Trwyddedau ar gyfer tafarndai, tacsis a digwyddiadau, ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol a safonau masnach.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Mae cynghorau'n gweithio gyda'r heddlu ac eraill ar ddiogelwch cymunedol, yn rhedeg teledu cylch cyfyng, yn trwyddedu tafarndai, tacsis a mangreoedd gamblo, ac yn delio ag ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol fel sŵn.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Mae penderfyniadau trwyddedu'n cael eu gwneud gan bwyllgor neu is-bwyllgor trwyddedu o gynghorwyr, sy'n clywed gan ymgeiswyr a gwrthwynebwyr.
Dweud eich dweud
Gallwch wrthwynebu cais am drwydded yn ystod ei gyfnod ymgynghori. Rhowch wybod i'r cyngor am sŵn ac ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol.
Wrthi'n llwytho
Fesul cyngor, y 12 mis diwethaf
Faint o eitemau agenda ar y pwnc hwn y deliodd pob cyngor â nhw, a faint oedd â phenderfyniad wedi'i gofnodi.
RESOLVED – That:
The Committee approve the draft Cumulative Impact Assessment for consultation with the following statutory consultees:
-
Chief Officer of Police for the area
-
Fire and Rescue Authority for the area
-
Local Health Board in Wales for an area any part of which is in the licensing authority’s area
-
Persons/bodies representative of local premises licence holders
-
Persons/bodies representative of local club premises certificate holders
-
Persons/bodies representative of local personal licence holders
-
Persons/bodies representative of businesses and residents in its area
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.
The Sub Committee carefully considered the objection from South Wales Police and felt that the proposed variation would negatively impact the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That:
(1) the moratorium on issuing new hackney carriage licences be rescinded;
(2) Members note the policies for the transition to an ultra-low emissions taxi service by 2028
(3) new hackney carriage licences should only be issued to fully electric vehicles, or wheelchair accessible vehicles that are under 5 years old and meet the Euro 6 emission standard. This is to support the transition to a zero-emissions taxi service whilst recognising the non-availability of fully electric wheelchair accessible taxis on the market.
(4) that officers carry out further research around the testing policy and minimum emissions standards for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles licensed in Cardiff, and a subsequent report is presented at a future meeting of this committee;
(5) the process of putting vehicle licences on-hold be removed. This change is to take effect 6 months after the resolution.
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)
Case 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that a hackney carriage driver spoke and acted inappropriately to a member of the public and her son when they were in his vehicle. The complainant stated that the driver read and kept the paper that had her personal information on, he then advised her not to ring Dragon but call him on his number instead, he then gave her a card with his personal mobile number and name on it.
The driver stated that he had taken the paper to double check the address, he was not aware of the details of the fare and was only being polite and courteous by chatting. He added that the business card with his name and number on was in amongst the other cards by mistake, his daughter had written on some of his old cards, and he gave this one by mistake.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee and reiterated her complaint, as outlined in the papers. She added that when she had got back to her address and relayed the conversation with the driver to her friend, she had been advised to make a complaint.
The representative for the driver stated that the driver would not have known the specific details of the booking and the customers vulnerability. He would only have been advised of the pick up and drop off location by the operator.
The driver confirmed that he has a clean record, and this stated that this had been a genuine misunderstanding for which he apologised.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning and be mindful in future of the conversations he has with customers based on their situation/circumstances.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from a hackney carriage driver that another driver displayed aggressive behaviour to him include shouting, cursing and threats to injure and damage him. The driver is also accused of attempting to head butt another driver whilst plying for hire at Mill Lane taxi rank.
The Sub Committee received representations from the driver.
The driver stated that he was waiting in the taxi rank on Mill Lane, he was near the front of the queue and customers approached the car in from and then him, asking if it was the car they had booked, he said he was not and then another taxi approached and pulled in and they got in that car and left. The taxi in front of him left with a customer and he pulled forward. After this the driver of the car behind him got out of his car and knocked on his window, he was very aggressive and was accusing him of refusing fares and giving them to other drivers. He said he tried to explain what had happened, but he wouldn’t listen, so he got out of his car and they carried on arguing. Then he got back into his car with a customer and pulled away.
The complainant addressed the Sub-Committee and stated that on the date in question he was working at the Marriott taxi rank on Mill Lane, he was 2nd in the queue and the other driver was choosing fares and giving fares to other drivers who were his accomplices and not the other fellow taxi drivers. He left his vehicle and spoke to the driver and confronted him about his actions and told him he had been waiting to get fares for almost 40/50 minutes. He warned him if he carried on doing it he would be reported to licensing. The complainant stated that the other driver then became very aggressive and tried to headbutt him and other drivers had to get involved to stop it from resulting in further aggressive behaviour. He added that the other driver also made threats saying he was going to "smash up my vehicle" These incidents were reported to 101 and the complainant told the Sub-Committee that he felt so scared that he did not work for a few days in case he saw him.
The representative for the driver state that if the complainant had not left his vehicle and acted aggressively towards the driver with no evidence of what had gone on, they would not be sat there today.
The driver and the complainant responded to questions from Sub Committee Members and the meeting was adjourned for the decision.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning and be mindful in future of his conduct.
(3)
(4)
Application 3 (In absence)
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remains a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he has been Jailed for 4 years and 8 months following a conviction of robbery.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers licence be revoked.
Application 4
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remains a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he has been convicted of 2 motoring offences amounting to 9 penalty points. The driver failed to notify the authority at the time of receiving the points instead waiting until the renewal application and declaring them on the application form.
The Sub Committee received representations from the driver. The driver stated that in 2021 he was having family problems and his wife was suffering from depression. He spent nine months away from the family home and during that time his wife had not passed on any of his mail. He added that about 7 or 8 months after he had left, his daughter had sent a picture of a letter from the DVLA, after which he called them, but the case had already been sent to the court and he was told to wait.
There had been two camera offences and the driver stated he did not know about them or the points. He added that between 2007 and 2021 he had held a clean licence. During Covid he had taken up delivering take away food, which was when the offences occurred.
The representative for the driver asked the Sub Committee to take into consideration the drivers previous clean record and the fact that he is now back with his family and has five children to support.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning, be reminded of his duties as a taxi-driver, and to complete a relevant BTEC course within three months to familiarise himself with the standards expected of him.
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 Environmental Health Pollution Control
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.
The Sub Committee considered that the application did not overcome the rebuttable presumption that the application should be refused and that the cumulative impact policy should be applied.
RESOLVED: that
1) the proposed agreement with Tennis Wales as set out in this report be approved.
2) the three tennis court sites identified in this report be included in the agreement.
3) Authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Events and the Legal Officer to:
a. identify a further three tennis court sites to be included in the agreement subject to appropriate due diligence and governance relating to any Trust arrangements and/or restrictive covenants;
b. enter into Licence Agreements/Management Agreements as required for the sites included in the scheme.
4) It be noted that further reports will need to be presented back to Cabinet as Trustee to approve the inclusion of any sites subject to Charitable Trusts.
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 following conditions:
1. After 20:00 The use of the external area is restricted to dining customers only.
2. Allocation of customers to external tables must only be carried out by the DPS or duty manager.
3. After 20:00 a member of staff must undertake regular patrols of the external area and perimeter on Bangor Street to monitor noise levels from patrons. These patrols must be recorded and retained for a period of 3 months (either electronically or a physical document) The record should include the time, date of patrol, who it was undertaken by and any comments or resulting action taken. The premises is under an obligation to inform Cardiff Council if the noise levels are excessive on a regular basis.
4. No speakers or music will be used after 20:00 in the external area.
The premises licence holder shall invite residents to a meeting every 6 months.
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 a hackney carriage driver requested payment of the fare in advance of the journey and also refused to use the taxi meter.
The Sub Committee received representations from the driver. The driver stated that he had no recollection of the incident. He accepted that a photograph provided by the complainant was a photograph of his vehicle but he denied that was the driver involved in the incident. The driver confirmed that he was aware of the licensing conditions relating to use of the taxi meter.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that he approached the taxi and requested to be taken to Ely. The driver requested £20 in advance of the journey. The complainant agreed to this conditionally as long as the taxi meter was used. At that point the driver refused to use the meter. The complainant stated that he reminded the driver that he was obliged to use the meter for this journey and the driver stated that it was a busy night therefore he was refusing to use the meter. When the complainant stated that he would report the matter to the licensing authority the driver became agitated. The complainant then photographed the rear of the vehicle and proceeded to look for another taxi. He eventually booked an Uber vehicle, the fare was £13.50.
Responding to a question from the Sub Committee, the complainant stated that he could not be certain that the driver before him was the driver of the vehicle on the night in question. However, he was certain that the vehicle in the photograph was the vehicle involved. The Sub Committee was invited to view the digital date stamp of the photograph which confirmed that the photograph was taken at 0525 hours on the morning of 5 February 2023. The complaint also stated that he emailed the Licensing Authority with details of the incident immediately upon returning home.
The driver confirmed that he was the sole driver of the vehicle and nobody else used the vehicle.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning for refusal to use the taxi meter. The Sub Committee accepted that the photograph provided by the complainant was valid and the driver was the driver of the vehicle at the time.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a report received from Uber regarding the conduct of a hackney carriage / private hire driver licensed by the authority. The report indicated that the driver has had his Uber account permanently deactivated due to a series of complaints of a similar nature from customers on the platform. The complaints related to a number of inappropriate comments, advances and personal intimate questions made by the driver whilst transporting customers.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. The driver stated that he was not made aware of all the incidents in question by Uber and that Uber had handled the complaints ‘unprofessionally’. It was alleged that Uber had questioned him about one of the incidents when he had passengers in his vehicle. Uber also corresponded with him but the correspondence addressed to the wrong name despite repeated attempts to correct this.
Members were advised that Uber had asked non-specific open-ended questions that the driver felt unable to answer. It was confirmed that he had received an email from Uber stating that he had broken their Code of Practice and he was no longer able to work for them.
The driver was asked to respond to each of the incidents set out in the report. The driver stated that he couldn’t remember the first incident from five years ago as it was not brought to his attention at the time. The second incident was discussed with Uber but there were passengers in his vehicle and he was unable to hear what was being said by Uber. He had no recollection of the third or the fourth incident. The fifth incident was discussed but he felt unable to answer the open-ended questioning put to him.
Members were advised that since the termination of his Uber account the driver had attempted to communicate with them but this was proving difficult. It was also alleged that Uber had acted illegally in reporting the matter to the Licensing Authority. The driver stated that he had been a licensed driver for 19 years and he had an excellent rating on the Uber platform.
RESOLVED – that the driver complete the SQA for Professional Drivers within 3 months. The Sub Committee has concerns about the driver’s pattern of behaviour across multiple incidents that amounted to unprofessional conduct.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for a hackney carriage / private hire licence. The applicant had a conviction under Section 5 for using threatening words and behaviour. The applicant was asked to outline the incident which led to the conviction.
Members were advised that the driver was involved with a collision with another driver. Both parties had pulled into a lay-by to exchange details. A third party individual approached and attempted to interject into the conversation. An argument ensued during which the applicant called the third party a racist.
Police attended the scene. Details were exchanged and the applicant left. Subsequently the driver was asked to attend a police station and he was charged. The allegations were denied and the matter proceeded to court. The applicant stated that in court the Duty Solicitor told him not to worry. He was unable to satisfactorily follow the proceedings due to a problem with his hearing aid. He was found guilty.
The driver stated that he has been a licensed driver in Newport for 9 years without incident.
RESOLVED – That the application for a hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be approved.
RESOLVED: That the Council AGREED to:
1. approve the election of Chairs and Deputy Chairs (as appropriate) to the Regulatory and Other Committees and Groups as follows:
Committee
Chair
Deputy Chair
Constitution Committee
Cllr Russell Goodway
-
Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee
Cllr Sarah Merry as Deputy Leader
-
Council Appeals Committee
Cllr Chris Lay
-
Democratic Services Committee
Cllr John Lancaster
-
Employment Conditions Committee
Cllr Chris Weaver
-
Licensing Committee
Cllr Michael Michael
Cllr Maliika Kaaba
Pensions Committee
Cllr Chris Weaver
-
Planning Committee
Cllr Ed Stubbs
Cllr Irene Humphreys
Public Protection Committee
Cllr Michael Michael
Cllr Maliika Kaaba
Bilingual Cardiff Working Group
Cllr Owen Jones
-
Local Authority Governor Panel
Cllr Sarah Merry as Deputy Leader
-
Investment Advisory Panel
Cllr Chris Weaver
-
Works Council
Cllr Chris Weaver
-
Health & Safety Advisory Forum
Cllr Chris Weaver
-
1. approve the proportional allocation of Scrutiny Chairs as set out in paragraph 4, Table A of the report; and
2. note the proposed appointments of the Scrutiny Chairs made by Party Groups pursuant to Part 6 of the Local Government Act (Wales) Measure 2011 as follows:
Scrutiny Committee
Chair
Deputy Chair
Children & Young People
Cllr Lee Bridgeman
N/A
Community & Adult Services
Cllr Rhys Taylor
N/A
Economy & Culture
Cllr Peter Wong
N/A
Environmental
Cllr Owen Jones
N/A
Policy Review & Performance
Cllr Joel Williams
N/A
RESOLVED – That the application for a personal licence be granted.
The Sub Committee heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material, the Licensing Act 2003, Section 182 Guidance and the Statement of Licensing Policy.
Members also heard the representations made by South Wales Police and considered all the supporting information submitted.
The Sub Committee also took into consideration the verbal representation given by the applicant’s Probation Officer at the hearing.
After carefully considering the representations made today and the written material, the Sub Committee did not believe that the granting of a Personal Licence will undermine the licensing objection of the prevention of crime and disorder and therefore resolved to grant the application.
RESOLVED: that
1. subject to the future budget allocation, approval be given to an increase of the value of contracts to be allocated via the DPS from £49 million to a total value of £138.8 million. This revised amount will cover the value of all new contracts allocated until the expiry date of the contracts up to 31st august 2029.
2. authority be delegated to the Director of Planning Transport and Environment in consultation with the Cabinet portfolio Members and directorate budget holders for Education, Childrens and Adults service, to procure and deliver contracts subject to budget being available.
3. Authority be delegated to the Director of Planning Transport and Environment in consultation with the Cabinet portfolio Members and Directorate budget holders for Education, Childrens and Adults service, to award single tender spot contracts outside of the passenger transport DPS up to £30m subject to budget being available for upcoming statutory taxi contracts. This amount covers the period that the contracts are potentially in place until 31st august 2029.
4. It be noted that if the budget requirement exceeds the current allocation available having considered the availability of external funding or in year efficiencies then this will need to be brought back to Cabinet for approval as part of the budget setting process.
5. It be noted that a further report be brought to Cabinet once further changes take place in the wider funding context such as changes to BES etc. are understood.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
Members considered complaint received from a Member of the public that a driver had refused a fare.
Members were advised that a private hire booking was made in order to transport a vulnerable passenger with learning disabilities from the Millennium Centre to their home address. The passenger had participated in a performance at the Millennium Centre and he appeared in stage make up and a ‘drag’ costume. The complainant stated that the driver refused to take the passenger and said that they would need to book another vehicle. The passenger was not intoxicated, though their speech is affected by their disability.
The driver stated that he refused the fare because the passenger was intoxicated and travelling alone. He was concerned that the passenger may become sick during the journey so he cancelled the booking.
The complainant stated that at no point did the driver raise concerns about the passenger being intoxicated. The complaint stated that he would have challenged the driver at the time if that was the case.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee the driver stated that he often worked on Friday and Saturday evenings and he regularly took fares from customers who were intoxicated.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire licence be suspended for 7 days and the driver be required to complete the SQA professional driver qualification within 3 months.
(2)
Case 2
Members were asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public regarding a drivers conduct.
The complainant stated that whilst out jogging she came across a taxi parked on double yellow lines and partially blocking the pavement. She decided to take a photograph and report the matter to the private hire operator. The driver of the vehicle then exited the vehicle and an exchange occurred. It was alleged that the driver then followed the complainant and a further more heated altercation occurred. The complainant stated that she was concerned by the driver’s behaviour and for her safety.
The driver accepted that he was parked on double yellow lines. However, he was collecting a passenger with Downs Syndrome from a nearly premises. The driver explained that the fare was a regular booking and he always parked in that place because passengers with Downs Syndrome need consistency. The driver stated that noticed the complainant taking photographs of his vehicle. He attempted to explain the situation to the complainant. He denied following the complainant or that a further altercation occurred.
Members questioned both parties in order to clarify the sequence of events.
RESOLVED – That no further action be taken.
(3)
Case 3
The Sub Committee considered a complaint from a passenger who alleged that a driver had dismissed her instructions regarding which directions to take. The driver had also driven dangerously, in excess of the speed limit and had attempted to overcharge for the journey.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. He advised that he was working on the rank in Mill Lane. A customer approached the vehicle and asked if he used the taxi meter. Two passengers entered the vehicle. The first drop-off was in Canton and the second in Rhiwbina. The driver entered the postcodes into his satnav. After dropping the first passenger in Canton the driver stated that when travelling along Western Avenue he missed the turn off at Gabalfa. The remaining passenger became agitated, she was upset and shouting.
The driver denied that he was travelling in excess of the speed limit. He apologised for missing the turn off.
The complainant stated that after dropping her friend in Canton the vehicle was travelling along Western Avenue. She instructed the driver to take the Gabalfa turn off as they were approaching it. The drivers satnav was also instructing him to take the exit. The driver at first sat in silence and then shrugged his shoulders as they passed the exit saying ‘too late now’
The complainant immediately telephoned her husband. She stated that she was panicking and concerned for her safety. She asked her husband to track her phone using an app installed on the device. The driver took the next available exit. He was driving erratically. He attempted to re-join Western Avenue in the wrong direction and needed to perform an emergency stop. The driver then travelled in excess of the speed limit and continued to refused to take instructions. The complainant provided evidence of the route taken by the vehicle and the speeds at which the vehicle was travelling downloaded from the app on her phone.
Responding to questions the complainant stated that she was in a similar position during visit to London. The driver on that occasion took her to the wrong hotel. However, that driver was extremely reassuring, courteous and apologetic. This driver did nothing to reassure her which only increased her anxiety.
At the end of the journey the driver asked for £35 fare. The complainant stated that she has taken the exact same journey on numerous occasions and the fare should be approximately £21.
The Sub Committee asked questions. Members attempted to clarify how an experienced taxi driver would ignore the instructions from a passenger and their own satnav. The driver stated that he did not know why he missed the exit and accepted that he had made a mistake.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Drivers licence be suspended for 28 days for conduct and attempting to overcharge a passeneger.
(4)
Case 4
The Sub Committee were asked to determine whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence. Members were advised that due to an administrative error a driver was granted a licence application on 2 May 2023. The application should have been listed for the Committee’s consideration as the driver had previously had a licence revoked. The decision to revoke was challenged and subsequently upheld in the Magistrates Court.
Members were advised that in October 2018 South Wales Police informed the Licensing Authority that the driver had been arrested on suspicion of the rape of a 16-year old female passenger. The driver submitted an email detailing his version of events. All charges against the driver were eventually dropped and the driver remains free of conviction. However, the Public Protection Sub Committee resolved to revoke the licence. An application was made in January 2022 and the Public Protection Sub Committee resolved to refused the application.
Members questioned the driver regarding the events that took place on the evening in question. The driver’s representative raised concerns that the Sub Committee were effectively rehearing the original complaint. There were no questions put to the driver regarding his conduct since the revocation of his licence in 2018.
The Chairperson stated that the Members present were not present in 2018 and they were entitled to ascertain what had occurred that resulted in the revocation and the subsequent appeal being upheld by the Magistrates Court. The Chairperson reminded all parties of the fit and proper person test that is applied when determining these matters.
RESOLVED – That the hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be revoked as the Sub Committee did not consider the driver to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
(5)
Case 5
RESOLVED – That a hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be granted.
RESOLVED:
The subcommittee heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. The subcommittee also considered the Licensing Act 2003 the Section 182 Guidance, its own Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment document.
The subcommittee also heard the representations made by the local ward member and local residents and have considered all written representations made to us.
The premises is located in an area covered by a Cumulative Impact Policy that creates the rebuttable presumption that any new or full variation applications for Premises Licences will be refused or limited unless the applicant can successfully demonstrate that granting the application will not add to the cumulative impact in the area. The subcommittee note that this policy would apply to this application as it is within the area covered by the policy.
The subcommittee note that the applicant has accepted the conditions of both South Wales Police and the Licensing Authority at Appendix C and D of the report and as a result they have withdrawn their objection to this application.
The subcommittee note the concerns from the local ward members that once this application is granted, it may lead to an application to extend the hours at which alcohol can be sold. Any future application to extend the hours at which alcohol can be sold will be subject to the relevant scrutiny of the statutory licensing process and would still be subject to the cumulative impact policy.
After carefully considering the representations made today and the written material, the subcommittee do not feel that the granting of this licence will add to the negative cumulative impact in the area, and there is no evidence that the granting of this application will have a negative impact on the licensing objectives.
The subcommittee therefore resolve to grant the application.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a report on a driver who had received 6 penalty points for an IN10 motoring offence – driving without insurance. The offence was declared when the driver applied to renew his licence and not at the time of the offence.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that the driver was licenced for private hire. The driver stated that he was approached by 2 passengers and took them to Tal-y-bont without being pre-booked. The passengers were Council Enforcement Officers and he was prosecuted in court for the offence.
The driver accepted that he had made a mistake and apologised. He was now aware that he was not insured to carry the passengers and he would not take such a fare in the future. He had previously been driving for 20 years without any issues reported.
RESOLVED – That the driver received a written warning and be required to complete the SQA Professional Driving qualification within 3 months.
(2)
Case 2
The Committee were asked to consider a report on a driver who had amassed 27 penalty points on his drivers licence for 7 speeding offences. The offences were not reported to the authority at the time of the offence.
Members were advised that the offences occurred during the Covid-19 lockdown when there was no ambulance service available. The driver had relocated his family from Roath to Pontprennau and all the offences had occurred at the same speed camera. The driver stated that his wife was suffering with mental health issues and a heart condition. He was transporting his wife to hospital at the time of the offences and was using the family car. He was not working or transporting passengers at the time.
The driver stated that he was prosecuted in court for the offences. However, the judge took into account the mitigating circumstances and he was able to continue to drive. Since the offences occurred his is extra vigilant and has regard for the safety of his passengers.
The driver apologised for not reporting the offences at the time. He indicated that he was unaware that he needed to do so.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning for driving offences and not reporting.
(3)
Case 3
RESOLVED – That the application for a grant of a hackney carriage/private hire drivers licence be approved.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee was asked to consider a complaint received that a driver attempted to overcharge a passenger and refused to use the taxi meter.
The Sub Committee received representations from the complainant. The complainant detailed the events on the evening in question. Members were advised that the passenger provided the destination and the driver stated that the fare would be £10 because fuel prices were high. The passenger was uncomfortable and was aware that the taxi meter should be used for all journeys. He asked the driver to stop the vehicle at which point the driver started the meter. The complainant stated that he needed to be assertive and he was concerned that other passengers would be intimated if they were put in the same position.
The driver stated that he had explained to the passenger that the fare would be approximately £10. He denied refusing to use the taxi meter and apologised for any misunderstanding.
Members questioned both parties in order to clarify the events on that evening.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire drivers licence be suspended for 10 days for not using the taxi meter.
(2)
Case 2
Deferred for 1 month
(3)
Case 3
Members were advised that a driver had received 6 penalty points for driving without insurance. The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether any disciplinary action should be taken.
The driver’s legal representative addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that the driver recognised that this was a serious offence. The driver was driving a private vehicle at the time of the offence. He was unaware that his insurance policy had been cancelled by email. The insurance company had continued to take payment for the policy. When he was made aware of the position he rectified it immediately.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning for a driving offence.
(4)
Case 4
Members received representations from a driver who received 6 penalty points for careless driving.
The driver stated that he had arrived late to pick up a group of passengers. The passengers were impatient and were intoxicated. One person in the group also refused to wear a face mask. The group asked to be taken to the Depot in Butetown but the booking was for a drop off in Rhiwbina. The driver refused to take the fare and he suggested that they book another vehicle. The passengers then became angry so the driver offered to book the vehicle for them.
The driver described the group as excited and disrespectful. The group insisted he take them and were refusing to let him leave.
As he drove away one passenger was holding on to the passenger door. The driver stopped and the customer fell. The driver was subsequently summoned to appear in court. He plead not guilty and went to trial.
The driver stated that he had never had any complaint or problems with other passengers. He was unaware that he was required to declare the conviction at the time.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire drivers licence be suspended for 14 days for a driving offence and for not declaring the offence.
(5)
Case 5
The Sub Committee received representations from a driver who had received 9 penalty points for speeding offences. The driver explained the circumstances leading to each of the convictions. The driver accepted that he was at fault and that he needed to declare the offences at the time. The driver stated that there were no passengers in the vehicle at the time of the offences.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning for driving offences.
(6)
Case 6
The Sub Committee was asked to consider a complaint received from 2 Licensing Enforcement Officers. The officers reported that they had witnessed a private hire vehicle plying for hire in the city centre, in contravention of the conditions of its licence.
The driver stated that he had taken a friend to Penarth Road. He then went to Mill Lane to wait for a fare. He denied picking up any passengers there.
The Licensing Officers stated that they were working in Mill Lane. They witnessed a female approach the vehicle and overheard a conversation taking place. The Licensing Officers considered that the vehicle was plying for hire and it had not been pre-booked. The vehicle details were subsequently checked. The private hire operators confirmed that no bookings had been made for that vehicle that day. The driver was subsequently interviewed under caution.
Members of the Sub Committee questioned all parties. The Sub Committee established a number of inconsistencies between the drivers statement under caution and the answers they were being given at the meeting.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire drivers licence be suspended for 28 days for plying for hire without a licence.
(7)
Case 7
Members were advised that a driver had received a custodial sentence for an offence of battery. The conviction was not declared at the time but was subsequently declared upon renewal of the licence. Members were asked to consider whether any disciplinary action should be taken.
The Sub Committee received representations from the driver’s legal representative. Members were provided with background information leading up to the conviction.
Members were advised that an incident had occurred in 2019. The driver was separated from his wife and children and his estranged family live some distance away. The driver received reports that his son was not attending school and he was greatly concerned.
An argument had occurred which between the driver, his ex-wife and members of her extended family. The driver was arrested, charged and subsequently convicted.
The legal representative stated that the driver regretted his actions. He was shamed and he didn’t want anybody to know. A false allegation was also made that the driver intended to return his daughter to Yemen which resulted in 2 restriction orders being placed upon him.
Members were advised that the driver had no problems related to his role as a taxi driver. He specialises in working with vulnerable people and concentrated on working outside of the city centre. A period of four years had elapsed since his conviction.
The driver accepted that he should have notified the Council earlier. It was recognised that the priority for Members is public safety and it was suggested that he had provide his trustworthiness.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers licence be revoked.