Y cyfansoddiad, ymddygiad cynghorwyr, archwilio, perfformiad a chwynion.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Sut mae'r cyngor ei hun yn cael ei redeg: ei gyfansoddiad, staff, adeiladau, TG, cwynion, a sut mae cynghorwyr yn ymddwyn.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Mae'r Cyngor llawn yn cytuno ar y cyfansoddiad. Mae pwyllgor safonau'n delio ag ymddygiad cynghorwyr; mae Ombwdsmon Gwasanaethau Cyhoeddus Cymru yn ymchwilio i gwynion.
Dweud eich dweud
Cwynwch i'r cyngor yn gyntaf; os nad ydych yn fodlon, gallwch fynd at yr Ombwdsmon. Mae cyfarfodydd y cyngor yn gyhoeddus, ac mae llawer yn cael eu darlledu.
Mewn rhifau
Mae cynghorau Cymru yn bwriadu gwario £67 y pen ar hyn yn 2026-27.
Mae'n amrywio o -£4 yn Sir Fynwy i £167 yn Blaenau Gwent.
Treth gyngor a gasglwyd: 95% ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
Treth gyngor heb ei thalu ar ddiwedd y flwyddyn: £119 miliwn ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
Treth gyngor sy'n dal yn ddyledus o flynyddoedd cynt: £199.3 miliwn ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
Treth gyngor a ddilëwyd: £9 miliwn ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
RESOLVED – That the 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 which stated that he became threatening and angry when challenged in respect of the metered fare being charged, and failed to provide his driver identification when requested.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was at the taxi rank by the castle when a passenger approached him and asked to be taken home. He asked if she had a preferred route and proceeded with the journey, and as they were about to go over the Fairoak roundabout she queried the reading on the meter. She said he was ripping her off but he explained it was the normal meter price and she could take it up with the council if she wanted.
The passenger asked him to stop so she could get out and refused to pay the fare. He saw another cab coming and waved him down to explain the situation. The passenger asked for his ID and he said she could take a picture of his plate number. He recorded a video on his phone but had lost it while backing up his device recently.
Members queried why he had refused to show identification to the passenger when she requested it. The driver suggested that she had been aggressive to him, and he didn’t want to leave his seat. He had reached behind instead to get his papers from the back seat because this included the meter certificate which showed it was functioning correctly.
The Sub Committee explored the discrepancy between the fare requested and what the witness normally expected to pay. The driver didn’t know why exactly it was higher than normal, as every meter was the same. He recalled that when she got out of the cab, he said she could just give him what she had, not necessarily the whole fare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness reiterated the details in her statement, a number of which contradicted the driver’s account. She suggested that the driver had not asked her about her preferred route, but she had asked to avoid Newport Road because it often took longer. As they stopped at the lights on Lake Road East, she noticed that the fare was higher than usual. She got taxis home a lot, frequently after midnight, and the fare was normally around £16. When she challenged this, the driver said that the council set the rates but clearly didn’t want to talk about it any further.
She added that when the driver reached into the back of the car she thought he was grabbing at her, which was distressing. He got out the meter certificate but she realised the meter was still running and by then had reached £21.70. She said she wouldn’t pay anything until he provided his name and badge number so she could make a complaint. She tried to get out of the vehicle to take a picture of the plate number but he locked the doors, and at one point claimed he didn’t know his registration number.
The driver then flagged down another taxi driver who spoke to both of them. The second driver agreed that the fare was higher than expected and suggested that she pay it before taking it up with the council. The driver had been aggressive and rude throughout, and she felt scared and unsafe.
Members discussed the witness’ account and asked whether she accepted the explanation that the doors locking could have been an automatic feature. She explained that she asked the driver to unlock the door but he didn’t. It was only when the second driver came back that the door was unlocked.
In response to questions from the driver’s representative, the witness stated that she couldn’t recall the starting amount on the meter when she got in the taxi. It was only when they got to the lake that she realised the fare was higher than normal. The Licensing Officer added that the council had retrospectively calculated a reasonable fare for the trip at the night-time rate to be about £17, though it might have been higher due to the bank holiday.
The driver’s representative asked whether the witness accepted that meters were checked by authorised council officials and could not be tampered with by the drivers. The witness did not agree, and suspected that it was either set to a higher rate or was already running when she got into the vehicle.
The driver’s representative suggested that the incident could be seen as a misunderstanding. The driver was just doing his job in getting her home, starting and stopping the meter accordingly, and it was not right that he was challenged about what he was required to charge. The driver then flagged down a third party to help defuse the situation.
The witness acknowledged the points made but still felt upset about the experience, and had not used a hackney carriage since. She emphasised that the driver’s conduct was unacceptable, since he had been aggressive and nasty and refused to provide his licence number.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 received which stated that he displayed aggressive and intimidating behaviour by shouting and gesturing towards a cyclist using the regular bus lane.
The driver was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had been cycling on Newport Road, coming from Roath towards Bute Park. There was a cycleway near the prison but he didn’t join it, choosing instead to use the bus lane which he was entitled to do. He stopped at a red light, and as he pulled away again a taxi started honking at him. The driver overtook him close by and shouted and gestured for him to move over. This was very upsetting and intimidating. It had happened before with other drivers, some of whom had been physically aggressive towards him.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the witness.
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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared relevant convictions on his DBS certificate as part of the application to renew his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been driving along the bus lane on Westgate Street last November. A bus inspector flagged him down and came over, and they had an altercation which led to the driver being accused of racism. This went to court and he was convicted and fined. He couldn’t afford to appeal and paid the fine in instalments.
He added that he had driven taxis for more than 15 years and never had a complaint. It was an unfortunate incident but he had taken it on the chin and hoped to move on. He relied on his job to pay the rent and support his family, and would be willing to do the relevant BTEC course if it would help.
Members queried what exactly he was alleged to have said. The driver explained that it was allegedly a racial slur, but he disputed saying this. He acknowledged that he shouldn’t have gotten angry, and anything similar were to happen again he would just ignore it and go to the next job.
The driver’s representative reiterated that he had driven taxis for more than 15 years and had a good record with no recent issues. He had disputed the complainant’s version of events but couldn’t afford to challenge the conviction so had to accept the fine and everything that came with it. Outside of work, he was of good character and worked with charities and food banks. Taxi driving was his sole source of income, and it was of vital importance that he be able to keep his licence. He had also indicated his willingness to complete the relevant qualification in order to shore up his knowledge and ability.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for two weeks, and that the driver be required to complete the BTEC Certificate In Taxi & Private Hire Driver (Level 2) within three 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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had been convicted of offences resulting in him being disqualified from driving.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in 2021 he had taken a job on Cyncoed Road whilst driving for Uber. While driving on Newport Road, he saw a cyclist in the bus lane and passed him when the gap was sufficient. The traffic slowed down and the lane split into two, with his lane diverted slightly towards the middle of the road. The cyclist came up behind him, thinking that the taxi had cut him off, and kicked the car twice, swore at the driver and broke the mirror.
The driver added that he wanted to prosecute the cyclist for this damage so he pulled into the left on Colchester Avenue to stop him leaving the scene. As his vehicle stopped, the cyclist went into the front wing and hit his shoulder on the door. The ambulance and police were called, and the cyclist went to hospital while the driver was arrested. He was released with no charge that day but learned about a year later that criminal proceedings were underway, which led to him being disqualified from driving for two years.
He emphasised that he had not intended to do the cyclist any harm, only move across to stop him running off as he knew he wouldn’t have any registration. It was the worst mistake he had ever made, and he had lost years of earnings and a mortgage as a result.
He added that he had been a taxi driver for 34 years, and had done school runs for 17 of those. He had an excellent record and always went above and beyond for his passengers, and felt he was a good ambassador for the city of Cardiff. He missed doing the job a lot, as it was not only his source of income but also his social life. He didn’t feel he would be able to work anywhere else, and hoped he would be allowed to keep his badges.
Members asked what he would do differently if an incident like this were to happen again. The driver accepted that his reaction had made him the culprit, and in the future he would just ignore it and carry on with the next job. He stressed that what happened that day was out of character for him.
Members queried the details of the incident, noting that a news article about it differed in some respects. The driver maintained that this was an inaccurate report that got key details wrong.
Members asked how he felt about sharing the road with cyclists in general. The driver emphasised that he took his responsibilities both as a taxi driver and under the Highway Code very seriously, and he understood how dangerous a car could be when used improperly. He acknowledged that by not pulling over and calming down he had made a very serious error, but it would never happen again.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire licence be suspended until such a time that the driver produces a certificate of the SQA ‘Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver’ qualification.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction to consider.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged he had several convictions from his younger days, but he had come a long way since then and turned his life around, and did not pose any danger to the public.
Members noted that the guidance advised not issuing the licence in a case like this unless there were exceptional circumstances, and asked what these might be. The driver explained that his last conviction was seven years ago, and since then he had a clean record. He had been working consistently since then and had become a real part of the community who was always helping others out.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had recently received an endorsement on his licence due to defective tyres. He had bought a car which passed its MOT, and while driving it back to Cardiff was stopped for a bald tyre. He had received three points and a fine for this.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
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 has been received stating he refused to take a journey from Cardiff train station to Penarth after allegedly saying he was available for hire.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that the driver in attendance at the meeting was not the one he had dealt with and submitted a complaint about.
RESOLVED – that no further action would 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 a complaint has been received stating that he refused to take a passenger using the meter and requested £30 for a journey within the Cardiff boundary.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that the complaint related to an alleged incident on 3rd February 2024 which was the evening of the Wales v Scotland International rugby match. At 8.55 pm on the evening of 3rd February 2024 and the time of the alleged incident St Mary’s Street would have been very busy. The driver was not working but was present as he had pre-arranged to pick up his nephew as he knew he would have been struggling to get out the city after the rugby international match. There was evidence from the nephew that he had made arrangements with the driver to collect him and take him home.
He added that the driver did not speak to the witness and had no reason to speak to him as he was there only to take his nephew home. Further, if the driver had been working taking a fare to Pentwyn would have cost more than a typical Saturday night due to the level of congestion in the city. It was noted that the journey to Roath with his nephew took 45 minutes and Pentwyn would have taken double that time.
He suggested that perhaps the witness was confused as he had asked the driver five times how much it would cost to take him to Pentwyn. He also referred to the photograph submitted by the witness. He stated that there was no illuminated sign in the middle of the roof of the car with the word Taxi written on it as he was not working but waiting for his nephew.
The driver’s representative queried why the driver would refuse a fare if he was working because he would be paid more if journey took longer due the congestion in the city centre. He also added that the driver was not someone who has caused the council problems, always used the taxi meter and provided the correct questions when asked.
Summarising he said that the balance of probabilities would suggest that the incident did not happen. There were two statements to support the driver – his and his nephew’s, and the statement that the complainant had to repeat his request five times to the drive, and also the witness was not present. He suggested that the driver was a fit and proper person and that the allegation was not substantiated.
RESOLVED – that no further action would 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 Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he took payment of £25 from a member of the public in a private hire vehicle without the fare being booked in advance, and then offered and took payment for a second un-booked fare with the same member of the public the following day.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the timeline in the case was crucial and referred to the fact that the allegation dated back to July 2023. The witness had stated he made a booking with the taxi company but the company had a record of him cancelling the booking at 12.03 am. The driver was not working that night which had been confirmed by the taxi company. The witness had suggested he had spoken to the driver and the driver had asked for confirmation that the name matched the booking.
The driver’s representative said that the original booking was cancelled and had not been received by the driver as it had been allocated to another driver – the implication being that it was the original driver who had the name and details from the taxi company.
The driver’s representative stated that the witness had been taken to their home address, and the driver had to wait a significant period before the witness was driven to his destination. The witness had been pleased with the charge of £25 and commended, who he believed was, the driver on the level of service provided.
However, a few hours later at 3.00 am the witness claimed to have seen the same person. He had gone from commending someone on a £25 fare to an argument around a £6.50 fare. The driver’s representative noted that this did not make sense. According to the witness statement he stated the fare was normally cost £6 to return home again and then claims he was told to exit the vehicle as he does not have the full fare.
The driver’s representative stated that the witness did not describe the driver, car, colour, make or registration details. He also did not contact the taxi company until 10 to 14 days after the alleged incident. He was then advised to contact the Council which was 6 months later in 2024.
He said that the driver was contacted for the first time eight months after the original allegation in July 2023 and asked whether he recalled something happening. It was noted that the driver would have made between 8,000 to 10,000 taxi journeys during that time and was adamant that he did not pick the witness up. The witness also referred to a BACS payment but the driver had never taken a BACS payment.
Responding to questions the driver’s representative clarified the booking process. He explained that when booking on the app or at the taxi base the passenger was asked for their name, pick up point and destination. The driver would then receive confirmation on an app and had the option of accepting or rejecting the booking. If they accept the fare, they would receive the pick-up and destination details and the name of person who had made the booking. Only the driver who accepted the booking would be able to view the booking. If the passenger had cancelled the booking what would be logged on system was that the booking was cancelled and the driver would no longer have access to that journey but it would remain on the company system.
To summarise, the driver’s representative stated that the driver disputed the complaint in two respects. Firstly, it was not him and secondly, in relation to the allegation itself it was not substantiated on its own merits as £25 was accepted for the first fare and then £6.50 was claimed by the witness to be an overcharge for the return journey. It was also noted that the witness was not present to clarify issues.
RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken.
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he declared he had a conviction for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.
The Sub Committee heard the case in the absence of the driver. The driver was contacted during the meeting by telephone to confirm his attendance. However, no response was received. The application had been scheduled to be heard at 11.30 am. To allow time for the driver to arrive the Sub Committee waited until 11.34 am before commencing the hearing.
The Sub Committee noted the circumstances and the driver’s conviction for the possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. Additional information had also been provided by the police. The driver had no previous complaints and had been driving since 2007, however the Sub Committee were mindful of the guidance on determining the suitability of applicants and licensees in the Hackney and Private Hire Trades and that a licence should not be granted unless at least 7 years had elapsed since the completion of any sentence.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be revoked as of 7.08.24
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had 6 penalty points on his licence, arising from two offences committed on 29th July 2022 for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks and driving otherwise than in accordance with a license. The applicant failed to declare these endorsements on his application for a grant of a licence and ticked the ‘No’ box when answering the question on the application form.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was a fit and proper person. He said his conviction had been a mistake. He had been living abroad and had been in possession of a driving licence since 2008. When he returned to the UK in July 2022 he had not known that his driving licence was not valid until he had been stopped by the police. When he contacted the DVLA he said they did not have an explanation for him as to why his licence was not valid.
When the driver attended court for the driving conviction, he informed the Sub Committee that he had been told he could drive with his international driving licence but could take his driving test again. He did so and passed within one month. He said he paid for insurance for the vehicle but it was not accepted as his driving licence was showing as not valid. The insurance company emailed him to say the payment was rejected and he confirmed he had not received an insurance policy document. The driver said he had held a full driving licence for the last 2 years and had not accumulated any points during those 2 years.
Responding to questions the driver informed the Sub Committee that he had not declared the points on his application form as he had not understood what the term ‘endorsement’ meant. He confirmed he now knew what the term meant.
He also confirmed that when he held his first UK driving licence he had been in possession of a card and photo and that he was aware it was valid from 2008 to 2018. He informed the Sub Committee that he had changed his address and was going to change his licence but was convicted before he had managed to do this. The driver confirmed he was aware of the seriousness of the offence as the police had taken his car and he had to obtain an insurance document to release it.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – T H A T the verbal report provided by the Chair of the Committee at
the meeting be noted.
Reason for decision
To apprise members of the Standards Committee of the Standards Committee
Forum meeting held on 24th June, 2024.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T Councillor Driscoll failed to comply with paragraph 4 (d) of the
Members’ Code of Conduct which states that “You must not do anything which
compromises, or which is likely to compromise, the impartiality of those who work
for, or on behalf of, the authority “insofar as;
- The actions related to the use of Councillor Driscoll’s Council email address
on three occasions for personal interests.
(2) T H A T Councillor Driscoll failed to comply with paragraph 6 (1)(a) of the
Members’ Code of Conduct which states that “You must not conduct yourself in a
manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your Council into disrepute”
insofar as
- Councillor Driscoll’s failure to update the Council about the occupancy of 50C
Holton Road which had the potential to impact on the mutual relationship of
trust that existed between the Council its elected Members, and the public.
(3) T H A T Councillor Driscoll failed to comply with paragraph 15 (1)(b) of the
Members’ Code of Conduct “Subject to sub-paragraph (4), you must in 28 days of
your election or appointment to office (if that is later), register your personal interests,
where they fall within a category mentioned in paragraph 10 (2)(a),in your authority’s
Democratic – Decision Notices – Standards Committee
24-07-29 10am (KB)
register of members’ interests by providing written notification to your authority’s
monitoring officer” insofar as
- failure to register an interest in relation to Unit 5 Biglis House which had the
potential to impact on the mutual relationship of trust that existed between the
Council its elected Members, and the public.
(4) T H A T, having regard to the resolutions above and the aggravating factors
relating to a previous Standards Committee decision, which led to Councillor Driscoll
being suspended for one month on that occasion, which included a failure to make a
declaration, Councillor Driscoll be suspended from being a Member of the Vale of
Glamorgan Council for a period of three months.
(5) T H A T Councillor Driscoll be advised of his right to appeal against the
Committee’s determination within a period of 21 days of receiving notification, by
giving notice in writing to:
The Registrar
Adjudication Panel for Wales
Government Buildings
Spa Road East
Llandrindod Wells
Powys
LE1 5HA
and that the notice of appeal must specify:
- the grounds for appeal, and
- whether or not the person giving notice of the appeal consents to the appeal
being conducted by way of written representations.
(6) T H A T, subject to an appeal (if any) the findings of the Standards Committee
as detailed in Resolutions (1) – (4) above be publicised in accordance with the
requirements of the Local Government Investigations (Functions of Monitoring
Officers and Standards Committees) (Wales) Regulations 2001, as amended.
Reasons for decisions
(1-4) Having regard to all the evidence submitted to the meeting of the decisions of
the Committee the mitigating factors presented by Mr. Joseph Broadway on
Councillor Driscoll’s behalf and the mitigating and aggravating factors presented by
the Ombudsman’s representative, Mr. Gwydion Hughes, at the meeting, and in the
interests of promoting and maintaining Ethical Standards in Public Life.
(5-6) To comply with the Local Government Investigations (Functions of Monitoring
Officers and Standards Committees) (Wales) Regulations 2001, as amended.
At the end of the hearing the Chair thanked everyone for their input and for the
professional manner in which they presented their cases with those present being
Democratic – Decision Notices – Standards Committee
24-07-29 10am (KB)
advised that the suspension would commence immediately after Councillor Driscoll
had notified the department that he would not be submitting an appeal. If Councillor
Driscoll did make an appeal, then the suspension would commence on the day after
the expiry of the time allowed to lodge a notice of appeal to an appeals tribunal under
the Regulations (i.e. within 21 days of receiving notification of the Standards
Committee’s determination).
Democratic – Decision Notices – Standards Committee
24-07-29 10am (KB)