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).
Ardrethi busnes a gasglwyd: 96% ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
RESOLVED:
The Hearings Panel determined unanimously to proceed with the Hearing in public, noting that such matters would ordinarily be an open Hearing and that Cllr Latif’s representations did not raise issues of a sensitive nature which would warrant the matter being heard in private.
As there were no further procedural matters and no submission of late evidence, the Panel proceeded to consider findings of fact.
Cllr Latif confirmed that he did not dispute the key facts set out in the Investigation Report.
As the facts of the case were not in dispute the Chair of the Panel determined to combine Stages 1 and 2 of the procedure (findings of fact and whether a Code of Conduct breach had arisen) and sought representations initially from Mr. Morris and thereafter Cllr Latif.
Philip Morris drew attention to the facts, referring to page 39 of the papers, stating that:
· The actions of Cllr Latif on 3 June 2024 related to the criminal offence of locking on which is a relatively new offence under the Public Order Act 2023
· When the matter came before the Magistrates Court in May 2025 Cllr Latif pleaded guilty and received a conditional discharge and was ordered to pay costs amounting to £750 and a surcharge of £26
· Cllr Latif continued in his role as Councillor throughout
· The incident gave rise to media articles (as referred to in Appendix 9 of the Investigation Report) and Social Media attention (as referred to within Appendix 9, pages 139-162 of the agenda pack). There were mixed views with some comments in support of Cllr Latif’s actions.
· The investigation of breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct relates to Paragraph 6.1(a), the duty to not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute, as referred to at Paragraph 8 of the Investigation Report.
· When interviewed Cllr Latif had provided a balanced account and had been open in terms of his actions, he’d shown remorse and had made a self-referral to the Ombudsman
· The Investigation Report sets out undisputed facts at Paragraph 26-38. One disputed fact was whether Cllr Latif attended the protest as a Councillor. Albeit Paragraph 6.1(a) applies in public as well as in private life, it is submitted that on the facts as Cllr Latif had introduced himself to the police as being a Councillor, that he did attend the protest in his capacity as a Councillor rather than as a private individual.
· References made to Paragraph 44 of the Investigation Report, and that Cllr Latif had expressed remorse from the start.
· References made to the role and requirement to uphold the law being a key principle to be adhered to by members.
· The Panel’s attention was drawn to Paragraph 53 of the Investigation Report which concluded that there was sufficient indication by the Ombudsman that Cllr Latif’s actions were suggestive of a breach of Paragraph 6.1(a) of the Code of Conduct and contrary to the principle that members have a duty to uphold the law.
The Hearing Panel discussed the issue of a breach to the Code of Conduct and bringing the Council into disrepute.
Cllr Latif openly expressed remorse, explaining that he did plead guilty at the Magistrates court.
The Hearing Panel noted the Nolan Principles and paragraph 6.1 a of the Code which stated:
You must:
Not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably by regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.
Cllr Latif had prepared the following statement:
“Thank you for considering my statement. I take my role as a councillor seriously and deeply regret being before you.
I offer my sincere and unreserved apology. I recognise the importance of public trust and accept responsibility where I have fallen short. It was never my intention to bring the Council into disrepute, and I have reflected carefully and learned from this experience. I have also completed a refresher course on Standards and Ethics Committee requirements at the beginning of the year to strengthen my understanding and practice.
I remain committed to serving my community with integrity. I will also continue to stand firm in my principles, including speaking out for Gaza and Palestine and against oppression wherever it occurs, while ensuring I do so responsibly and in line with the standards expected of my role.”
The Hearing Panel had no questions
The Hearing Panel adjourned to deliberate in private.
The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision.
RESOLVED:
The Chairman announced that a unanimous decision had been reached by the Panel; that they were satisfied that the facts of the case had been established; and that with regard to whether Cllr Latif had attended the protest in a personal or Councillor capacity, they were satisfied that as he had introduced himself to the Police as a Councillor, he indeed was present at the police station in his capacity as a Councillor.
Given the facts, specifically, the public order nature of the offence of locking on, the guilty plea, the conviction and sentence of 18 months conditional discharge, together with £750 costs and surcharge of £26, together with the fact that the Cllr had introduced himself as a Councillor and the media coverage, with headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor, and social media commentary, some of which was negative, and having regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on the Code of Conduct, paragraph 6.1(a) duty, the Panel were satisfied that the Cllr had brought the office of Councillor and the Council into disrepute, and therefore, paragraph 6.1(a) (and the principle of upholding the law underpinning the Code of Conduct) had been breached by Cllr Latif.
The Hearing Panel moved on to Stage 3 of the Hearing Procedure to discuss sanctions and invited representations from Mr Morris and Cllr Latif.
Mr Morris submitted that there were a number of mitigating factors including remorse shown by Cllr Latif; that he had made a self-referral; that no previous complaints had been received by the Ombudsman’s office against Cllr Latif; and that he had attended refresher training on the Code of Conduct.
Cllr Latif submitted that his actions were wrong and the situation could have been avoided; he had definitely learned from the experience; that the outcome that he had wanted to achieve at the police station could have been achieved without locking on and sitting down. There was a lot of noise in the police station and at the time he was ill (and was on sick leave from work). He had heard via social media about the protest and thought he’d be able to help. In future he would not get involved again.
Rashpal Singh asked Cllr Latif about his goal/purpose in attending the police station. Cllr Latif explained that he knew a number of Police Officers and he thought that he would be able to calm down and resolve the situation; that as a local councillor he felt that he could open up a channel of communication, however he was wrong as he was only there for forty five minutes, whereas protesters had been there from early afternoon.
Cllr Latif said he had hoped his actions could make a difference, but on reflection he now believed that he had over estimated his abilities and had been very ambitious.
Louise Evans asked Cllr Latif what the impact had been on him from the reporting of the incident and criminal conviction. Councillor Latif provided a full answer which contained personal information.
The Hearing Panel adjourned to consider potential sanctions in private.
The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision.
RESOLVED:
Having regard to the undisputed facts of the case as set out in the Investigation Report, including the seriousness of the criminal offence of locking on pursuant to the Public Order Act 2023 and the sentence issued by the Magistrates Court together with Cllr Latif’s comments during his interview with the Ombudsman’s investigating officer during which Cllr Latif had commented (as set out at page 8 of the Investigation Report) that ”the police officers were in an intense situation” and “the atmosphere was very charged”, the Panel took the view that in that situation, a public office holder would reasonably be expected to act responsibly and lawfully and walk away if necessary.
The Panel also considered the sanctions guidance issued by the Adjudication Panel for Wales, noting the seriousness of the breach, and the consequences for the reputation of the Council and the Councillor (having regard to the media headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor and social media commentary on Cllr Latif’s conviction by the Magistrates Court), and the various mitigating factors, as outlined by Mr Morris.
Having regard to all of the above, the Panel determined that Cllr Latif be suspended as a County Councillor for the City and County of Cardiff for two months.
The Panel noted that a decision notice would be provided to Councillor Latif setting out the reasons for the decision within five working days. The rights of appeal would also be outlined in the decision notice. The Panel noted that an appeal would have to submitted within 21 days.
A brief email would be sent to Cllr Latif today, outlining the Panel’s decision.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he was disengaged as a driver from Veezu for multiple complaints of using his phone while driving, for a poor standard of driving making passengers feel unsafe, and for being rude, hostile and threatening.
The Sub Committee received representations from witnesses to an incident which had occurred at Llandough Hospital. Members were advised that the driver locked a passenger with a brain injury inside the vehicle when he was advised that the passenger’s mother would pay the fare at the destination. The passenger refused to travel in the vehicle and was very upset and anxious following the incident. The driver was reported to have been rude, hostile and threatening.
Further representations were received from a different witness relating to a separate incident when the driver was said to have displayed a poor standard of driving and watched TikTok videos on his mobile phone during the journey.
A third witness provided a statement regarding the driver using his mobile phone during a journey.
Members were advised that Veezu had received reports of each incident from their customers and they had disengaged the driver from their platform as a result.
Members questioned the witnesses to each incident and sought clarification from the driver regarding his actions.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days for unacceptable conduct.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he urinated into a bottle on a public street.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. The driver accepted that his actions were unacceptable and apologised unreservedly for his actions. Members were advised that his actions would not be repeated in the future.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he displayed intimidating, unprofessional and unacceptable behaviour to a passenger.
Members received representations from two witnesses who were passengers in the vehicle. Members were advised that the passengers were having a conversation regarding the payment method. The driver was said to have suddenly become very angry and began shouting and using bad language. He then refused the fare and ordered the passengers out of his vehicle.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his conduct.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter for a journey within the Cardiff boundary and overcharged for a fare.
Members received representations from a witness who was a passenger in the vehicle. Members were advised that the passenger was in Mill Lane in the city centre and wanted to travel to Manor Way. The fare was usually in the region of £15. The witness approached the driver’s taxi and was advised that the fare would be £25 as it was after midnight and she would have to pay the fare in advance. The witness stated that four other taxi drivers surrounded her and attempted to convince her that the fare she was quoted was correct. She felt intimidated as she was a single female. The passenger also stated that the fare meter was not used during the journey.
Members also received representation from an officer from Cardiff Licensing. Members were advised that a fare from Mill Lane to Manor Way should be around £12.70.
The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that the driver accepted the seriousness of the allegations and was aware that the meter should be used for all journeys in the city. The driver acknowledged that a payment of £25 was received but could not recall any other details of the journey.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days for overcharging and not using the meter.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared 7 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had four penalty points on his driver’s licence before he was licenced as taxi driver. He then received 3 further points for going through a red light in Bridgend.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that since the renewal of his licence he had failed to provide his DBS certificate.
The driver did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a relevant conviction contrary to the guidance.
The applicant did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had motoring convictions and previous criminal convictions contrary to the guidance.
The applicant did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he had received six penalty points for not disclosing the identity of a driver. Members were advised that the applicant had moved from Sheffield to Cardiff. He had updated the address details on his drivers licence. He was caught speeding in Newport but the letter had been sent to Sheffield and he was unaware.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
The applicant advised Members of the circumstances relating to a conviction for using a mobile phone whilst driving. The applicant stated that his phone was sitting in a cradle on his dashboard when he hit a pothole. The phone fell between his feet and he reached down to get it. This was witnessed by a police officer. The driver accepted that he should have pulled over first in order to retrieve his phone.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
Penderfyniad: Nododd y Cyngor benderfyniadau Comisiwn Democratiaeth a Ffiniau Cymru ar gyfer 2026/27. Cymeradwyodd Atodlen Taliadau Aelodau ddrafft 2026-27. Rhoddodd awdurdod i'r Swyddog Monitro i gwblhau'r atodlen i adlewyrchu'r penodiadau a wnaed yn y cyfarfod hwn, i ddiweddaru'r Cyfansoddiad, ac i wneud newidiadau yn ystod y flwyddyn os bydd aelodaeth yn newid neu os bydd y Comisiwn yn cyhoeddi adroddiadau atodol.
Penderfyniad: Cymeradwyodd y Cyngor y Cod Ymddygiad Aelodau diwygiedig. Cyfarwyddodd y Swyddog Monitro i gyhoeddi'r hysbysiad cyhoeddus gofynnol, gwneud y trefniadau gweinyddol a diweddaru'r Cyfansoddiad.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging he gave a fixed charge for a journey within the Cardiff boundary, refused to use the meter and became angry when questioned.
The Sub Committee received representations from witnesses who were passengers in the vehicle. Members were advised that the fare was for six passengers with three stops in Radyr, Morganstown and Pentyrch. The driver requested £30 for the journey but the fare was usually in the region of £20. The witness requested the driver to use the meter and he refused to do so.
The driver accepted that there was a dispute regarding the fare but felt that the passengers were becoming aggressive so he asked them to leave his vehicle. The marshal at the taxi rank spoke with the customers and they were advised to get into another vehicle.
The Sub Committee viewed CCTV evidence of the incident and questioned all parties in order to clarify the sequence of events.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for refusing a fare.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 6 points on his driving licence.
The driver accepted that he had been using a mobile phone whilst driving. He was unable to recall whether he had passengers in the vehicle at the time and accepted that he should have notified the Licencing Office.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence. Members were advised that all the offences were reported to the Licensing Office at the time they occurred.
RESOLVED – that the driver receives a written warning for driving offences.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
The driver did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driver received 3 penalty points for speeding and 6 points for permitting the use of his vehicle whilst uninsured.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had failed to declare that he had been disqualified from driving for six months.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence for speeding.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License. Members were advised that Veezu had disengaged the driver from their platform following multiple complaints from customers.
The driver was not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 8 weeks.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver was not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence for speeding.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(11)
Application 11
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Members were advised that the applicant had was convicted of money laundering in 2023 for an offence that had occurred in 2019. The applicant advised that he gave a friend a lift, and the car was surrounded by plain-clothes police officers who arrested them. His friend was selling drugs and had a large amount of cash on him.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
RESOLVED:
I. To note the outturn position for the financial year ended 31March 2026.
II. To approve the Annual Return and authorised the Chair to sign the Annual Return on behalf of the Joint Committee, and approved its subsequent submission to Audit Wales to commence the 2025/26 audit.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he pushed in at the Heath hospital rank, and in a separate incident on the same date, said he would beat another driver and pushed them.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been a taxi driver for ten years with a clean record. He believed that the complaint was part of a targeted campaign of harassment against him. He recalled that as he had attempted to leave the rank, another driver had blocked his car and he had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting him. He felt the other driver had been aggressive and unprofessional, while he had remained inside his car to protect his passenger and prevent the situation escalating.
The driver also disputed the complainant’s suggestion that he had followed him afterwards. He just wanted to work without being harassed, but felt he was being bullied by other drivers because he followed the official rules rather than an unofficial system. The driver’s representative added that there was no official rank in place at the Heath hospital, where the incident had taken place.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he saw the driver pick up an old lady by the hospital and drive away. When he returned, the witness went over and asked why he was pinching fares from the back of the rank. The driver then threatened him, saying he was going to smash his face and that he couldn’t fight back because he was old. He also used abusive language which the witness found very offensive.
The witness added that he believed he had been followed by the driver on more than one occasion, and that other drivers had an issue with how he didn’t follow the queuing system. He emphasised that he was not an aggressive person and had not received any complaints himself. He was less concerned about the driver pinching fares than his conduct towards other drivers, and the language he used towards him.
Members asked how much time had passed between the initial pickup and the confrontation when the driver returned. The witness estimated that it was 30-45 minutes later. Members asked whether there was anyone else present, and heard that three other taxis were parked there in addition to the driver and the witness.
The driver’s representative emphasised that it was not an official rank, and the driver was entitled to pick up the fare from where he was. He did not feel that the witness’ description of the incident fit with the video Members had viewed. He considered it to be a he-said-she-said situation that was not deserving of sanction.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken, with the driver receiving an advice letter about their professional conduct towards other drivers.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been receiving alleging that he did not have a card reader and did not display his vehicle or driver’s ID badges.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not have anything to add to his written statement. The driver’s representative suggested that his badges had been visible in the window.
Members asked whether the driver was aware that he was not allowed to ply for trade without a card machine, so continuing to work after leaving it at home was a breach of his licence. The driver confirmed that he was aware of this, and added that he only realised he had forgotten it when the customer asked to pay by card. It was his first fare of the night, at around 1am, having started working at 12:30am. He didn’t charge passenger for the journey and then went home.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that the driver did not attempt to look for the card reader at any point, and just asked for cash immediately. He added that the badge holders on the windscreen appeared to be empty. The driver’s representative disputed this, suggesting that the photo provided was not clear, and it may have been a transfer rather than the physical badge.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had not charged for the fare upon realising his mistake, and then finished his shift and went home. He had made a mistake but would learn from it and always have a card machine available in the future.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging he charged more than the legal fare by applying a £1 charge for payment by card.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t recall the incident but did not normally charge for card payments. His representative added that there had been a long gap between the incident and his interview about it, which wasn’t the driver’s fault.
Members asked whether the driver was aware that he wasn’t allowed to charge additional fees for card payments. The driver confirmed that he was, and that he only charged the meter price within the city boundary. The driver’s representative suggested that it may have been an honest mistake as he didn’t recall it.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled getting into a taxi at the train station to go to the Hilton as she had a suitcase. Upon arrival she took out her card to pay the fare and saw that the driver had added an additional £1. She challenged this as she thought it wasn’t legal, but the driver said he was allowed to add a charge. The witness wasn’t sure if the law was different in Wales so she paid the extra pound, but took a picture of his plate just in case.
She added that the driver’s demeanour had changed when she took a photo, and he had hurried her away. She had made the complaint because she was concerned that vulnerable passengers who were unaware of the rules might be taken advantage of.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he was rude and dismissive about a passenger’s mobility issues.
The driver was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had booked a taxi and then requested a different route. The driver became rude and said that she shouldn’t give him orders. When they arrived at the drop-off point, he refused to go any closer than 30 metres away because there was a van there, even though he had plenty of space to go around. He raised his voice and was intimidating and disrespectful towards her, and asked repeatedly if she was going to leave his taxi.
She added that she had felt unsafe and intimidated by the experience. She had mobility problems, but even if she didn’t, the driver should have stopped at the agreed spot.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had failed to provide a DBS certificate since renewal of his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had had an issue with the renewal process, and provided his previous DBS certificate to the committee. He had not yet received his new DBS but would provide it as soon as possible.
Members noted that the previous DBS showed a conviction in 2020 for possession of a knife, blade or sharp pointed article in a public place, and for threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour with the intention of causing fear or violence. The driver explained that this had been the result of a confrontation with a bailiff who clamped his car and then called the police on him. The driver added that he had learned his lesson and had had no problems since, and worked to support his children. He had declared the conviction to the licensing authority when it happened.
Members noted that he had been asked to provide a DBS in August, several months into the renewal process. The driver apologised for not producing it yet and said that he would follow up as soon as possible.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days for failure to provide a DBS certificate in a timely manner.
(7)
Application 7
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had been issued with a Simple Caution by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council in respect of a plying for hire offence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had taken a fare from Cardiff to Pontypridd, and having dropped them off, was flagged down and stopped by an Rhondda Cynon Taf licensing enforcement officer. He accepted that he wasn’t licensed to pick up fares in Pontypridd, and accepted a caution from RCT council.
The driver added that he genuinely didn’t realise he had to report the caution to Cardiff as well. He had declared it upon renewal as it was a question on the application.
The driver’s representative added that the driver been licensed since 2017 without incident and was clearly a fit and proper person. He had pulled over when hailed and been caught out by a licensing enforcement operation, and had been cautioned rather than prosecuted. He also felt it was understandable that the driver had not realised he had to report it to a different authority immediately.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that several years ago he had unwittingly laundered money for a friend who used him to transfer money between accounts. He only became aware of the full details when the case went to trial for fraud. It was several years ago and he had not been involved in anything illegal before or since. Members asked about the timeline and heard that the offences had taken place in 2022 and gone to court in 2024.
He added that in the last few years he had been training as an apprentice carpenter and would soon be fully qualified. He had tried to turn his life around and expected it to be difficult to be self-employed as a carpenter, so he hoped to become a taxi driver to support himself further.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been convicted of two domestic common assault offences in 2022, which he understood shouldn’t have happened. His record was otherwise clean, and he had driven taxis in Cardiff for 18 years before his licence had been revoked in 2024. He felt that he had changed his life since the offences and was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.
A friend of the applicant added that after he was found guilty, he received a 14 week sentence and a community work requirement. It was a minor assault and an isolated incident, and there was no serious likelihood of him reoffending. He had also completed a six month program on building better relationships.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application, subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police.
The Sub Committee noted the concerns raised regarding antisocial behaviour, drug supply, and the general character of the area. However, no evidence had been presented to demonstrate that these issues could be directly attributed to this premises.
Members further noted that the premises had been operating for approximately eight months and that no evidence had been presented of breaches, enforcement action or complaints during that time. While the applicant had limited experience of running a licensed premises, they placed weight on the absence of any issues during the period the premises has been trading.
Members also noted that the premises was not located within a Cumulative Impact Area, and therefore negative cumulative impact was not a matter they could take into account when determining the application, and the commercial demand for a premises was not a consideration for the Sub Committee.
Having considered all the evidence and representations, they were satisfied that the grant of the premises licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. Members noted that the Licensing Act allowed for any person to apply to review a licence in future should evidence arise that the operation of the premises was undermining any of the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED:
1.
Committee noted the provisions of the Local Government (Standards Committees and Member Conduct)(Miscellaneous Amendments)(Wales) Regulations 2025 (Appendix A);
2.
Committee recommended the amended Members’ Code of Conduct (Appendix B) to full Council for approval.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter for a journey within the Cardiff boundary and overcharged a passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that when the complainant had approached his taxi and asked to go to St Mellons, he told her it would likely cost more than usual as it was an event day. She said she normally paid around £20 to get to that area. Throughout the journey she was very quiet and eventually asked to be dropped off by the roundabout by Tesco, but he felt it wasn’t safe there. She paid £20 in total but no more.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver estimated that the meter had read £25 or £26 when she got out. He was used to customers trying not to pay, especially when drunk, so he occasionally asked for a deposit, and his card machine wasn’t working at the time. He knew he had to provide that option but it had stopped working just before the journey.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that when she got in and asked to go to St Mellons, she told the driver she had £20 cash or could pay by card. He said it would be £30, and then immediately asked for the £20 cash. His meter wasn’t running, which he claimed was due to the event that day but she knew that wasn’t how it worked.
She added that the driver then insisted she pay another £5 by bank transfer. She tried to do this but her banking app wasn’t working, so he said he’d drive her to a cash machine to get the money. She didn’t feel safe doing that so she asked to get out. The driver asked for her name and address as she left, which she did not provide. She emphasised that whether or not she had been drinking was irrelevant.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver suggested that he had asked for the extra money because the meter had gone above £25. The witness suggested that the meter had not been on at any time during the journey.
The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, clarified that all journeys within the Cardiff boundary should be on the meter. He calculated the journey taken as being worth approximately £19.65, at most a couple of pounds more depending on stops and traffic lights. The £30 requested was significantly more than that in any case.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for 28 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had been stopped by a Licensing Enforcement Officer carrying passengers within the Cardiff boundary failing to use the meter.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been waiting at the rank for a while as it was a quiet night. The customers had approached him and asked to go to Llanishen, which he said would cost £17-18 on the meter. They were happy with this so he didn’t turn the meter on, despite knowing it was a requirement.
The witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, added that the vehicle had been pulled over during a licensing operation which found that the meter was either not on or not working. He spoke to the passengers, who confirmed that they were advised at the outset of the journey that it would be a cash fare of £17, and he cautioned the driver for failing to use the meter. He asked him to reset the meter afterwards, which he reluctantly accepted.
Members asked the driver if he had used the meter on his previous journeys that day, and heard that this was his first fare of the day. Members asked why the vehicle had been stopped in the first place, and heard that this was due to a defective numberplate light.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(4)
Application 4
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter and charged a fare in excess of the legal tariff.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t remember the exact trip or the fare he charged, but if a customer felt they had been overcharged then he understood it was a serious issue. He knew he had to use the meter correctly and charge the approved fare, and he had reflected carefully since he learned of the complaint. He suggested that personal and financial pressure may had affected his judgement, and he took full responsibility and was willing to refund the customer if needed.
Members asked why the payment receipt had showed a different name to the driver, and heard that he had been temporarily using his daughter’s card reader because his was damaged. He understood that using someone else’s account was not allowed, but wanted to be able to continue working while his was broken.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he had been visiting Cardiff from Glasgow last summer. He had arrived at the central railway station with a lot of bags and sought a taxi from the rank there to the Premier Inn on Pentwyn Road. He didn’t have any cash so asked the driver if he had a card reader before getting in. It had been a pleasant journey where he and the driver chatted a lot, but he was shocked when the driver told him the price was £34.50. He couldn’t see any meter to prove this was a fair price but didn’t feel he could walk away without paying, so he did so by card.
The witness added that he spoke to an Uber driver the next day who was appalled when he mentioned the cost. The other driver suggested that he make a complaint as it reflected very poorly on the city for visitors to be ripped off. The witness used several more taxis during his time in Cardiff and none of the fares were anywhere close to £34.50.
The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, explained that he had investigated the complaint and initially found it difficult to identify the driver due to the different card reader and bank account. He had calculated the fare as having been worth approximately £19.30, and then interviewed the driver for potentially overcharging and failing to use a meter.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver reiterated that he didn’t recall the journey in question but had learned a lesson from the complaint. The witness suggested that it was unlikely he didn’t remember it, as he had a distinctive Glaswegian accent and they had spoken in detail about the city and both of their family links there. He did not want to be refunded for the journey, only to ensure it didn’t happen to anyone else.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(6)
Application 6
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction and a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was enthusiastic about driving and wanted it to be his livelihood. He had made mistakes in the past which had led to being disqualified, but felt he was a different person now and was fit and proper to drive taxis in Cardiff.
Members asked about his convictions and disqualification, which the applicant clarified had been for six months in 2022. He didn’t feel that his convictions had been correct decisions but he had accepted them. He had been accused of attempting to drive with a drug level above the specified limit, but emphasised that he had just been sitting in his car and not trying to drive it.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he wanted to contribute positively to the city. He had several convictions from 2024 but hoped he would be considered a fit and proper person. He wanted to work to support his family rather than being on benefits, and hoped he would be allowed to drive taxis as he liked driving and had a clean licence.
Members asked for more details about his convictions, which the applicant explained had been for threatening or disorderly behaviour, resisting arrest and criminal damage to a police vehicle. He accepted he had done something wrong and emphasised that he would not do it again, and had undertaken an unpaid work requirement and paid the fines. He felt that the offences had been based on a misunderstanding as he had been very new in the country at the time.
Members asked why he had not declared his convictions on his application, and heard that he had misunderstood the question as being about his driving licence rather than his personal life.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions and a previous criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he his first conviction had been in 2018 for possession of cannabis, and he had plead guilty in court and took full responsibility for his actions. He had since been sent back to court four times for not completing a community order, but felt this was partly due to an administrative error and provided evidence that he had completed the necessary requirements.
He clarified that the other offence had involved driving a family member’s car while he didn’t have a licence. He had refused to provide a specimen following this, not realising at the time that this was a crime.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that she had been disqualified from driving for six months in 2023 after totting up points on her licence. She hadn’t been in a good place and had been going through a difficult family time, but had overcome that now and felt she’d grown up, and the points had expired. She drove coaches for a living and was seeking a taxi licence to expand her options.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To approve the revised Cardiff Code of Corporate Governance as set out in Appendix A, and request the Monitoring Officer to update the Constitution, Part 5, accordingly;
2.
Delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Section 151 Officer and the Chair of the Governance and Audit Committee, to make any minor amendments to the Code of Corporate Governance which may be required from time to time to reflect any changes in law or best practice.
RESOLVED – That:
(1) the Internal Audit Strategy 2026/27 be noted
(2) the Internal Audit Charter 2026/27 (including the Governance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference 2026/27) be approved;
(3) the updated Governance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference be recommended to full Council for approval;
(4) the Internal Audit Methodologies be noted and the Criteria for determining and reporting the significance of error and omissions in final audit engagement communications and the Process for Communicating Risk Acceptance above Appetite or Tolerance be approved;
(5) the Internal Audit Plan 2026/27 be approved.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To approve the draft Corporate Plan 2026-29 (Appendix A);
2.
To delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any minor amendments as necessary to the Corporate Plan 2026-29 following consideration by Council on 5 March 2026 and prior to publication by 1 April 2026.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage Driver’s License given that a complaint was received alleging he placed a customer in another vehicle in danger by opening the rear passenger door of that Hackney Carriage whilst it was in
motion.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had driven taxis since 2016 and had never been before the Sub Committee. He recalled that he had been waiting a long time at the rank by the Heath hospital, and helped an elderly gentleman who needed directions before allowing another driver to take a short fare as they needed to leave soon. He then saw another driver come from the back of the rank and call over a customer, which happened regularly as customers tended not to know about the queuing system.
He walked over to the vehicle to tell the customer that she should have got in his car, and put his hand on the door. He disagreed with the witness’ recollection that he had run over to them, as he wasn’t able to run due to a series of knee operations. He recalled that the vehicle was stationary when he put his hand on the door, but it moved away and then stopped again. He asked the driver why he had jumped the queue, and the passenger got out and got into a separate cab as she didn’t want to travel in either of theirs. The driver acknowledged that the passenger had been scared and distressed and apologised for this.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness (the passenger) recalled that she had been in a hurry because she had gone to the wrong hospital and needed to get to Llandough. She knew to go to the front of the rank but saw that the first driver was talking to someone, so she went to the next available car and got in the back. As it pulled away, she realised that the passenger door was being opened, and was certain that this happened while the car was moving. The person opening the door then remonstrated with the driver, which she found very distressing. The door shut and she asked the driver to stop so she could get out. The man who had opened the door seemed out of control and was shouting and threatening.
The second witness, who had picked up the passenger and had his door opened, recalled that when the customer first came over, he told her to go to the front of the rank, but she was in a rush and the first two drivers were unavailable, so she got in and he started driving away. He was focusing on joining the lane on the right when the other driver opened the door and started shouting at him, which he found shocking as it put him and the customer in danger.
The Sub Committee viewed two videos of the incident, one being CCTV of the rank and the other having been recorded afterwards by the driver whose taxi door was opened.
Members noted that the car was clearly moving when the door was opened and asked how the driver responded to this. He suggested that he had meant it was stationary until he came near it, and he opened the door because the window was closed.
Members discussed the queuing system and noted that this was an informal arrangement between drivers. They suggested that allowing another driver to take a short fare just beforehand could have been interpreted as meaning that he was not accepting fares at that time, and that this minor misunderstanding had only escalated into a serious issue when he came over and opened the door of a moving vehicle.
The driver’s representative asked if the witness had seen the CCTV video at the time she made her statement, which she confirmed she hadn’t. The representative asked if she recalled the second driver signalling her to get in, which she was not sure about, but she remembered that at the time he seemed to be the next available car on the rank.
In summing up, the driver’s representative emphasised that his client had been waiting patiently at the front of the queue, following the system set up by council officers to ensure fairness. He felt the other driver had picked up a fare he wasn’t entitled to and sought to speak to him about it. Opening the door was a momentary situation, and he let go almost immediately as the driver stopped the vehicle. The representative also provided further references on behalf of his client.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(3)
Application 3
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been reported for hostile behaviour and shouting and for not providing details after an accident.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that on the day in question he picked up a passenger in Whitchurch and stopped behind a bus. Moving around the bus to overtake, he saw oncoming traffic and moved back. As the bus pulled out, he tried to maintain his position and moved back into traffic. He heard beeping behind him and then the person behind him said he had hit her car so he pulled over to speak to her.
The driver emphasised that he had been respectful throughout the conversation. He had said that he didn’t think his car had touched hers because there was no damage to either, and had explained that her car was now facing the wrong way on a one way street. He took a video of both cars to show the lack of damage, and noted that any contact would have left paint marks as the cars were different colours. He added that she had asked to use his phone, and when he said no she tried to grab it, which he found intimidating. He didn’t feel she had a claim, and she didn’t ask for any details even though he was wearing his taxi badge.
Members asked whether the driver had a dashcam on his vehicle. He explained that he didn’t at the time but had since installed front and back ones. He added that his car had sensors for reversing and automatic brakes, which did not make it impossible for him to hit another car, but made it less likely.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that rather than rolling back, the driver had reversed out of a side street while she was waiting stationary to the side of the bus at a red light. She beeped her horn but his car hit hers. She had not sought to make an insurance claim afterwards, and was concerned by his behaviour rather than her car. She felt that his driving had been reckless and his tone aggressive, and he had driven away without providing details.
The driver’s representative asked if the witness had contacted Veezu afterwards. She confirmed that she had, regarding the driver’s behaviour rather than as an insurance complaint, and Veezu had advised her to contact the council. She wasn’t seeking to gain anything from the situation and felt it was about accountability.
Members viewed a video taken by the driver after the incident. The witness clarified that the incident had happened on Merthyr Road, before they pulled over in a side street. The driver had parked in a bay and the witness alongside him.
The driver’s representative asked the witness why she had asked for his phone. She explained that hers was in her car and she wanted to call her husband, having felt like the driver was being confrontational and twisting the facts to make it seem like the incident had happened somewhere else.
Summing up, the driver’s representative suggested that there was no clear evidence that a collision had taken place, with no damage to either car, and that there was no evidence to support the allegation that his client’s conduct had been poor.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been reported for intimidating and abusive behaviour towards a member of the public.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he had been working at the Cardiff Central rank, and when it was his turn he said to the passenger that he was the next driver and helped put her suitcase in the boot. She explained that she always took a photo of the taxi badge when she took a cab. He responded that he was licenced by the council, and that if she wasn’t comfortable with him she could go with any other driver, and he helped get her suitcase back out. In his memory that was the end of the incident, and he didn’t use any bad language, call her a racist, or speak in any other language.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that when she got to the train station rank, the driver came straight over and took her bag so she got her phone out and took a photo of the licence plate. She had done this as a safety precaution for many years since having a bad experience in a taxi, and either took a photo of the numberplate or screenshotted the driver’s Uber profile to sent it to her husband. She felt this was entirely reasonable as it was a dark night and she was a woman on her own in an unfamiliar city.
She added that when she explained what she was doing to the driver, he thought she was accusing him of being dangerous, and said she was being racist. He took her suitcase out and put it on the road, and started shouting to other drivers and waving his arms. Two or three other drivers put up their windows and turned away from her, and none seemed willing to take her so she walked away. A different driver saw she was upset and was very helpful, and explained it was better to take a picture of the taxi badge rather than the numberplate. She emphasised that she never said she wouldn’t travel with the driver, but he made it clear he wouldn’t take her after she took the photo.
Members asked if she had told the driver what she was doing before she took the photo, and heard that she didn’t have the chance to as it happened very quickly. He picked up her bags immediately and put them in the boot so she took the photo at the same time. She did not feel it was out of the ordinary to take a photo of the numberplate, and was surprised by the reaction.
Members asked the driver why he had an issue with the passenger taking a photo of his numberplate, which he insisted that he didn’t. He had driven taxis for 27 years and had never had a problem with customers taking precautions for their own safety. He suggested that the passenger had thought he was an Uber driver, and he had assured her that he was licensed by the council. The witness disagreed with this, as she had sought directions to the official rank and knew he was a licensed Hackney Carriage driver.
Members asked whether the driver understood that saying something along the lines of ‘if you don’t like it you can leave’ might have sounded like he didn’t want to take the passenger, regardless of intention. The driver emphasised that he hadn’t been aggressive and didn’t accuse the passenger of being racist. The driver’s representative suggested that he understood how the passenger felt, and in hindsight it would be a learning point for the driver.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his future conduct.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had 15 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that contrary to the details in the report, his first licence had been awarded in January 2010 and he had completed the BTEC course. He valued his work highly and fully appreciated the seriousness of the situation, and didn’t want to lose everything he had worked for.
He explained that none of the speeding offences concerned had been dangerous or reckless. They included going at 68mph in a 60mph variable speed limit zone on the motorway, and 62 in a 50mph zone where he had failed to see a sign, and he acknowledged that both of these were poor driving. In court, he had pleaded excessive financial hardship if he was unable to continue driving, and this was granted alongside a significant fine.
He had submitted testimonies from numerous clients and hoped this gave Members confidence in his ability to provide safe and secure passenger transfer. Most of his work involved government contracts and he had always had good reviews. He now used a speed limiter and cruise control at all times.
Members queried one of the offences which involved failing to provide information as to the identity of a driver. The driver explained that he normally waited for the reminder of a ticket to come through, and when he didn’t receive one he thought it might have been withdrawn. It was only when the summons came through six months later that he realised the seriousness of the situation.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
RESOLVED: Committee approved the updated Policies as below:
a) Pensions Administration Strategy
b) Complaints and Compliments Policy
c) Communication Policy
d) Overpayment Policy
e) Conflict of Interest Policy
Breaches Policy
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.