Y cyfansoddiad, ymddygiad cynghorwyr, archwilio, perfformiad a chwynion.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Sut mae'r cyngor ei hun yn cael ei redeg: ei gyfansoddiad, staff, adeiladau, TG, cwynion, a sut mae cynghorwyr yn ymddwyn.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Mae'r Cyngor llawn yn cytuno ar y cyfansoddiad. Mae pwyllgor safonau'n delio ag ymddygiad cynghorwyr; mae Ombwdsmon Gwasanaethau Cyhoeddus Cymru yn ymchwilio i gwynion.
Dweud eich dweud
Cwynwch i'r cyngor yn gyntaf; os nad ydych yn fodlon, gallwch fynd at yr Ombwdsmon. Mae cyfarfodydd y cyngor yn gyhoeddus, ac mae llawer yn cael eu darlledu.
Mewn rhifau
Mae cynghorau Cymru yn bwriadu gwario £67 y pen ar hyn yn 2026-27.
Mae'n amrywio o -£4 yn Sir Fynwy i £167 yn Blaenau Gwent.
Treth gyngor a gasglwyd: 95% ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
Treth gyngor heb ei thalu ar ddiwedd y flwyddyn: £119 miliwn ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
Treth gyngor sy'n dal yn ddyledus o flynyddoedd cynt: £199.3 miliwn ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
Treth gyngor a ddilëwyd: £9 miliwn ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
RESOLVED: that the mid-year assessment of the Council’s performance as set out in this report and Appendix A, including the delivery of key commitments and priorities at the end of Quarter 2 of 2022/23, and the actions being taken to ensure the effective delivery of the Corporate Plan 2022-25 be noted
RESOLVED: that
1. the readoption of the current Cardiff Agreed Syllabus for Religious Education attached at Appendix 1be supported and agreed.
2. the new Cardiff Agreed Syllabus for Religion, Values and Ethics attached at Appendix 2 be supported and agreed
3. the revised Terms of Reference (Revised Constitution of SACRE/SAC for RVE, October 2022) attached at Appendix 3 be agreed
RESOLVED:
Council AGREED to:
Approve the recommended Constitution amendments set out in the report and its appendices, and asked the Monitoring Officer to update the Constitution accordingly.
RESOLVED:
Council AGREED to:
• approve the amendment of the Members’ Code of Conduct, as set out in paragraph 14 of the report;
• approve the draft Protocol for the Use of Council Hybrid Meetings IT Equipment for Political Group Meetings, appended to the report as Appendix A;
• Instruct the Director of Governance and Legal Services and Monitoring Officer to update the Constitution accordingly, and issue the requisite notifications in relation to the amendment of the Members’ Code of Conduct, as set out in paragraph 18 of the report; and
Delegate authority to the Director of Governance and Legal Services, in consultation with the Chair of the Standards and Ethics Committee and party Group Whips, to make any minor amendments to the Protocol (Appendix A), in order to ensure its effective operation.
RESOLVED
Council AGREED to:
1. Approve the audited Statement of Accounts 2021/22 – The Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund (Appendix 1).
2. Note the Audit of Accounts Reports (ISA 260) from Audit Wales on the Statement of Accounts of Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund for the year ending 31 March 2022 (Appendix 2).
3. Note the final Letter of Representation for the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund included within Appendix 2.
4. Note that the following documents will be signed following the conclusion of the meeting:
· Statement of Accounts for Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund – Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources
· Audit Certificate for the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund – Appointed Auditor, Audit Wales.
Letter of Representation for the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund - Lord Mayor and Chief Executive.
RESOLVED - That Governance and Audit Committee:
(1) notes the 2021/22 Draft Audited Statement of Accounts for Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund;
(2) notes the 2021/22 Draft Audit of Accounts Reports (ISA 260) for the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund.
RESOLVED:
The Committee AGREED to:
1. Provide views on the constitutional rules governing meetings of the full Council and the Cabinet which the Committee wishes to amend or review, having regard to the specific suggestions set out in the report, and the extent and form of any consultation they wish to carry out with individual councillors and /or political groups on this;
2. Delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair, to carry out consultation as agreed by the Committee and either to bring a report back to this committee or submit any agreed changes to the Constitution to full Council for approval, as appropriate;
3. Provide views on any other areas of the Constitution, which the Committee wishes to amend or review; and
4. Request the Monitoring Officer to prepare further reports on any other potential changes, with reference to the issues identified under Recommendations 1 and 3 above, if appropriate, for consideration by the Committee at a suitable future meeting.
That a Constitution Committee Workshop be organised to address issues outlined above.
RESOLVED:
The Committee AGREED to:
1. Consider and agree the Constitution amendments set out in this report and Appendices A to G, subject to any agreed changes;
2. Authorise the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair, to draft any further amendments to reflect the views of the Committee; and
Recommend the agreed Constitution amendments to full Council for approval.
RESOLVED to:
1) Recommend to Council: (a) that authorisation be given to allow Members to use Council IT equipment to hold and or join political group meetings held remotely (fully or partly), in accordance with an agreed code of practice; and (b) the Members’ Code of Conduct be amended as set out in paragraph 15 of the report;
2) Agree its comments be addressed in the code of practice to be put in place in relation to the use of Council resources for political group meetings;
3) Delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair, the Head of Democratic Services, the IT Services Manager and party group whips, to develop and agree a code of practice on the use of Council resources for political group meetings, for approval by Council; and
Receive an information report back on this matter in due course.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. It was revealed on renewal of his licence that he had failed previously to disclose a conviction which occurred while he was licensed.
On renewal of his licence the driver declared a conviction under the Fraud Act. A Disclosure Barring Service check revealed a conviction dated 11 November 2021 relating to a failure to declare a change of circumstances for Council Tax purposes.
The driver was asked to explain the circumstances. The driver’s representative stated that the driver had a friend who had recently become homeless. He came to stay temporarily with the driver, then the stay was extended to become a longer one intermittently between trips to Somalia.
The driver was not aware at the time that the arrangement was becoming a permanent one. When he became aware that he was in breach of Council Tax rules he pleaded guilty. He is currently repaying the Council Tax owed and relies on his job to pay.
As soon as he became aware that he should have notified the Local Authority of his conviction the driver sent an email detailing his guilty plea. This was confirmed by the Authority.
When questioned by members of the Sub Committee the driver explained that the homeless person he had accommodated was a single person, a taxi driver, and he stayed with the driver for around 10 months intermittently.
RESOLVED – That no further action be taken.
Councillor Driscoll declared an interest in the following item as a person was known to him. Cllr Driscoll withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the decision.
(2)
Case 2
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence after a complaint was received that he entered and travelled in the wrong direction down a one-way street and gestured at a Cardiff Council Road Safety Officer using his middle finger. The incident was observed by a member of the public, the head teacher of a primary school who was welcoming children being delivered to the school by parents.
The Sub Committee received representations from the complainant. The complainant described how he was cycling to his work as a Road Safety Officer when he saw the driver in his taxi approaching the wrong way down a one-way street. He dismounted and captured a video image of the taxi turning round and returning back up the lane. As he passed him the driver made a rude gesture with his middle finger and told him to ‘Get a life’. The member of the public had come over to where the Officer was and witnessed these events.
The driver was asked to present his account of the incident. He claimed that at the time of the incident in March there were no ‘No Entry’ signs at the beginning of the lane. As he drove down the lane he realised something was not right, so he drove slowly past the Road Safety Officer. A member of the public informed him he was travelling the wrong way down a one-way street. He carried out a 3-point turn in the road and returned in the opposite direction. As the weather was hot he wound down his window. The Road Safety Officer was running along beside his car. He could see the Officer had something in his hands but could not see it was a mobile phone. He thought he was under attack.
The driver stated that he was not dropping off a passenger but was passing through the area. He knew the area and had used the route before over the previous 12 years. He had recently come off a contract with Bad Wolf studios and had carried celebrities and High Court judges.
The driver denied having been sent emails and stated that they had been sent to the wrong address.
RESOLVED – That the driver be issued with a written warning regarding his conduct and reminded of his duties as a driver.
(3)
Case 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. On renewal of his licence the driver declared a motoring conviction for driving without due care and attention. The offence occurred in 2020, however the driver did not notify the Authority at the time instead waiting for renewal.
The driver was asked to explain the circumstances. The driver’s representative stated that on the day of the offence the driver was approaching Coryton interchange at 1.30am in heavy rain. There were roadworks and the driver accidentally drove the wrong way into a diversion. Realising his mistake, he attempted to turn around and return the way he had come but was stopped by Police. The offence was uncontested, he paid a fine and had 5 points placed on his licence.
The driver admitted that he had not declared the conviction at the time it occurred but had declared it on renewal of his licence. He stated that he was now aware of what was required of him in terms of notification of convictions but had not been aware at the time. He had held a licence for 30 years and not previously been convicted of any motoring offences. He had been a licenced driver for 6 years and had not appeared before the Committee previously.
RESOLVED – To issue the driver with a written warning regarding his conduct.
(4)
Case 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. On renewal of his licence it became apparent that a conviction was present for driving or allowing someone to use a vehicle uninsured for third party risk.
The driver was asked to explain the circumstances. The driver stated that he had not been driving a taxi or private hire vehicle at the time of the offence. He was working as a driver for a food delivery service and had previously been named on the company’s insurance as a driver of the vehicle. The ownership of the company had changed and the new owner had stopped the insurance for the van. The driver was unaware of this and only discovered it when he was stopped.
It was revealed in the course of questioning that there was an error in the papers before the Sub Committee and that the correct date of the offence was 9 May 2022.
RESOLVED – To issue the driver with a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of private hire operator’s licence. The driver had previously held a licence which had subsequently been revoked.
The Sub Committee was presented with a report summarising the driver’s previous appearances before it and the circumstances surrounding them. These included a 6-month ban for ‘totting up’, a conviction for fraud against Cardiff City Council for claiming for transport services that were never carried out, and a conviction for plying for hire without a licence or insurance. They also included repeated refusals of applications for a Hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence. The driver accepted that the facts contained in the report were accurate.
The driver was asked to explain the circumstances. The driver stated that he had made several applications for a licence but they had all been refused. He had waited patiently for the necessary period to elapse before applying again. He had studied and was fully cognisant with all the necessary information especially the law. He accepted in full his responsibility for his previous non-compliance. His offences were his fault and he offered no excuses for them. He assured the Sub Committee they would not be repeated
The driver stated that since losing his licence he had never been in trouble and had not been involved in any legal problems. He had been of good character for the past 7 years.
The driver stated that he had completed the necessary training for understanding and knowledge. The incident had been a lesson for him and had not been repeated. He was a better-informed person and posed no danger to the public. He had learnt a lot over the past 7 years.
The driver was questioned by members of the Sub Committee. He stated that at the time of his offences he was doing his job and did not focus. He had never had any such problems and never had any complaints from customers. He had already been punished for his offences.
The driver stated that at the time of his conviction for fraud he knew many drivers who did the same. He took responsibility for his actions.
The driver explained the circumstances behind his conviction for working without insurance. He had rented a car whose owner did not know the insurance had expired. He himself did not know the car was not insured.
The driver explained the circumstances behind his conviction for fraud. He had been contracted by the Council to transport children to and from school. He had given the job to one of his drivers and was unaware that they were not carrying out the work. When he was apprised of the situation he took responsibility.
The driver was challenged that the alleged job did not exist and that he had defrauded the Council out of a substantial sum. He had also hired a car without a licence. It was put to the driver that this demonstrated a wilful disregard for the law.
The driver responded that he was now aware of the law. It was put to him that he ought to have known the law from the start and that he had been twice caught acting as a taxi driver without a licence.
In response to further questions the driver confirmed that he had been running a taxi firm at the time of the fraud and stated that he had given the school jobs to other drivers employed by the firm. He confirmed that he had been disqualified for 6 months for speeding as a taxi driver. He stated that his licence had now been clean for 7 years.
RESOLVED – That the application for a private hire operator’s licence be refused.
RESOLVED: that
1. any serious conflicts of interest declared by individual Cabinet members in relation to the Maindy Park Trust Decision in respect of the Council’s proposed land exchange be noted;
2. Council be recommended to agree the appointment of the ‘Maindy Park Trust Advisory Committee’, comprised of 3 independent members of the Standards and Ethics Committee and /or the Governance and Audit Committee, with the following terms of reference:
a) To consider whether the land exchange proposed by Cardiff Council in its statutory capacity as local authority should be agreed by the Maindy Park Trust (‘the Charity’), having regard to the best interests of the Charity and its beneficiaries, and all relevant evidence in this respect, including (but without limitation to) independent valuation advice on the relevant land and views submitted in response to the public consultation on the proposal; and
b) to make a recommendation to Cabinet, in its capacity as Trustee of the Charity, on whether or not the proposed land exchange should be agreed (subject to approval by the Charity Commission).’
3. It be agreed to receive a further report on this matter in due course setting out the recommendations of the Maindy Park Trust Advisory Committee in respect of the Council’s decision, as trustee of the Maindy Park Trust, on whether to agree to the proposed land exchange (‘the Trust Decision’), PROVIDED THAT any Member with a serious conflict of interests in this matter shall declare that interest and withdraw from consideration of the Trust Decision.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee was advised that complaints were received from two members of the public regarding the conduct of a driver. The complaints related to an incident when the driver was alleged to have refused to use the taxi meter and asked for a £50 deposit.
Members received representations from the Solicitor representing the Driver, stating that the driver had initially refused the fare but then asked for a £50 deposit as a precaution because the complainants were intoxicated and he had seen them argue with two other taxi drivers before approaching his car. He added that the driver had been a driver for 10 years, was married with 5 children, his wife doesn’t drive and he wouldn’t do anything to jeopardise his job just for extra money.
There were no questions to the driver at this point.
Members received representations from the complainants. Members were advised that 2 female customers had been to a concert, they had one drink there then after the concert they headed into the city centre and had one more drink. They then approached the taxi and the driver immediately said it would be £50 deposit. The complainants said they were not intoxicated, it was a work night, they had children at home. They told the driver that one of the women worked for the Local Authority and she asked for him to use his meter. She said he would not listen, he said no and repeated that he wanted £50 deposit. The women walked off and said they would be taking a picture of his badge and reporting him.
Members were then advised that the complainants approached another taxi who asked for £40 deposit, they refused and took a picture of his badge, this was included in the paperwork. They then approached another taxi who said he wanted 2 separate fares rather than them sharing. They refused and took a picture of his badge but this was too blurred to be in the paperwork. The next taxi they approached agreed to take them and to use the meter. The women advised this driver what had happened and he said it had become common practice due the Uber etc. Members were advised that the trip had totalled £25 including a tip for both the women. The women added that they both have daughters and the are worried about them using taxis.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee on the fare that took them home, the complainants clarified that the fare was £22 and they gave a £3 tip.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver said he had been driving since 2012. Members asked if the driver has asked for deposits before as this is not normal practice and should be meter only. The driver said that he asks for deposits for fares outside the city.
RESOLVED – That the driver be suspended for 7 days for refusing a fare.
(2)
Case 2
The Sub Committee was advised that a complaint had been received from a member of the public who was a wheelchair user, regarding the conduct of a driver. The complaint related to an incident when the driver was alleged to have refused to take the complainant in his wheelchair, with his brother.
Members received representation from the complainant, stating that they had approached a wheelchair accessible taxi close to the New Theatre, told the driver where they wanted to go and when they went to the back of the vehicle, he drive off. Sub Committee were provided with CCTV footage of the taxi rank at the time of the complaint.
Members received representations from the driver who stated that he had been flagged down by the New Theatre, a man approached him and mentioned going to Ely with his brother who was in a wheelchair. The driver said he told the man to go and get his brother, he waited for a long time but they didn’t come. The driver claims that the man who approached him was swearing and he was frightened there may be trouble, he added that he did not speak to the wheelchair user. He added that he has been attacked and robbed previously so he is cautious.
The driver stated that he picks up disable drivers regularly, he regretted what had happened and apologised.
RESOLVED – That the driver be suspended for 7 days for refusing a fare.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence after he had not disclosed a police caution on his renewal application. The Licensing Officer outlined the case and the driver was asked to explain the circumstances.
The driver explained that his father had taken three passengers to London, they were being investigated by the Police who went to the family home with a warrant to take the fathers car for a few days and the driver had obstructed the constable as he thought he was taking the car for good and it was his fathers livelihood.
At the police station the driver had asked if the caution would show on his file and whether he needed to declare it to the licensing authority and the police had advised him it would not show on his file. He stated if he had known he would have declared it.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver further explained the situation and explained that the police had apologised for not making the situation clear at the time and that there would be no further action taken against him.
The driver added that he had previously declared an offence on an application and he would have done so on this occasion if he had known it would show on the DBS check
The driver was remorseful and stated that he is a good person and taxi driving is his livelihood.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning for failing to disclose a police caution on his license renewal application. License renewal approved.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence given that the Licensing Authority have been advised that Mr Hamad was subject to a conviction regarding consumer protection, unfair trading, hallmarking and Trademark offences. The Licensing Officer outlined the case and the driver was asked to explain the circumstances.
The driver explained that he had stopped taxi driving in 2019 and started work as a manager of a shop in Pontypool. He stated that his friend had brought tobacco and cigarettes from outside of the UK to sell in the shop. He had taken the good and a few days later, Trading Standards visited the shop to check the stock. They asked if the tax had been paid on the good when they were brought into the UK. The driver explained that he thought it had been but he then found that it had not. Trading Standards had taken the goods. The driver was taken to court in Newport he pleaded guilty and was fined. He had since resigned from the shop and has no connection to the business anymore.
The driver had declared the conviction on his licence renewal application.
RESOLVED – That no further action was required. Application renewal approved.