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:
(1) the report be noted;
(2) the Chair to write to the Director of Adults, Housing and Communities requesting consideration of commissioning an independent external review of complaint handling within the responsive repairs unit.
RESOLVED – That:
(1) the report be noted;
(2) the Chair to write to the Executive Leadership Support and Chair of the Management Committee of the Pupil Referral Unit – Y Deryn Family of Schools, seeking assurance that the recommendations from the unsatisfactory internal audit report will be addressed promptly
RESOLVED: that,following consideration of the "Annual Report on Investment in the Education Estate", the Education Annual Performance report for 2024/25 be noted.
RESOLVED:
That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward and will write to you to inform you of the Committee’s observations, comments and/ or recommendations ahead of Cabinet on the 22 January 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 / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had worked as a taxi driver for over 30 years and this was his first time before the Committee. Members were advised that the two SP30 driving offences had both occurred outside Cardiff in the early hours of the morning. The vehicle was travelling at 26mph in a 20mph zone and there were no passengers in the vehicle at the time.
The driver accepted that he was at fault, and he was now extra vigilant when it came to complying with speed limits.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the 3 SP30 driving offences had all occurred within a short space of time. The driver had taken fares to Swansea and was unfamiliar with the area. The speeds for the offences were 22mph, 22mph and 27mph respectively.
Members were advised that the offences were reported to the Hackney Office at the time. The driver was now very vigilant as he was fully aware that any conviction for a further driving offence would affect his livelihood.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging he failed to remain with his taxi after parking it on a rank, failed to display the interior plate and was rude and aggressive to Licensing Enforcement officers.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that on the day in question the driver parked in a taxi rank in order to go to his bank. When he returned to his vehicle he became aware of somebody taking photographs of his vehicle.
When asked, the lady identified herself as a Licensing Officer. She asked why he had parked in the rank and was ‘shouting and raving’. The driver denied that he was rude and aggressive to the Licensing Officers and suggested that the statements made by the witnesses were concocted. He stated that he was calm and respectful throughout the incident and denied using bad language.
The driver confirmed that he was aware that parking on a taxi rank was not permitted.
The Sub Committee also received representations from two Licensing Officers. The officers were invited to explain their version of the incident. Members were advised that the driver was rude and aggressive and had used phrases such as “I don’t give a shit”. The officers attempted to defuse the situation by inviting the driver to attend an interview at a later date. At that point they were accused of being “on a power trip”.
The officers stated that there was no window badge on display in the vehicle at the time of the incident.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire licence be suspended for two weeks for unacceptable conduct.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging abusive and threatening behaviour towards a fellow driver whilst carrying passengers.
Members were asked to consider the circumstances which had led to a disagreement between two drivers in the Kingsway area of the City Centre. The Sub Committee watched a video of a driver in a heated argument with another driver and using very strong bad language in front of passengers in his vehicle.
The driver was invited to provide details of his recollection of the incident. Members were advised that the driver was parked at the front of an unofficial rank and was next in line to collect a fare. The complainant’s vehicle parked in front of him and attempted to hail passengers.
The driver asked the complainant to move his vehicle. The complainant refused stating that it was not a legal taxi rank. The complainant then left his vehicle and came to the side of the driver’s vehicle, provoking a reaction.
The driver accepted that his response was wholly inappropriate and unprofessional. He stated that he now wished he had left the area immediately and had taken his passengers home.
The complainant was invited to address the Sub Committee. Members were advised that after overtaking the parked vehicle the driver started swearing and spitting. He therefore started to record the incident. The complainant considered that the other driver’s behaviour fell far short of the standards expected.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire licence be suspended for 60 days for unacceptable conduct.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he requested a fixed price card payment once the passengers were in the vehicle and the journey had already started to an area outside of the Cardiff boundary.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had agreed a fare of £50 to first take a passenger to Barry and then make a second drop off returning to Dinas Powys. After commencing the journey, the driver asked whether the passenger would be paying by cash or card. The passenger stated that it would be a card payment and therefore the driver stopped the vehicle and attempted to take the payment before the end of the journey. The driver stated that he did this because he had had several incidents where card payments have been declined.
The driver accepted that he should have asked for the payment when the price for the fare was agreed at the taxi rank.
The complainant stated that at the start of the journey, whilst an indication of the cost had been provided, he was unaware whether the driver was using the meter or not. The vehicle stopped in Callaghan Square and the driver requested payment. The complainant considered this to be inappropriate and refused to pay until the end of the journey. The complainant felt uneasy and was concerned that this portrayed a pattern of behaviour rather than a simple misunderstanding.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance and had been refused a licence by another local authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that whilst working delivering food his vehicle had broken down. He therefore used his cousin’s vehicle. He updated his insurance policy to allow his to use the different vehicle. However, whilst he was able to drive the vehicle as a third party he was not allowed to use it for food deliveries. He was stopped by the police and charged with an IN10 offence. He accepted that he was uninsured at the time.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driving offences had occurred on the A470 over a short space of time. The driver stated that after an extended break in Canada he had returned to the UK and started working. The speed limit on a section of the A470 had changed during his period abroad and he was unaware.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driver had received 6 penalty points after taking a telephone call from his daughter whilst stopped at traffic lights on Newport Road. The driver accepted responsibility for the offence. There were no passengers in the vehicle at the time. The driver accepted that he should have declared the conviction at the time of the offence as required.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was working a private hire driver at the time of the offence. He had mistakenly picked up a passenger who was not pre-booked, when he was not insured to do so. Prior to the incident, the driver had 17 years’ experience in the trade without any complaints. He was now licensed as both a hackney carriage and private hire driver. He considered that after receiving six penalty points and a fine in the magistrate’s court and having to pay higher insurance, he had learned a valuable lesson.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions and a previous criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained the nature of the convictions and the circumstances surrounding the speeding offences, and that he has now addressed his behaviour and drives to a professional standard.
The Sub Committee asked the applicant to explain his conviction for money laundering. The applicant stated that the conviction had occurred whilst he was at university. A friend had asked him to create a cryptocurrency account which was then used to send money to someone else.
RESOLVED – that the application for a hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be refused.
RESOLVED: that
1. the mid-year assessment of the Council’s performance as set out in this report and Appendix A be noted, including the delivery of key commitments and priorities at the end of Quarter 2 of 2025/26, and the actions being taken to ensure the effective delivery of the Corporate Plan 2025-28.
2. the response to any recommendations made by the Policy Review and Performance (PRAP) Scrutiny Committee in relation to the draft mid-year assessment be considered and agreed.
3. Authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation & Performance, to make any consequential amendments to the draft mid-year assessment required to reflect the response to PRAP Scrutiny Committee recommendations (agreed under recommendation 2).
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging he abandoned his passenger at 2am following the passenger refusing to rebook the journey with a different operator for a higher fee.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver welcomed the opportunity to put his case forward. He had been a taxi driver for ten years, worked to support his children and was a big part of his local community in Cardiff. He understood his responsibilities to his community and the city and could not understand how the incident had happened, and apologised to the witness.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had just finished work in the Red Dragon Centre, and as she didn’t drive at the time she booked an Uber home. After she got in, the driver asked where she was going and complained that it was too far, asking her to rebook it with another provider and pay cash. She had already paid through Uber, so she refused. The driver kept repeating that it was too far and got louder, so she felt uncomfortable and asked if he wanted her to leave. He said yes so she got out.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he worked for both Uber and Cabs 64. He was aware of the contracts that he was entering into as a driver when he accepted a fare, and that he should have completed the job.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness confirmed that she had cancelled the journey on Uber after getting out and had got her money back, and had booked a different Uber home.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 8 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received the penalty points for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. The driver’s representative added that he had a black and white hackney vehicle which he had converted to a private hire vehicle in May 2023.
On the night in question, he was due to finish his shift as a private hire vehicle before shifting to operate as a hackney carriage later in the evening. While still operating as a private hire driver, he was approached by a passenger and agreed to take them. He was only two weeks into operating as a private hire driver, using the same vehicle. He wasn’t thinking clearly and took the passenger, but knew now that he shouldn’t have taken them as they hadn’t pre-booked.
The driver’s representative noted that he had brought additional character references, and hoped the Sub Committee would take into account that his family depended on his income, as well as the difficult year that the driver had had. He suggested that the council must have been fully aware of his situation last October when the licence was renewed, and felt the matter should have been dealt with then rather than bringing the driver back to answer for it a year later.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences, the first two being shortly after the 20mph limit was brought in, both on Manor Way on the A470 late at night, and another in 2025. He had been licensed for 22 years with no other issues. Taxi driving was his livelihood and he did it to support his family.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(4)
Application 4
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 6 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t use his phone while the car was moving but jobs appeared on it and you needed to tap the screen to accept them. He wasn’t sure when exactly the offence had taken place but emphasised that he respected the rules of the road. He had been a taxi driver since 2019 and had been driving for more than forty years.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had six penalty points on his driving licence which he had not declared to the licensing authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that while picking up a member of his family before starting work in his taxi, he had been seen by a police officer touching his phone and received six points. When it came to the renewal process he forgot to declare this. He suggested that this was an oversight rather than attempt to hide it, and he understood that it was his duty to inform the licensing authority as soon as it happened.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points through a SP50 speeding offence and an MS90 offence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. He noted that the offence did not concern his taxi but rather a private car. His wife had travelled up north using the car, and let a friend drive it back, believing they were insured to do so.
The friend was caught speeding and the driver filled in the form accordingly, but was given an MS90 offence for not providing the driver’s name. The Legal Officer clarified that it was the responsibility of the person who had been driving to fill in the form.
The driver added that he had been driving taxis for nearly 40 years in Cardiff, enjoyed his job and had served the city well. The speeding points had recently expired so he now only had six.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he was disqualified from driving in October 2022 but did not advise the licensing authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had obtained a taxi licence in 2018 and started driving them in 2019, working for Uber. He was disqualified from driving in 2022 due to totting up 12 penalty points, and served his six month disqualification in 2023.
When he came to renew his taxi licence in 2024, he wasn’t sure how to answer the questions on fixed penalties and points since his last renewal, as he didn’t know if he still had the points. He left it blank and intended to come back to it, but ran out of time before the deadline and wanted to ask for clarification at the taxi office.
Upon renewal, he handed the forms in and completely forgot to draw their attention to the gaps in the form. He didn’t think anything of it until this was flagged up almost a year later. He emphasised that he had not intended to deceive, and it was just a simple mistake.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 18 penalty points on his driving licence and had been disqualified from driving for six months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had been before them this year and mentioned two pending offences that had since been confirmed, with his licence revoked as a result. He had since handed his licence in and was not currently driving.
The driver’s representative acknowledged that he had committed repeated speeding offences, but had learned the hard way from his mistakes. He asked the Sub Committee to consider that once he was able to drive again in four months’ time, he would be a fit and proper person who could be trusted to drive a taxi safely and responsibly.
The Chair noted that the driver had previously been suspended for seven days by the Sub Committee, and before then had received a written warning. The driver’s representative noted that the warning had been for a different offence.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in a few years ago he had gone through a red light on an electric bike, not realising that this was not legal on a bike. Another offence had occurred a few hours after he had bought a car, when the insurance on the vehicle was not under his name at that time. These offences combined resulted in a six month ban, which he had served.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(11)
Application 11
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence given that the applicant previously had a Private Hire Operator Licence revoked by Newport City Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was seeking an operating licence because Newport had revoked his previous one after a misunderstanding. He understood the error he had made, and would ensure full compliance if granted a licence by Cardiff to ensure it didn’t happen again. He now had a legal advisor in place to ensure compliance.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had operated in Newport from 2021 to 2025. His operator licence had been revoked after he lent friends licensed vehicles for personal use, misunderstanding the meaning of social, domestic, pleasure (SDP) insurance. His company’s compliance had also not been deemed up to standard.
He added that there had been no complaints against him as a driver, and his new company had a Cardiff office which Licensing were welcome to visit at any time. He was happy for any conditions to be attached to his operating licence to mitigate any previous concerns.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That:
(1) the report be noted:
(2) an update report to be brought to the January 2025 meeting of the Committee on progress made against the outstanding internal audit recommendations with target dates in November and December 2025 for Adults, Housing and Communities Directorate.
RESOLVED - That Committee notes the content of the report and the recommendation made by the Ombudsman regarding monitoring of progress.
• Chief Digital Officer to provide reflection and commentary in the next corporate complaints update on the Responsive Repairs ombudsman matters and lessons or enhancements that could be made corporately as a result.
RESOLVED; that the Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2025-26 (Appendix 1) be noted, prior to its submission to Governance and Audit Committee and Full Council in November 2025.
RESOLVED: Noted the information set out in the report and points made by the Monitoring Officer.
The recommendations were agreed upon by majority and the meeting moved on to Item 7.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he refused to engage his meter or accept a card payment.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he was working on the night of the alleged incident but stressed that he never refused to use the meter as he knew it was the law.
He acknowledged that the vehicle in the picture provided was his, but felt it showed that he wasn’t at the front of the rank. He did not recognise the witness as he took many fares every night. It was clarified that the witness’ statement said that the photo was of the driver leaving the rank rather than being parked there.
The driver added that he had been a taxi driver for nearly thirty years and was now a senior citizen, and followed the rules of the taxi rank. He had been a community leader for many years too. He rejected the suggestion in the witness’ statement that he had demanded £10 up front for a short fare, and refused payment by card. He emphasised that he had been driving taxis for a long time and wouldn’t risk his livelihood for a couple of pounds.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he preferred to take payment up front when people wanted to pay by card, and refunded them at the destination if the final total was less. This was in case the card was declined at the end of the journey, and he asked politely rather than demanding it. Members suggested that while asking for a small deposit was reasonable, taking the whole fare in advance was not.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he caught taxis regularly because he worked in town. He often had issues with taxi drivers who either didn’t let him pay by card or tried to charge him to take his suitcase, but things had gotten better since the taxi wardens came in. On the night in question, he was directed to the vehicle by the warden and asked to go to Grangetown. After he had put his bags in the boot, the driver told him it would be £10.
The witness added that he immediately asked to use the meter instead because the normal fare was about £8, and the driver refused. He also said that he’d be paying by card, and the driver said ‘no card or no journey’. The witness decided that it wasn’t worth it and said he’d report him, got his bags out of the boot and took a photo of the taxi licence plate. He explained this to the taxi warden too, and they went to speak to the driver, who then left the rank.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he normally had a glass of wine after work, but only one. He also clarified that he had only added that he wanted to pay by card after the driver had refused to use the meter.
The driver denied the witness’ statement entirely and suggested that he didn’t allow passengers to put their bags in the boot before they had spoken at the window and agreed a fare. He was sure that he had not refused to use the meter or take a card payment, and did not recall the taxi warden speaking to him. Members asked how he could be sure of any of this if he didn’t remember the incident.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences in 2023, which he had declared on his renewal application. Two of the offences had happened on the same day in February 2023, the day after he had received some bad personal news which had distracted him from his driving.
Members asked why he had only declared the offences upon renewal in August 2025. The driver responded that he wasn’t aware that was part of the conditions of his licence, but knew now.
Members asked if he had received any support during the difficult time in his personal life, and how he would react to similar circumstances now. The driver explained that it was hard to stop working for more than a day or two, but he would go and see his doctor if it was really affecting him.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been a taxi driver since 2008 and took the responsibilities of his role seriously, and treated the public with respect. He understood the authority’s concern over his fitness due to his speeding offences but felt he was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.
The driver explained that two of the offences were at the same location, when the speed limit on a road near him had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He acknowledged that it was his responsibility to ensure he was aware of all speed limits, and added that he had been driving privately rather than with a passenger in his taxi on all three occasions. He also added that he had received a previous complaint about parking, when he was in a rush to get to his mosque and parked on private property nearby.
He understood the council’s policy on taxi licensing and hoped that it could be taken into account that all three offences had occurred in a short period of time, between December 2024 and April 2025. He didn’t want to make excuses but had been going through a particularly stressful time. He was familiar with the roads in Cardiff and felt he was a safe driver who treated his customers well and undertook school run contracts. He was working to support his wife and children, and asked that the Sub Committee give him another chance.
Members asked whether the driver had notified his insurance company about the points, and heard that he had.
The driver’s solicitor added that he believed his client had addressed the licensing authority’s concerns, and that on balance he was a fit and proper person to continue driving a taxi. Two of the speeding offences had occurred in the same area within a week of each other, which he felt offered some mitigation as the driver might not have been aware of the first offence when the second happened. He had driven taxis for 17 years, and there had been no further issues of any kind since the third speeding offence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared ten penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that one of the speeding offences had been in Pontypridd in in December last year, when the weather was very bad. He had only recently started driving taxis again after renting them out for some time.
Members queried why one of the offences had resulted in four penalty points rather than the usual three. The driver was not sure, adding that he only became aware of it when he came to renew. He didn’t go to court and had not yet paid the fine, but would do so because he accepted that he was speeding.
Members asked if he had paid the previous fine as well. The Legal Officer clarified that both convictions were on the same day, so he would have received the fines at the same time.
Members queried the previous complaints the driver had received regarding the condition of vehicles for which he was the proprietor. The Legal Officer clarified that previous complaints were not relevant to this hearing.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had unintentionally driven a car without insurance, not realising that he was not covered to do so. He had two different types of insurance from the same company, one of which was fine to drive the vehicle and the other one that wasn’t. It was a stupid mistake and one that wouldn’t happen again. He had been driving since 2017 and this was the first issue he’d had.
The Chair clarified that due to a recent change in the law he would not be able to drive any car regardless of comprehensive insurance, only the named vehicle.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he now had six points as three had expired in August. The offences had occurred in 2022 and 2023, and two of them were in 20mph zones when he had been going under 30mph. He had since upgraded his car to one with a speed limiter that was easier to keep within the limit.
He didn’t feel he was a reckless driver and had not had any other incidents in the last two years, and had declared the offences on his renewal application. He understood that it was his responsibility to stick to the rules and ensure he was aware when they changed.
Members asked why he didn’t declare the convictions until 2024. The driver responded that he didn’t realise he had to at the time.
The driver clarified that he did have a BTEC qualification, contrary to the papers provided, and was first issued a taxi licence in 1999 rather than 1980.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he used to buy and re-sell cars, and was in Caerphilly at the time. His car was slightly damaged so he used a different one for the journey, and made sure to get himself insured on it. He forgot to take himself off the insurance, and the car was later used by someone else who was caught speeding. He was advised that he was unlikely to win the case in court as he didn’t know who the driver was, so he accepted the punishment. However, he was able to show that he was in Wolverhampton and not where the offence was committed.
Members explained that the Sub Committee was only able to go on what the court had said. Members asked if the offence had taken place in his taxi, and heard that it hadn’t.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had had a clean licence for many years but had received nine points in the last six months. He worked for Uber and got a job through on the app, taking a fare to town via Cathedral Road. He was then offered a job on Westgate Street and did a U-turn, and his phone fell on the floor of his vehicle because the holder was broken. When his car was stopped at a red light, he leant down and picked up the phone to put it back in the holder. A cyclist next to him recorded this on a camera on their helmet, and reported him for using his phone while driving.
He had tried to fight the decision but the authorities told him that he should have known better as a professional driver. He emphasised that he never used his phone while driving, and didn’t even answer it over Bluetooth when he had a passenger. He felt it would have been much riskier to leave the phone on the floor as it was connected to a charger and the cable was next to the pedals. The court had made their judgement and fined him more than £700. He went to a solicitor who advised that he was unlikely to win on appeal, so he took the points and the fine.
Members queried the second offence, which the driver clarified was for doing 26mph in a 20mph zone in Coryton. Members asked what he would do if the same thing happened again, and heard that he would pull over and turn the engine off before touching his phone.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 24 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the number of points and explained that he wasn’t working as a taxi driver since 2017. He had a job in Cwmbran and his daily commute was on the M4, and at the time he didn’t realise that the limit had changed to 50mph. He tended to rush home at 8pm each day to see his child before bed, and was clocked numerous times going between 50mph and 70mph in the 50mph zone.
He added that the letters making him aware of this went to the transport manager of the company he worked for, because the vehicle was registered to the company, and he wasn’t told. He argued his case in court and was given a total of 31 points, seven of which had since expired. He apologised for the offences and noted that in court the judge had not deemed him to be a dangerous driver. His insurance costs had gone up hugely since.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that all the offences were caught by the same camera on the M4. He had renewed his licence several times since 2017 as a backup in case he lost his job. He had not declared the offences when they happened because he wasn’t driving his taxi at the time, so it didn’t occur to him to inform the licensing authority. He added that he had not received any complaints from members of the public when he was driving taxis between 2011 and 2017, and felt he was a fit and proper person.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(11)
Application 11
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To approve the audited Statement of Accounts 2024/25 – Cardiff Council and Cardiff Harbour Authority (Appendix 1);
2.
To approve the audited Statement of Accounts 2024/25 – Cardiff & Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund (Appendix 2);
3.
To approve the Annual Governance Statement 2024/25 (Appendix 3);
4.
To note the Audit of Accounts Reports (ISA 260) from Audit Wales on the Statement of Accounts of Cardiff Council, Cardiff Harbour Authority and Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund for the year ending 31 March 2025 (Appendices 4, 5 and 6);
5.
To approve the Cardiff Port Health Authority Annual Return 2024/25 (Appendix 7);
6.
To note the final Letters of Representation for Cardiff Council, Cardiff Harbour Authority and Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund included within Appendices 4, 5 and 6;
7.
To note that the following documents will be signed following the conclusion of the meeting:
Statement of Accounts for Cardiff Council – Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources;
Statement of Accounts for Cardiff Harbour Authority – Corporate Director Resources;
Statement of Accounts for Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund - Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources;
Annual Return of Cardiff Port Health Authority – Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources;
Annual Governance Statement – Leader of the Council and Chief Executive;
Audit Certificate for the Cardiff Council and Cardiff Harbour Authority – Appointed Auditor, Audit Wales;
Letter of Representation for Cardiff Council - Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources;
Letter of Representation for Cardiff Harbour Authority – Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources;
Letter of Representation for Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund - Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
a.
To note the revised political composition of the Council as set out in the report;
b.
To approve the updated Members Schedule of Remuneration attached as Appendix A;
c.
To delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer to update the Members’ Schedule of Remuneration in the Constitution;
d.
To approve the updated Allocation of Seats for Committees at Appendix B;
e.
To receive nominations from Party Groups in respect of any changes to the seats allocated to each Group as attached at Appendix C;
f.
To appoint Members to each Committee where the political allocations have changed, in accordance with the nominations received from the relevant Party Groups as detailed on the amendment sheet;
g.
To request the Monitoring Officer to make appointments in respect of any remaining vacancies in accordance with any further nominations or changes received from the relevant political groups following this meeting (under her delegated authority reference LD17 within the Scheme of Delegations) and to report to the next Council meeting the details of all appointments to committees for information.
RESOLVED:
1.
To note the 2024/25 Audited Statement of Accounts for Cardiff Council and Cardiff Harbour Authority;
2.
To note the 2024/25 Audited Statement of Accounts for Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund;
3.
To note the 2024/25 Audit of Accounts Reports (ISA 260) for the Statement of Accounts for Cardiff Council, Cardiff Harbour Authority and Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund and the contents of the Letters of Representation;
4.
To note the 2024/25 Annual Governance Statement;
5.
To ask questions of the auditor in respect to the appendices ahead of the request for Council approval on 23 October 2025.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that upon renewal of his licence there was an issue with the DBS process.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had not been informed of the DBS issue when he most recently renewed his plates in April, and had not received any correspondence from the council either. His updated DBS had arrived at the end of May and he had provided it to the council in September but not had any confirmation that they had received it.
The driver presented his full DBS certificate to the Sub Committee. The driver’s representative noted that there were no new matters to report on the certificate, and in their view the matter was closed.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had picked up two passengers in town and taken them to Roath, before being told by a licensing officer that he shouldn’t have taken the fare because he was a private hire driver and lacked the correct insurance. He acknowledged his mistake and apologised, explaining that he was on autopilot during a busy night.
The driver added that he had received six points and paid a £940 fine for the offence. Members noted that the papers referred to a fine of £350, which the Legal Officer clarified was likely to have been one part of a combined penalty for the separate offences of plying for hire and driving without the appropriate insurance.
The driver’s representative noted that the driver had already been punished for the offence in court, and emphasised that it was an honest one-off mistake after more than 30 years of driving taxis with a clean record. The driver also acknowledged that he should have informed the licensing authority as soon as he received the points.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(4)
Application 4
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the Licensing Department had received six complaints regarding refusal of fares between 2018 and 2025, and that during the investigation of the most recent complaint on the 23rd June it was alleged that the driver may also have provided a statement contrary to CCTV obtained.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative emphasised that the driver was not plying for hire, but was rather waiting to pick up his daughter after a concert. It was a very busy night after a Millennium Stadium event and many roads were closed, so he parked on Mill Lane opposite the taxi rank with his light off to wait for his daughter.
The representative suggested that the evidence provided by the licensing department was inaccurate, as the vehicle was not at the front of the queue as it wasn’t in the official rank. He suggested that rather than accepting a fare from a passenger he didn’t know, as the statement from Licensing alleged, he had picked up his daughter’s friends before driving to pick up his daughter from outside a takeaway restaurant. He emphasised that if the driver had been plying for hire, he would have parked on the other side of the rank and put his light on. He also disputed the witness’ suggestion that the driver had been rude to her.
Members asked whether the driver felt Mill Lane was a suitable pickup spot for a journey back to Gabalfa. The driver’s daughter explained that she was not very familiar with the roads in Cardiff, so it seemed easier to pick her up from the place where he normally worked from. The driver added that a lot of roads were closed because of the concert.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she hadn’t realised how difficult it would be to get a taxi after the concert, having moved away from Cardiff some time ago. She and her friends had followed the crowds towards the Mill Lane rank to try and get a ride back to Penylan, and tried asking the taxi drivers there after they had no luck with Uber. She asked the driver in question if he was available, but he ignored her.
The witness added that she then saw the driver talk to other people who needed a ride and type their postcodes into his phone before turning them down, which made her think he was cherrypicking fares. One of the friends she was travelling with was neurodivergent and disabled, while the other had a young child and was desperate to get home.
The Sub Committee viewed CCTV footage of the taxi rank and confirmed that the vehicle had been parked on the other side of the road to the main rank, and that the light on top of the vehicle was off. Members viewed the taxi driving off after two women got in, whom the driver’s daughter confirmed were her friends.
The driver’s representative emphasised that it had not been the driver’s intention to refuse or offend anyone, and that he wasn’t plying for hire because he was waiting for his daughter.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences in the same 30mph zone on Western Avenue by the Gabalfa interchange.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had 14 years’ experience as a taxi driver and worked for Uber as well, and felt he was a good driver. He had committed three speeding offences, with the first occurring in June 2023.
He wasn’t sure of the details of all of the offences, but recalled that one of them was for going 27mph in a 20 zone near Pentwyn Leisure Centre, and noted that the 20 sign there was very close to the corner so it was easily missed.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that the conviction was for an incident that happened 35 years ago, when he was in his early 20s, and he hadn’t been in any sort of trouble since. He had been imprisoned for 18 months and released after six for good behaviour.
He added that when he applied for his licence, he didn’t realise he needed an enhanced DBS disclosure and instead applied for a basic one. He had been under the impression that if it happened more than ten years ago, it did not need to be disclosed, but realised now that he had been mistaken.
He added that he had spent the last decade working across the UK in the gas industry for various companies, but had decided to come home and do a different job. He had always worked in customer care and liked working with people.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been disqualified from driving last year after driving a friend’s car when he didn’t realise he wasn’t insured on it. On another occasion since then he had been stopped by the police because his brake light wasn’t working, and they found an issue with his tyre.
Members noted that he had been disqualified due to totting up points, and asked what other offences were involved. The driver clarified that there had been two insurance offences, both of which involved the same car that belonged to his friend. The second offence had happened before he was informed about the insurance issue.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence, as well as one pending speeding offence which would bring his total points to twelve.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative clarified that the pending offence had now been confirmed, so the driver had twelve points on his licence. He had been driving taxis since 2001, and though there were two matters reported in that period, neither had been upheld.
He explained that he had received six points for accidentally driving through a red light in 2024 and had committed two speeding offences in January 2025, both at the junction of Newport Road and Claremont Avenue. All of the offences had occurred in the early hours of the morning after he had dropped off customers.
The driver’s representative added that when the case went to court, the driver had pleaded exceptional hardship as he was the principal breadwinner for his family, and supported his wife and child as well as his parents, which had enabled him to continue driving despite the twelve points. He was a law-abiding driver of long standing who was aware that any further offences would result in the loss of his licence.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
RESOLVED: that
• the contents of the report and its appendices, including the observations and any recommendations made by: (i) the Performance Panel (Appendix 3a); (ii) the Governance and Audit Committee (Appendix 4a) and (iii) the Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee (Appendix 5a – to follow) be noted.
• authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation & Performance, to make any consequential changes to the draft Annual Well-being Report 2024/25 arising from recommendation 1 above; and
• the Annual Well-being Report 2024/25, including any agreed amendments under recommendation 2 above, be recommended to Council for approval.
RESOLVED: that
• the report and recommendations of the Panel Performance Assessment (Appendix A) be noted;
• the proposed response by the Council to the recommendations of the Panel Performance Assessment (Appendix B) be approved;
• authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to agree any consequential changes to the Council’s response to the recommendations of the Panel Performance Assessment following consideration by the Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee and Governance and Audit Committee and any written representations made following those meetings; and
• the report and recommendations of the Panel Performance Assessment be submitted to Full Council for noting.
RESOLVED – That:
(1) The report be noted;
(2) The Audit Manager provide and update on completions of Modules Part 1 and Part 2 in the Investigation Team Progress in November.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted and that the Audit Manager provide further information in respect of where responsibility lies for tracking each recommendation.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver accessed his emails on a tablet while driving with a passenger present.
The witness did not attend the Sub Committee.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his driving licence but did not disclose them until three had expired.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that upon renewal of his licence it had flagged up that he had nine points at one point during the triannual renewal period. He apologised for this and emphasised that it was an error rather than an attempt to hide it from the licensing authority. He ran his own business which was very busy and had made an oversight.
He added that he drove around 80,000 miles a year and never drove dangerously, but had been caught out on a few occasions by speed cameras in unfamiliar areas. Since the offences he had taken every precaution to ensure it didn’t happen again.
The driver also clarified that he had undertaken the NVQ qualification, which the report stated he had not.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had a conviction for harassment.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he accepted responsibility for the mistakes he made which led to him being convicted of harassment in 2019. He did not want to make excuses but clarified that it was online harassment that had taken place over Facebook rather than face-to-face, and he regretted his actions.
He added that he saw the conviction as a turning point and had had no issues whatsoever since. He had worked hard to turn his life around and now had a stable family life with a wife and a child. He had been doing school transport for a decade now with no complaints, and understood the importance of trust, professionalism and safeguarding.
Members asked whether he had declared the conviction on his previous renewal, which the driver confirmed he had.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points due to three speeding offences, two of which happened on the same day on Western Avenue when he didn’t realise the limit had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He had been driving taxis for many years and had a clean record until the speeding offences in 2023 and 2024.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had a caution for importing a controlled Class C drug with intent to evade prohibition and restriction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s solicitor explained that his client had brought bags of khat into the UK in 2021, which had led to a caution in 2022 for a drug-related offence. He suggested that the investigating authorities must have been satisfied that there was no commercial or distribution aspect to the importation, or he would have received more than a caution.
The driver’s solicitor emphasised that the driver had an exemplary record otherwise and was of good character. He was a family man who was working to support his children, and there had been no other substantial issues across 14 years of driving taxis, so they considered him to be a fit and proper person.
Members asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had not fully understood the process as his English wasn’t perfect. He had declared it on his most recent renewal, which was the first one since the caution. He had submitted the renewal application in July 2022, which was before the caution was finalised in August. The driver accepted that he should have informed the authority at the earliest opportunity.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days, and that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had six penalty points on her driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver accepted that she had failed to give information as to the identity of the driver, and explained that she hadn’t been driving the car at the time. After dropping off a customer, they had asked to drive her vehicle because she had mentioned she was selling it. She explained that they wouldn’t be able to drive it as they weren’t a taxi driver, which they said they were and showed a badge. They only drove it about 100 yards but went at 27mph in a 20 zone.
She added that when the ticket came, she was unable to provide any details of the driver’s identity, only their name and a phone number which they never responded on. She appealed the decision but the authorities were unable to track the individual down. She noted that she didn’t attend the court hearing, though the report said she did, as she accepted she was guilty of letting another person drive her car.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that she didn’t have CCTV in her car at the time as she was planning on selling it.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he collided with a cyclist while driving on the wrong side of the road.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he was travelling on East Tyndall Street with a passenger on board and turned right up the hill onto Sanquhar Street. The road markings were not clear and he misjudged the turning, and collided with a cyclist who was knocked over. He emphasised that he had been following the speed limit and travelling at about 10mph.
He added that after pulling over, he stayed with the cyclist and provided his details. He asked whether the cyclist wanted to call the police, which he did not. He then carried on to drop the passenger off. Six weeks later he was contacted by the licensing authority and the police about the incident.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had not stopped before making the turn because there were no cars coming the other way. He also explained that the passenger had not said anything, and they just wanted to get home as he’d picked them up from a night shift. He apologised for the accident.
Members viewed a CCTV video of the incident.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events. He suggested that the driver had cut the corner and had been travelling faster than he had claimed. The Sanquhar Road corner was known for being a dangerous place for cyclists because cars sped up as they went up the hill before turning.
He also suggested that he had suggested contacting the police, not the driver, and that the driver had given him an incorrect phone number. The driver had stated that the road markings were faded, but he had provided pictures which showed they were reasonably clear.
The Sub Committee asked the driver how he responded to this. The driver acknowledged that he had cut the corner slightly but stressed that he had done so slowly and had misjudged his line due to the lack of road markings.
The driver’s representative noted that there was a dispute over the car’s speed, which he suggested did not look overly fast from the video but may well have seemed faster from the cyclist’s perspective. He suggested that it was a problem corner which the council needed to address. It was a genuine accident and the driver had accepted that he misjudged the corner, and it would never happen again. The driver had a clean record and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before.
The witness emphasised that while he had slowed down as he approached the junction, the driver had not. He added that he had found it difficult to cycle on that road since it happened. A lot of roads in Cardiff were dangerous to cycle on, and the conduct of many drivers made this worse. He felt that the driver had recklessly cut the corner and caused an accident that could have been much worse.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he had taken fares without bookings.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that a lot of Veezu drivers had recurring issues with registering fares and trips when they were in areas with poor signal. Sometimes they were called during the trip by an operator to see if they had picked up a passenger, but sometimes they had to call the operator themselves, which meant they had to wait until the journey complete.
He added that he worked for Uber too and didn’t have the same problem with them. He felt that the examples provided where he was accused of plying for hire could be explained by these technical issues, where he had pressed ‘no show’ but the system didn’t register it, so it thought he had refused to pick them up.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been working for Veezu since around 2014, when it was still Dragon.
Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of Veezu, the witness explained that the four bookings had been flagged up in their system because it was unusual to have so many ‘no shows’ in quick succession. Veezu had looked into the individual bookings and the corresponding GPS data and found that on each occasion, after pressing the ‘no show’ button, the driver had then travelled to each of the requested destinations without booking it as a journey. On three of the occasions the driver had also made a call to the passenger to confirm they were there. As far as the witness was concerned, this would only have been done for financial gain.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver had allowed three schoolchildren to exit his vehicle in the middle of a busy intersection without consideration for their safety.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was on Leckwith Road in stationary traffic on a school run. His three passengers, who were aged around 15, wanted to get out as the car had stopped. He tried to explain that they shouldn’t as they were in traffic, but they jumped out and went.
Members asked whether there was an automatic locking system in the car. The driver responded that he drove a Seat Alhambra and wasn’t sure whether the back doors could be permanently locked from the front, as it was never usually necessary.
The driver clarified that the journey was not part of a contracted school run, but rather a single booked journey that morning.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recounted her statement explaining what she had seen. It was on a very busy road connecting Leckwith to Canton, made up of two lanes of traffic that then turned into four by Asda. The taxi was less than a car length ahead of her and the sliding doors opened to let the passengers out. The vehicle was stationary at a red light but all the other lanes around it were moving.
The passengers got out onto the hatched road markings and made their way to the traffic island, before picking their way through the cars waiting to move. As the traffic moved off, she became aware of the taxi going around her and wrote down the taxi plate number and registration. The witness felt it was an extremely dangerous thing to do and was particularly worried that a contracted school run driver could have been responsible for it.
The driver’s representative asked what time this would have occurred, which the witness estimated was about 8:15am. The driver’s representative suggested that while it was a busy road, it would have been moving very slowly at this time. The witness disagreed and suggested it was a hectic road.
The driver’s representative sympathised with the witness and reiterated the driver’s recollection that he had asked the passengers not to get out in the wrong place, but had been unable to stop them due to the lack of automatic locking. He suggested that ensuring the locking was always on would prevent anything like this happening again.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(11)
Application 11
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had acquired six points for failing to fill in a Section 172 notice, which he had accepted responsibility for. The other three points were for exceeding the speed limit just off Newport Road near Fitzalan, which he had reported when he applied to renew his taxi licence.
He had been driving since 2005 and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before. He depended on his licence to support his family. He provided Members with a number of references in support of his character and record.
The driver’s solicitor summed up that his client had been driving taxis for more than 20 years without any disciplinary matters. He had made two mistakes, one being an administrative matter and the other being a failure to notice that a speed limit had changed. He was now on nine points and would have to drive very carefully to ensure he didn’t lose his licence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(12)
Application 12
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating he was abusive and threatening to a parking enforcement officer.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that the driver regretted the way he had acted. In terms of extenuating circumstances, he explained that the driver had been having a very difficult day and getting a parking ticket was the culmination of this.
Members asked the driver for his reflections, having watched the video of the incident back, and heard that he understood it wasn’t appropriate to have reacted in that way. The driver apologised to the witness for his conduct.
The driver’s representative noted that the witness’ statement indicated that the car was unattended, which he disputed.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he was a parking enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, and had given an unattended vehicle on Albany Road an instant ticket for double parking. As he was issuing the ticket, the driver came out and challenged him about it. The driver started shouting so he activated his body camera, which also captured the 30 seconds before the button was pressed. The video of the incident showed the driver calling him a racist and a coloniser, and threatening the officer for giving him the ticket.
The witness added that while the driver was shouting, a security guard came over to try to calm him down. After a minute or two he got back in his car and took the ticket. He explained that he could appeal it and that it would cost £35 if he paid it within 14 days, at which point the driver got out of the car and started shouting again. Eventually he took the ticket and drove away.
Members asked how the incident had made the witness feel, and heard that he had been shocked. Although he got a lot of verbal abuse in his job, people normally calmed down when they were told they were being recorded, and sometimes they even apologised.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had paid the parking fine.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver was genuinely shocked looking back at his reaction in the video, which was totally out of order. It was out of character for him, and he had learned from the incident and would ensure it would never happen again.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Drivers’ licence be revoked.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged his mistake and emphasised that he would be more careful next time. He was aware that if he had any other offences in the next year, he would lose his licence. He had been driving taxis since 2003 with no other issues.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
The hearing took place in the absence of the driver.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning, and be required to complete the ‘Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver’ BTEC course within twelve months.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 15 penalty points on his driving licence and was disqualified from driving for six months.
Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of the driver, the driver’s friend explained that he had been licensed since 2001 but had now been disqualified from driving for six months after accruing 15 points. He was very regretful about what had happened and had informed the council and returned his badges immediately.
He added that if he got his licence back in December, he would take extra precautions to drive especially safely. He was 65 years old but was still keen to get back to work and not rely on benefits. He didn’t have any other sources of income, as this had been his job for more than 20 years, and he had five children to look after.
Members queried the circumstances of the offences, and heard that two of them were in the same location on Newport Road near St Mellons, where a 30mph zone changed suddenly to 20mph. He had been caught going at 27mph and then 30mph by the same camera.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning, and be required to complete the ‘Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver’ BTEC course within six months.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been a taxi driver for 20 years with no issues or complaints in that time, and this was his first time before the Sub Committee. Driving his taxi was his only source of income.
He had received nine penalty points, three of which were for a speeding offence in 2023 where he didn’t realise a speed limit on Manor Way had recently changed from 40mph to 30mph, and was caught going at 37mph.
He added that the other six were for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. Members queried this and heard that he believed his car was in the garage at the time, but he had been unable to prove this and accepted the punishment.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had twelve penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points and a fine in May for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver, after he didn’t see a letter which was sent to his family’s house while he wasn’t living there.
He added that he had received a ticket on Manor Way for going 39mph in a zone that used to be a 40mph zone but had recently changed to a 30, and there was another offence where he went 55mph in a 50mph zone.
The driver’s representative added that the driver had been up front and honest about what had happened, and reported his offences to the authority as soon as possible. In his view, he was clearly responsible enough to continue driving taxis.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 9 penalty points on the driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s solicitor explained that he had received a fine and three points for misjudging going through a light when there were no passengers in the car. He had also exceeded the speed limit on two occasions very close to each other, which the driver explained were in the same place on Newport Road near Rumney, driving towards the city centre. The limit in this area had changed from 30mph to 20mph, and in both cases he was going under 30.
The driver added that he had been driving since 2001, and had only been before the Sub Committee once in that time. On that occasion, his licence had been revoked, but this decision was overturned on appeal. Other than that, there had been no issues in the last 24 years, and he felt he was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi. He had declared everything that was relevant to the authority, and had demonstrated his fitness over a long period of time.
The driver’s solicitor added that he had another speeding offence pending, which would go to court in September. He would plead special hardship reasons to be allowed to continue driving, and wouldn’t be able to drive if this was not accepted.
RESOLVED – that the hearing be deferred until the resolution of the pending speeding offence.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had nine penalty points on the driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been driving for a long time and had unfortunately collected nine points recently: three for exceeding a 30mph limit and six for using a mobile phone while driving. He was still not sure what had happened with the phone offence, having received a letter about it with no pictures of details.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that he did not have passengers in the car on either occasion. He never took phone calls when he had passengers because they wouldn’t like it.
Regarding the speeding offence, he explained that this was on Newport Road near St Mellons, and he had been caught going at 26mph in a 20mph zone that he thought was a 30.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had made a mistake some time ago when he was new in the country, and got the wrong type of insurance for his car while working as a delivery driver for Amazon. He had now sorted this out and had the correct business insurance, and wanted to drive taxis in addition to doing deliveries.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.