s licence in the Vale of Glamorgan and had driven taxis for more than 20 years without any issues. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant confirmed that he had an operator’s licence in the Vale of Glamorgan and was seeking a Cardiff one too so he could seek contracts for school and airport runs in the city. At the moment the company could only use drivers licensed in the Vale. The Sub Committee asked how he would ensure that the previous issue with the unlicensed driver would not happen again. The applicant assured them that he would have a safeguarding system in place, with each vehicle and driver registered internally. He owned the vehicles himself and would be responsible for insuring them. RESOLVED – application refused (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging the refusal of a fare and questioning driver conduct. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not recognise the details in the witnesses’ statements, as he only ever drove with a meter. He did not recall the incident in question and did not recognise the witnesses. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he would have been working in his taxi at the time of the incident and that the badge number the witnesses had reported was his. Nobody else had access to his vehicle or badge, so the wrong number might have been written down. The Sub Committee queried a previous complaint against the driver alleging refusal of a fare. The driver recalled that he only ever refused a fare when the passenger was particularly drunk or aggressive. The witnesses addressed the Sub Committee, stating that they were going to a show at the Millennium Centre and got into a taxi on St Mary’s Street, which normally cost £8-£9, but the driver asked them for £16.50. They settled on £10 which was still above the usual fare for this journey. The witnesses noted down the badge number and contacted the local authority. They were certain that it was the same driver. The witnesses did not recall seeing a meter in the vehicle but had not queried this at the time. They suggested that if the fare had been legitimate and the meter running, the driver would have just shown it to them when they challenged the fare. The Sub Committee discussed where the meter would normally be in a taxi, and heard that in Cardiff it was generally attached to the dashboard above the radio but could also be attached to the rear-view mirror. The driver confirmed that his meter was attached to the rear-view mirror, and added that if a passenger ever asked where the meter was then he was obligated to show it to them. In response to questions from the driver’s representative, the witnesses stated that they had made a note of the badge number as the taxi was driving off. They added that the vehicle was a black and white Prius, and the driver confirmed that he drove one of these. The driver’s representative suggested that this was a common vehicle for taxis in Cardiff, and the witnesses may have confused it with another one with a similar badge number. RESOLVED – suspended for 7 days (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour, including making rude and abusive hand gestures. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver highlighted his clean record. He had driven taxis for many years and conducted school transport for special needs children for 14 years. He did not recall the incident itself but strongly refuted the allegation that he had made offensive gestures. The driver added that he was unaware that the complainants had followed him into the car park afterwards, and suggested that this indicated they were hoping to have an altercation. As a taxi driver he understood that he had to negotiate a number of potentially stressful situations every day and maintain professionalism. He suggested that the complainants were not qualified to judge what constituted good driving. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses stated that the taxi had cut across them on Cogan Spur without indicating and nearly caused an accident, before braking hard without warning. The sudden stop caused one of the witnesses’ back pain to get worse. The witnesses contested the driver’s claim that he did not make any gestures towards them, and emphasised that they were not following him around the car park, but rather looking for a disabled bay which could be difficult to find when it was busy. The witnesses stressed that taxi drivers were meant to set an example, as they were representing Cardiff Council and had the logo on the back of their vehicle. One of the witnesses added that he was a former driving instructor qualified to Grade 6 and also a former Special Constable, so he understood the definition of dangerous driving. He had known the driver personally for many years and would not have made this complaint unless he felt that it was very serious. The incident had been entirely unnecessary and put people in danger. RESOLVED – written warning (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging the refusal of a fare and questioning driver conduct. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that a customer had entered his taxi upon leaving the Motorpoint Arena at about 11pm and asked to go to an address in Gwaelod Y Garth. He put in the wrong postcode by mistake and thought the destination was outside Cardiff, so he suggested a fare of £50. He then realised his error and tried to let the customer know but they had already left and got into another taxi. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had misheard the address as CF35 when he asked the passenger where they wanted to go. The actual postcode in Gwaelod Y Garth was CF15. The CF35 address was 24 miles away so he estimated that this would cost about £50, going by his usual £2 per mile price for trips out of Cardiff. The Licensing Officer confirmed that while any in-district fare had to be calculated using the meter, there was no standard procedure for calculating fares outside of Cardiff as long as the fare was agreed with the customer before the journey began. RESOLVED – written warning (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee were 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 upon renewal of his licence his DBS returned a recent conviction from August 2022. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he had been convicted of domestic violence in 2022 and had since undertaken all of the community service and rehabilitation programs required by the court. He had been a taxi driver for more than a decade and had a very high Uber rating. He hoped he could prove to the Sub Committee that he was a professional and reliable individual who could be trusted to drive a taxi. He was trying to be a positive role model for his son and had learned a lot from the rehabilitation program. The driver’s representative added that the driver had intended to appeal the conviction but had been unable to do so for financial reasons. He had been licensed in Cardiff for 15 years with an exemplary record, had participated in a rehabilitation course and had declared his conviction to the licensing authority at the earliest opportunity. He had no other source of income and was a single parent, so he depended on his license for his livelihood. RESOLVED – license revoked Application 6 The Sub Committee were 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 disclosed a conviction for plying for hire without a licence to do so, and received 8 points on his licence for driving without insurance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been driving taxis for 23 years and otherwise had a clean record. He had always driven a hackney carriage but had taken it to the garage the day before and was driving a private hire vehicle instead. While driving along Mill Lane, he saw two young women who did not seem to be getting picked up by anyone else, and he didn’t want to leave them on their own. As they got in, he realised that he was in the wrong vehicle, but he took them to their destination anyway. He accepted that this was an error and apologised to the Sub Committee. This was the first mistake he had made in a long career and it would not happen again. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he accepted that he took them to their destination despite knowing that he shouldn’t. He suggested that he thought they might cause trouble if he asked them to leave. He confirmed that he understood the consequences of taking them as he did not have the correct insurance for a trip that wasn’t pre-booked. The Licensing Officer clarified that licensed drivers in Cardiff were dual-badge, meaning that they could drive both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, and it was the vehicles themselves where the insurance varied. The insurance depended on the trip being pre-booked, and if it wasn’t pre-booked then it wasn’t insured. It was an offence to ply for hire without the required insurance. The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee, asking the panel to consider the driver’s length of service and his spotless record. He had been a fit and proper person to drive a taxi for many years and this was a serious lapse of judgement which would never happen again. The representative added that the driver had already been punished for the offence with fines and points on his license. RESOLVED – 28 day suspension
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had been convicted of an offence of possession of a Class C Controlled Drug in 2019 and failing to surrender to bail in 2001. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he had a conviction for driving while drunk and had been banned from driving twice around 20 years ago. After that, a good friend advised him to stop drinking entirely, which he did. He didn’t mention this on the application because of the 10 year guidance, he didn’t think it would be considered relevant. He added that the second matter, concerning possession of a class C drug, happened after he went to a wedding where he and his friends took khat before collecting what was left in a bag at the end and putting in his car. A few days later, the police searched the car, found the bag and gave him a caution for possession. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he hadn’t declared his caution on his application because he didn’t think he needed to, which was a mistake. The Sub Committee noted that the question on the application was very clear about the need to declare cautions. The Sub Committee also sought to clarify that he understood it would not be acceptable to have drugs in the work environment even if someone else put them there. The applicant confirmed that he understood this. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be refused. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had been convicted of an offence for Common Assault on 15th January 2016 and also declared an IN10 giving 6 points on his DVLA Licence in May 2022. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that his conviction for common assault was due to poor judgement as a young man, when he had reacted badly to a difficult situation. As for the six points, he was using his father’s car while working as a food delivery driver and his father told him he was on his insurance, but this was not true. He did have food delivery insurance but this had not been accepted as a replacement. He was sorry for his mistakes and emphasised that it would not happen again. The applicant’s friend spoke on his behalf, explaining that they were from the same city and had been friends since they were children. He had never known him to react like that in any situation before or since. He used to employ the applicant as a driver at his company and found him to be a model worker who never had any complaints. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant clarified that he had assaulted his partner. They had been together for more than ten years now and had two children. He confirmed that he had not used any support services such as counselling since his conviction. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be refused. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that upon renewal of his licence there was an issue with the DBS process. In the absence of the driver, the Licensing Officer clarified that this hearing was solely about the lack of a DBS certificate rather than what might be on it. He had just spoken to the driver, who confirmed that he had received the DBS, but as the licensing authority they had not yet received it. The Committee suggested suspending the driver until he produced the DBS. The Legal Officer clarified that they had to specify a time period after which it could come back to committee, rather than leaving it open-ended. The Committee agreed that a month’s suspension was appropriate. The Legal Officer added that the suspension could be lifted early if the driver provided a clear DBS before this time had elapsed. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for one month. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a common law notification from South Wales Police was submitted in relation to an incident which stated that the driver was arrested for assaulting a person in 2023, thereby occasioning them actual bodily harm. The driver’s wife addressed the Sub Committee, stating that she was the person he had been arrested for assaulting. She explained that the time leading up to the incident had been very stressful as they were moving house and had an autistic son, who that morning had nearly been hit by a car. She and her husband had to drive to the recycling centre with her following, but she got lost and became frustrated when he wouldn’t reply to her calls. When they got to the centre, they argued and he swore at her, then she hit him and he hit her back. Someone else saw this and reported her husband for assault. She had tried to explain that she was fine to this person but suggested that the report may have been racially motivated because they were Muslim. She and her husband had been married for 18 years and known each other for 22, and had three children together, and he had never done anything like that before or since. Her husband apologised to her straight away but the police came around that night anyway because it had been reported as an assault. The Sub Committee noted that driving a taxi could be a stressful job, and asked how he would deal with situations where passengers were impolite, drunk or angry. The driver responded that he would just ignore them, as he was an experienced driver who had been licenced in London before as well and had experienced violent passengers in the past. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver’s wife confirmed that they had not complained to the police about what they felt could have been a racially motivated report by the witness. The driver also confirmed that after the incident took place, the police took him to the station, gave him a caution and then released him. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had been convicted of an offence of possession with intent to supply class A in 2018. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was truly remorseful about his previous behaviour, and there were no excuses for having been stupid and naïve. He was now aged 27 and had truly grown up and rehabilitated. Life had been difficult, and it had been hard to find decent and sustainable work. He had never been in any trouble before 2018 but fell in with people who exploited his naivety. Since his conviction, he had had no further trouble with the legal system and tried to be the best possible citizen. He regularly attended his local mosque and had completed his SQA level 2. He wanted to show that he was a changed man who was committed to being a taxi driver. He posed no danger to the public and could conduct his duties in a professional manner. He had made a horrendous error in the past but did not want to be punished forever for the behaviour of someone who no longer existed. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the 6 points on his licence were from speeding offences in the last couple of years while working in Magor, and he wouldn’t do anything like that now. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be refused. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had convictions on his DBS. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he had done everything possible to show that he could be trusted to drive a taxi, and understood the responsibilities of the role. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver accepted he had been to prison but believed he was innocent of the offences listed on his DBS, which included the possession of a class B drug and improperly obtaining another’s identity. He stated that he was not that type of person, and had not declared them on his application because they were a very long time ago. The Sub Committee noted that the most recent offence was in 2015. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police. The Sub Committee considered that granting the application would not negatively impact on the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog. The driver stated that he was driving on the 7th May at about 11:30pm and was flagged down by two gentlemen from the other side of the road. They crossed the road, entered the taxi and started videoing him. He didn’t realise they had an assistance dog so he said he couldn’t take it. He stopped a police officer and explained the situation, and the passengers explained that it was a guide dog so he agreed to take them. The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver explained that he had not realised it was an assistance dog until the police explained after a few minutes. He had never had a guide dog in his taxi before and did not recognise it at first, but he had no issue with taking an animal. The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, explaining that he had been on the opposite side of the road when his partner flagged down the taxi, and they often had to do this because otherwise taxis wouldn’t pick them up. He added that they had explained the requirement to take the assistance dog to the police since they didn’t seem to know it. The driver apologised for the confusion and inconvenience and suggested that being recorded had made the situation more stressful. The complainant asked whether the driver had received training on his legal obligations, and added that the guide dog’s harness clearly showed that it was an assistance animal. They suggested that if the driver was unable to see they had a guide dog, then he was not fit to drive a taxi. RESOLVED – 4 days’ suspension and a written warning (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog. The driver stated that he had just dropped off a passenger and was feeling tired very late in the evening, so he was not looking for a long fare. The complainant knocked on his window and asked to go to St Donat’s, which he said was too far away. He emphasised that he had not refused to take their assistance dog but was very tired and wanted to go home. The complainant asked why the driver was still on the rank if he was very tired. He also clarified that he had told the driver St Donat’s Road, which was much closer than St Donat’s. The issue started as soon as the driver saw the dog. The driver of the taxi behind had agreed with them that the situation was out of order. The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, stating that the three of them had approached the taxi with the dog and asked to go to St Donat’s Road, to which the driver locked the door. He didn’t say that he was too tired, just that he didn’t want to take the fare. The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver explained that he had misunderstood their destination as being far out of town, and he was too tired for a long journey, having been working since 2pm. He also clarified that he had only been on the rank for two or three minutes before the incident. After he didn’t take the complainants, he went straight home. The driver added that he had no issue with taking dogs in his taxi, having worked in the trade for more than a decade. Members noted that the video showed the driver saying ‘no dog’ after being told it was a guide dog. The driver suggested that he had not heard that it was a guide dog, and only turned them down because of his tiredness and his misunderstanding of the destination. The complainant acknowledged that the driver was tired but suggested he should not have been on the rank if he was not willing to take a fare. The driver responded that the official rank was on the other side of the road. RESOLVED – 7 days’ suspension and a written warning (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog. The driver stated that he was dispatched to a job by Dragon Taxis and didn’t know who he was picking up. The dog jumped in at the same time as the customers, and he didn’t realise it was an assistance animal so he said ‘no dog’. He was caught off guard and got out of his cab, at which point the customers started recording him. Once he got out of the cab he was able to calm down and spoke to the customers, and he agreed with them about the requirement to take the dog. He put the meter on and took them home as requested, and was sorry about the inconvenience. The complainant noted that he was not required to inform the taxi driver in advance that he had a guide dog, and asked whether the job would have been accepted if he had known. The driver responded that he would have accepted it, he had been driving for 15 years and had no problem with taking animals but just preferred to know in advance. The complainant appreciated the driver’s apology but suggested that he should not have needed to explain the situation for so long before being taken home. It was a constant battle with taxi drivers in Cardiff and an everyday occurrence which the council could do a lot more to tackle. The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver clarified that he hadn’t realised it was a guide dog at first. He had panicked because of the way the dog entered the car and the customers’ tone. The complainants suggested that they did not feel the driver should lose his licence, but that he needed some training. The Chair noted that the driver had already received disability and equality training as part of his BTEC qualification, and the video showed that he understood the legal requirements. The driver’s representative added that the driver’s usually high standards had briefly slipped, and that he had apologised for any offence caused and assured them it would not happen again. The driver had been taken aback at first by the dog but knew his responsibilities and carried out the journey as requested. He added that the driver had not worked for Dragon Taxis since then. RESOLVED – written warning
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application.
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990. APPLICATIONS RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT 21/00783/MJR – BUTETOWN LAND AT CURRAN EMBANKMENT, BUTETOWN, CARDIFF Demolition of existing buildings/structures and the comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment to provide up to 2,5000 new homes (class C3), business space (class B1), and a mix of complementary leisure, food and drink, hospitality, retail and health and wellbeing uses (class A1, A2, A3, C1, D1 and D2); creation of new open space (including a new riverside park and water taxi stop); new pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access points, pedestrian footbridge; vehicular and cycle parking facilities; landscaping; public realm and other associated ancillary and highways works. all matters reserved other than vehicular access. APPLICATIONS GRANTED 23/02009/FUL – PENYLAN 7 LADY MARGARET COURT, COLCHESTER AVENUE, PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 9AW Change of use to class A3 Café/Coffee Shop with ancillary takeaway use. 22/00687/FUL – RADYR & MORGANSTOWN RADYR COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL, HEOL ISAF, RADYR, CARDIFF, CF15 8XG
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Case 1 The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that alleged a driver refused to take him and his disabled wife from Heath Hospital to Llandaff North, and also told them he would not take a fare for less than £10. It was further alleged that the driver had used abusive language towards another driver who challenged him about not taking them. The driver addressed the Sub Committee, stating that he had not refused the fare and had instead sought to give it to the next driver in the rank because he was aware that that driver was soon leaving the rank to attend to a school run. He did not recall using any abusive language and suggested that the other driver involved had a personal problem with him. The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, reiterating the sequence of events outlined in his witness statement. The driver had refused to take him and his wife to Llandaff North, saying that he was waiting for somebody and then saying he did not take fares less than £10. The complainant approached the second taxi on the rank. He explained what had occurred to the driver but was still within earshot of the first driver. The second driver asked his colleague why he had refused the fare. The first driver told him to ‘fuck off and mind your own business’, followed by ‘fuck off’ again. The complainant stated that it was at this point the first driver accepted another fare and left the rank. The complainant stated that the driver of the second vehicle was unhappy and he himself was upset. He asked the driver for information on how to lodge a complaint and was provided with the relevant details. The Sub Committee discussed the two versions of events and agreed that the witness provided more credible evidence. Members asked why the driver now had a full recollection of the incident, in contrast to the written statement he provided where he indicated he could not recall any details of the incident. RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 28 days for refusal of a fare and unacceptable conduct. (2) Case 2 The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from Dragon Taxis regarding an incident that had been recorded on video by a member of the public and subsequently provided to them. The Licensing Manager stated that they had also received a video of the incident by a friend of the driver. Members viewed three video clips of the incident, and were advised that the videos showed an altercation involving the driver of a licence vehicle displaying Dragon Taxis livery and a number of other individuals. However, the vehicle was not a Dragon taxi and the driver was not employed by them. The Committee clarified the identities of those involved. The Sub Committee asked how the incident had started. The driver stated that a car was blocking a junction causing traffic to back up. He asked the driver of the vehicle to move. The other driver got out of his car, approached him and used abusive language. The driver stated that he felt threatened, so he pretended to get a weapon from the boot of his vehicle in order to scare his assailant off, but it was actually a hat in his hand. Members discussed the incident and agreed that the driver may well have been frustrated by the road being blocked, but had lost his temper and escalated the situation. The Committee was not convinced by the driver’s suggestion that he had only been holding a hat, as the video appeared to show a sharp object in his hand. The witness also described the driver as ‘holding a sharp object threatening to stab somebody’ during the commentary on the video. Members felt that he had clearly made a threatening gesture, regardless of what the object was. Members also noted that the driver had a Dragon Taxis logo on his car despite not working for them, which could be considered fraudulent or misrepresentation. The driver left the hearing and the hearing proceeded in his absence. RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire licence be revoked. (3) Case 3 The Sub Committee were asked to determine whether a taxi driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that a motoring conviction for IN10 (using an uninsured vehicle) was returned on his DVLA check as part of his licence renewal. The driver stated that his conviction had nothing to do with his role as a taxi driver. He had purchased a private vehicle and was driving that at the time of the offence. Members were advised that the vehicle was purchased with a number of mechanical faults. He took the vehicle to a garage using temporary insurance cover for 1 hour. He had not realised that the cover had expired when the mechanic recommended that he drive the car further than was necessary on his homeward journey in order to ensure the car was in good working order. He was stopped by the police who found the car was uninsured. However, his was unable to use his phone to demonstrate that the car had been insured earlier that day. He had received 6 points on his licence and a fine. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had first applied for a taxi licence in 2020, and the incident had happened in January 2023. He had no points on his licence other than the six he had received for this offence. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence. (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. Members were advised that that the applicant had been convicted of the offence of battery in 2017. The driver’s representative stated that the driver had not intended to deceive anyone by not declaring his conviction. There was some confusion because the website used to complete the application contained out of date or misleading information. The driver’s representative stated that the conviction was the result of a domestic incident in October 2017. The applicant was extremely remorseful. The applicant and his wife were still together and happily married after 35 years. They had run a shop together for many years, during which time he obtained a personal licence to sell alcohol, demonstrating that he was a responsible individual. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that in 2017 he and his wife had a heated argument that involved extended family in India on a mobile phone. The wife took the phone and asked to speak with them. When attempting to retrieve the phone from his wife, this this caused her to hit her head on a wall. The police were called. His wife was present and stated to the Sub Committee that nothing had occurred since this incident. The family worked together very well. The driver added that he was confident he could handle the stresses of the job in the future. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence Members were advised that the applicant had a relevant conviction on his DBS relating to an offence from 1994. The driver stated that he was reapplying for a licence, having previously held one until 2008. Since then he had worked full time as a coach driver for National Express and Cardiff Bus. He was experienced in working with the general public, including vulnerable adults and children, and had never once had a problem in all that time. The conviction was from about 30 years ago when he was young and foolish, and he accepted that he had made a mistake which he had been punished for. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved. (6) Case 6 The Sub Committee was asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that that the driver attempted to charge £6 to take an assistance dog and had discriminated against the complainant. The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident which had been submitted by the complainant. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not notified on the booking that there would be a dog. He arrived at the pickup location and the dog was a few metres away and not wearing any high-vis, so he explained to the passengers that he would have to start the meter at £6. The passenger asked whether the driver understood what the high-vis harness the dog was wearing was. The driver responded that he did. He had no problem with dogs, only that it wasn’t mentioned on the booking. The complainants stated that they called the office to clarify that there should be no charge for an assistant dog. By then they felt uncomfortable, so they left the taxi and got into another one. The complainant described the incident as an unnecessary and embarrassing experience. Members sought to clarify whether the driver was aware of the operators policies on assistance dogs and pets. The driver stated that for a pet dog the meter will start at £6. For assistance dogs there is no additional charge. Members asked why it would matter whether there was notification that a dog was mentioned at the time of the booking. The driver stated that he didn’t see the assistance dog it at first because of the poor visibility he was therefore surprised. Members asked why the driver had insisted on a £6 fee after being told it was a guide dog. The driver stated that he was unaware and his English language skills are not the best. The video highlighted that there was a language barrier. The complainants reminded Members that that the driver initially claimed to be allergic to dogs but he could not provide an exemption certificate when asked. The complainant stated that in his experience incidents like this are a regular occurrence with taxi drivers in Cardiff. The complainant considered that the matter should be before Magistrates. The language barrier was not considered to be a major factor in the incident as the driver kept saying that he understood. Blind people should not be left out in the street. Committee in agreement that the video clearly showed that it was not just a misunderstanding, and the driver was trying to charge and additional fee. It was confirmed that all drivers have assistance dog training as part of their SQA qualification. The Sub Committee acknowledged that the driver had no history of offences, but refusing a fare to someone because of a protected characteristic was unacceptable. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for refusal of a fare and attempting to overcharge. (7) Case 7 The Sub Committee was asked to determine whether a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License after a complaint was received stating that he refused to take an assistance dog and claimed he had a medical condition. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that as he picked the complainants up from their house they were recording him on a mobile phone, which had confused him. He was sneezing and dizzy at the time, but he took them to their destination. Members asked whether the driver had an allergy and an exemption certificate. The driver confirmed that he did not have an exemption certificate and had not seen a doctor about getting one since the incident. He was not allergic to dogs. The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, emphasising the driver would have known he was visually impaired because his guide dog’s harness was clearly labelled. He and his partner had to spend 10 minutes explaining to the driver why he had to take them and the dog, which they shouldn’t have had to do. They had missed a train because of the delay which affected their work. The complainant’s partner added that he had started filming because he saw the driver looking at them while they approached the car and suspected he would refuse to let the dog in. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for unacceptable conduct.