Licences for pubs, taxis and events, anti-social behaviour and trading standards.
What councils do
Councils work with the police and others on community safety, run CCTV, license pubs, taxis and gambling premises, and deal with antisocial behaviour such as noise.
Who decides
Licensing decisions are made by a licensing committee or sub-committee of councillors, which hears from applicants and objectors.
Having a say
You can object to a licence application during its consultation period. Report noise and antisocial behaviour to the council.
Loading
By council, last 12 months
How many agenda items on this topic each council dealt with, and how many had a decision recorded.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case1
The Sub Committee received representation from a driver who had received penalty points for s1peeding. The driver stated that the offence had occurred during a family emergency when visiting a relative in hospital. He was not working at the time of the offence.
RESOLVED – That the driver receive a written warning.
(2)
Case 2
Members received representations from a driver who had receive penalty points for driving without insurance. Members were advised that the driver was witness by Licensing Officers plying for hire in a vehicle that was licenced for private hire only, in contravention of the conditions of his licence.
The driver stated that he was waiting in a queue of traffic in the city centre. Two passengers entered the vehicle and in order to avoid any potential confrontation he decided to take them to their destination.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning and be required to complete the SQA qualification within a four-month period.
(3)
Case 3
The Sub Committee considered the case of a driver who was convicted of carrying a bladed object in a public place and using threatening and insulting words in a public place.
The driver stated that he was fined £695 at Magistrates Court for driving without insurance. An altercation occurred when a bailiff called at his home to collect non-payment of the fine. The offences were not declared at the time of the offences or on the drivers renewal application.
RESOLVED – That the hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be revoked for use of threatening and insulting words, carrying a bladed object in a public place and for not declaring criminal convictions as required.
(4)
Case 4
Deferred for 1 month.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee received representations from a driver who had failed to provide a valid DBS certificate.
RESOLVED – That the drivers licence be suspended until a valid DBS certificate in provided.
(6)
Case 6
The Sub Committee received representations from a driver who had received a caution for an offence of battery.
The driver stated that he was involved in an altercation with a doorman in his social club. The driver provided his account of the incident. The driver stated that he was an ex-serviceman and he was a good driver. He was not working at the time of the incident and his was not a violent person or a danger to customers.
No further action
(7)
Case 7
The Sub Committee heard from a driver who had received penalty points for a driving offence of speeding. The driver accepted that he was at fault for the offence and he regretted his actions.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning.
RESOLVED to provide a preliminary announcement of their decision, with a detailed decision and minutes to be published in due course on the Council’s Website:
Decision
This Committee consists of three Independent Members of the Council’s Standards and Ethics Committee. It was set up by the Council to give an independent recommendation to the Council’s Cabinet (the Charity trustee) as to whether it is in the best interests of the Maindy Park Charity to agree to a proposed land swap. The Committee has met on three occasions and has considered the reports and appendices presented to it. It has carried out a site visit, requested additional information, listened to representations from Community Groups, and has carefully considered those representations as well as the written representations, consultation responses, independent valuation and legal advice, and the Equality Impact Assessment.
Having carefully considered all of the relevant information, the Committee has agreed that it believes that the land swap is in the best interests of the Charity and so RECOMMENDS that Cabinet, as the Charity trustee, agree (subject to charity commission consent) to the exchange and release from the Trust of the Maindy Park land (shown on the plan annexed to the report at Appendix C) in exchange for the land at Cae Delyn Park (shown in Appendix D) to be held on trust for the Charity, Subject to the following conditions:
(i)
the new velodrome is to be built and operational prior to the proposed land swap taking place
(ii)
the terms and conditions recommended in the Qualified Surveyors updated report (Appendix E); including specifically in relation to overage provision 50% of the uplift in value to be paid to the trust were the site to be sold for future development for 75 years from the date of the land swap (which would entitle the trust to receive a share of any potential increase in value if an implementable planning permission is obtained for a higher value use of the land)
(iii)
improvement works to be carried out at Cae Delyn (including improved drainage of the site, walkways, lighting and other reasonable and proportionate measures to reduce anti – social behaviour in the area) and the retained land at Maindy, in order to improve the amenity value for the purposes of meeting the Trust’s charitable objectives; and a further meeting of the Advisory Committee is to be held (within 90 days) to agree proposed recommended improvements, which may be subject to further public consultation, (for the avoidance of doubt this may take place after the recommendation is reported to cabinet)
(iv)
arrangements to be made between the Trust and the Council for a lease or licence to be agreed to cover the future maintenance and management of the land at Cae Delyn and Maindy by the Council, with no ongoing revenue costs to the trust which exceed income
(v)
the Council is to carry out a review of the governance and financial management arrangements of all trusts of which the Council is a trustee
(vi)
the provision of an information board on site to explain the historic use of the site as a Velodrome
AND to make application to the Charity Commission for consent to the land exchange on this basis.
Summary of Reasons for Decision
The land left at Maindy Park will provide a larger area of green space than currently, and together with the land at Cae Delyn means there will be 2 areas of land for the benefit of all Cardiff residents which will benefit more people than having one specialist activity on one site and will be of a greater financial and amenity value, and therefore is in the best interests of the charity.
RESOLVED – That:
(1) the Committee approves a consultation exercise be undertaken seeking views on the removal of the moratorium;
(2) a report be presented to the committee on the outcome of the consultation exercise.
RESOLVED – That:
(1) The Committee approves a consultation exercise seeking views on the introduction of mandatory card readers in hackney carriages;
(2) a subsequent report will be presented to the committee to present the outcome of the consultation exercise.
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application.
The Sub Committee heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. The Sub Committee also considered the Licensing Act 2003 the Section 182 Guidance, the Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment policy.
Members also heard the representations made by South Wales Police and the Licensing Authority and considered all written representations made.
The premises is located in an area covered by a Cumulative Impact Policy that creates the rebuttable presumption that any new or full variation applications for Premises Licences will be refused or limited unless the applicant can successfully demonstrate that granting the application will not add to the cumulative impact in the area. The Sub Committee noted that this policy would apply to this application as it is within the area covered by the policy and proposal would be within the red category of the policy.
The Sub Committee accepted that the applicant offered to amend your application to add additional measures and to remove off-sales. In determining its decision, the Sub Committee considered these amendments and note that the application would still remain in the red category of the cumulative impact policy. The additional measures that offered prior to the meeting today are as follows:
1. Installation of CCTV in accordance with police requirements and training of staff to operate theequipment.
2. Challenge 25 policy for sale of alcohol and staff trained to implement thepolicy.
3. Implement and maintain appropriate record keeping for incidents, refusals and staff training.
4. Alcohol will only be supplied from 11.00 hours to 22.30 hours daily and only as ancillaryto food.It willbe lockedaway andconcealed after22.30 hours.Cans and bottles will be opened and poured into glasses. All glassware will be recyclable plastic. No alcohol will be included in a delivery (Foodonly. The application for the off sale of alcohol was withdrawn during the application.
5. Foodwill includeIndian dishes,Chinese dishesand Kebabs (madein house)
6. Pricing will be high.Minimum £12
7. Intention is to employ 15staff.
8. Two registered door staff will be on duty from 21.00 hours to closing time. During event days the hours of door staff would increase dependent upon starting and finishing times of the individualevents.
9. Food deliveries would be made finishing at closing time. No deliveries of alcohol with or without food. His own drivers would be used and vehicles parked in the car park. No vehicles for delivery would be parked outside the shop area.
10. The dining area inside the premises would be available for dining until closing time.
11. The outside area would be used for dining until 22.30 hours when tables and chairs would be removed and placed inside thepremises.
12. Litterbins wouldbe provided,and regularinspections carriedout toplace litterin the bins.
13. Noticeswould bedisplayed suchas CCTVin operation,times ofclosing andsale of alcoholtimings.
14. The application was for aa closing time of 05.00 the applicant would amend thisto 03.00 hours
Members gave consideration to the Police representations and the video and crime statistic evidence of crime and disorder and other anti-social behaviour within the area. The Sub Committee considered that the granting of this licence would cause additional crime and disorder.
It was not considered that the application had successfully shown that it would not undermine the Licensing Objectives and did not rebut the presumption within the cumulative impact policy. The Applicant did not shown that they would not effectively deal with the issues associated with the sale of alcohol.
The Sub Committee therefore resolved to refuse the application.
RESOLVED: that the Cathays Community Ward be re-declared as an Additional Licensing area with effect from 1 February 2023 to run for a period of 5 years.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. It was revealed on renewal of his licence that he had failed previously to disclose a conviction which occurred while he was licensed.
On renewal of his licence the driver declared a conviction under the Fraud Act. A Disclosure Barring Service check revealed a conviction dated 11 November 2021 relating to a failure to declare a change of circumstances for Council Tax purposes.
The driver was asked to explain the circumstances. The driver’s representative stated that the driver had a friend who had recently become homeless. He came to stay temporarily with the driver, then the stay was extended to become a longer one intermittently between trips to Somalia.
The driver was not aware at the time that the arrangement was becoming a permanent one. When he became aware that he was in breach of Council Tax rules he pleaded guilty. He is currently repaying the Council Tax owed and relies on his job to pay.
As soon as he became aware that he should have notified the Local Authority of his conviction the driver sent an email detailing his guilty plea. This was confirmed by the Authority.
When questioned by members of the Sub Committee the driver explained that the homeless person he had accommodated was a single person, a taxi driver, and he stayed with the driver for around 10 months intermittently.
RESOLVED – That no further action be taken.
Councillor Driscoll declared an interest in the following item as a person was known to him. Cllr Driscoll withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the decision.
(2)
Case 2
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence after a complaint was received that he entered and travelled in the wrong direction down a one-way street and gestured at a Cardiff Council Road Safety Officer using his middle finger. The incident was observed by a member of the public, the head teacher of a primary school who was welcoming children being delivered to the school by parents.
The Sub Committee received representations from the complainant. The complainant described how he was cycling to his work as a Road Safety Officer when he saw the driver in his taxi approaching the wrong way down a one-way street. He dismounted and captured a video image of the taxi turning round and returning back up the lane. As he passed him the driver made a rude gesture with his middle finger and told him to ‘Get a life’. The member of the public had come over to where the Officer was and witnessed these events.
The driver was asked to present his account of the incident. He claimed that at the time of the incident in March there were no ‘No Entry’ signs at the beginning of the lane. As he drove down the lane he realised something was not right, so he drove slowly past the Road Safety Officer. A member of the public informed him he was travelling the wrong way down a one-way street. He carried out a 3-point turn in the road and returned in the opposite direction. As the weather was hot he wound down his window. The Road Safety Officer was running along beside his car. He could see the Officer had something in his hands but could not see it was a mobile phone. He thought he was under attack.
The driver stated that he was not dropping off a passenger but was passing through the area. He knew the area and had used the route before over the previous 12 years. He had recently come off a contract with Bad Wolf studios and had carried celebrities and High Court judges.
The driver denied having been sent emails and stated that they had been sent to the wrong address.
RESOLVED – That the driver be issued with a written warning regarding his conduct and reminded of his duties as a driver.
(3)
Case 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. On renewal of his licence the driver declared a motoring conviction for driving without due care and attention. The offence occurred in 2020, however the driver did not notify the Authority at the time instead waiting for renewal.
The driver was asked to explain the circumstances. The driver’s representative stated that on the day of the offence the driver was approaching Coryton interchange at 1.30am in heavy rain. There were roadworks and the driver accidentally drove the wrong way into a diversion. Realising his mistake, he attempted to turn around and return the way he had come but was stopped by Police. The offence was uncontested, he paid a fine and had 5 points placed on his licence.
The driver admitted that he had not declared the conviction at the time it occurred but had declared it on renewal of his licence. He stated that he was now aware of what was required of him in terms of notification of convictions but had not been aware at the time. He had held a licence for 30 years and not previously been convicted of any motoring offences. He had been a licenced driver for 6 years and had not appeared before the Committee previously.
RESOLVED – To issue the driver with a written warning regarding his conduct.
(4)
Case 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. On renewal of his licence it became apparent that a conviction was present for driving or allowing someone to use a vehicle uninsured for third party risk.
The driver was asked to explain the circumstances. The driver stated that he had not been driving a taxi or private hire vehicle at the time of the offence. He was working as a driver for a food delivery service and had previously been named on the company’s insurance as a driver of the vehicle. The ownership of the company had changed and the new owner had stopped the insurance for the van. The driver was unaware of this and only discovered it when he was stopped.
It was revealed in the course of questioning that there was an error in the papers before the Sub Committee and that the correct date of the offence was 9 May 2022.
RESOLVED – To issue the driver with a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of private hire operator’s licence. The driver had previously held a licence which had subsequently been revoked.
The Sub Committee was presented with a report summarising the driver’s previous appearances before it and the circumstances surrounding them. These included a 6-month ban for ‘totting up’, a conviction for fraud against Cardiff City Council for claiming for transport services that were never carried out, and a conviction for plying for hire without a licence or insurance. They also included repeated refusals of applications for a Hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence. The driver accepted that the facts contained in the report were accurate.
The driver was asked to explain the circumstances. The driver stated that he had made several applications for a licence but they had all been refused. He had waited patiently for the necessary period to elapse before applying again. He had studied and was fully cognisant with all the necessary information especially the law. He accepted in full his responsibility for his previous non-compliance. His offences were his fault and he offered no excuses for them. He assured the Sub Committee they would not be repeated
The driver stated that since losing his licence he had never been in trouble and had not been involved in any legal problems. He had been of good character for the past 7 years.
The driver stated that he had completed the necessary training for understanding and knowledge. The incident had been a lesson for him and had not been repeated. He was a better-informed person and posed no danger to the public. He had learnt a lot over the past 7 years.
The driver was questioned by members of the Sub Committee. He stated that at the time of his offences he was doing his job and did not focus. He had never had any such problems and never had any complaints from customers. He had already been punished for his offences.
The driver stated that at the time of his conviction for fraud he knew many drivers who did the same. He took responsibility for his actions.
The driver explained the circumstances behind his conviction for working without insurance. He had rented a car whose owner did not know the insurance had expired. He himself did not know the car was not insured.
The driver explained the circumstances behind his conviction for fraud. He had been contracted by the Council to transport children to and from school. He had given the job to one of his drivers and was unaware that they were not carrying out the work. When he was apprised of the situation he took responsibility.
The driver was challenged that the alleged job did not exist and that he had defrauded the Council out of a substantial sum. He had also hired a car without a licence. It was put to the driver that this demonstrated a wilful disregard for the law.
The driver responded that he was now aware of the law. It was put to him that he ought to have known the law from the start and that he had been twice caught acting as a taxi driver without a licence.
In response to further questions the driver confirmed that he had been running a taxi firm at the time of the fraud and stated that he had given the school jobs to other drivers employed by the firm. He confirmed that he had been disqualified for 6 months for speeding as a taxi driver. He stated that his licence had now been clean for 7 years.
RESOLVED – That the application for a private hire operator’s licence be refused.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application.
The Sub Committee heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. Members also considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the Statement of Licensing Policy and all written representations.
The Sub Committee also heard the representations from a local Ward Member and have considered all written representations made to us.
Member gave regard to the objections from Ward Members, and acknowledge that there are concerns regarding anti-social behaviour in the area, but did not feel that any evidence of disorder is linked to the proposed variation of this Premises Licence. This premises is not located within a cumulative impact area and as such there is a presumption to grant an application where there is no evidence that the application will undermine the licensing objectives. Furthermore, we note that no objection was received from South Wales Police who are recognised as the Responsible Authority primarily concerned with crime and disorder.
The Sub Committee therefore resolve to grant the application.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application.
The Sub Committee heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. Members also considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, our own Statement of Licensing Policy and all written representations.
The Sub Committee noted that, prior to the meeting, the applicants agreed to the proposed conditions from Environmental Health Pollution Control in Appendix C of the report to promote the Public Nuisance licensing objective.
Members gave regard to the written representations from residents and the potential impact that the proposed variation may have on the licensing objectives but felt that no evidence was presented that the granting of this application would undermine the licensing objectives. Where there is no evidence that a Premises Licence will undermine the licensing objectives, there is a presumption to the grant the application. If there is evidence that a licensed premises is undermining the licensing objectives, the Licensing Act 2003 allows any person to apply for a Review of the Premises Licence.
The Sub Committee therefore resolve to grant the application, subject to the agreed conditions with Environmental Health Pollution Control.
RESOLVED: that
1. the contents of this report be noted
2. having considered the representations received to the Public Notice in Appendix C and D and the comments from the Hackney Carriage Alliance/Unite (the original applicant to vary the Table of Fares) in Appendix E in response to Dragon Taxis’ counter proposal agreement be given to ratify the original decision made on 23 June 2022.
3. an implementation date of 8 October 2022 be set for the changes to the Table of Fares to take effect.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee received representations from a complainant who alleged that a driver had failed to complete a journey, had attempted to overcharge them and had abandoned them in an unsuitable location.
The Sub Committee was advised that a group of 4 passengers entered a vehicle in the City Centre. The passengers were travelling to Newport with 3 stop on route. The driver requested £110 payment for the fare. However, after starting the journey the passenger learned that a group of friends that were travelling in another taxi were paying £60. The passengers determined that £110 was excessive and attempted to enter into dialogue with the driver.
The driver was not willing to negotiate and therefore the group of friends requested that the vehicle pull over in order to allow them to leave the vehicle. Upon exiting the vehicle it was alleged that the driver attempted to take money out of the hand of the complainant. The driver was ‘irate’ and intimidating. The passengers, fearing for their safety, gave him £10.
When questioned, the complainant stated that the group of friend had been drinking alcohol but were not intoxicated. The complainant disagreed with the driver’s statement that he had taken the group to a cashpoint. The driver was also alleged to have provided false details to the complainant when requested.
The driver stated that the fee agreed at the point of entry was £60 but an additional £5 was added for each of the 3 stops on route. When the additional fees were requested the passengers became angry and abusive.
RESOLVED – That the hackney carriage/private hire drivers licence be suspended for 7 days for unacceptable conduct. The driver must also complete the SQA training course within 3 months.
(2)
Case 2
The Sub Committee received representations from a complainant who alleged that a driver has refused to use a taxi meter for a fare. The Sub Committee was advised that the complainant has approached a taxi on a marshalled rank in the City Centre. The driver requested £40 payment in advance. The complainant stated that he was aware that drivers must use the meter for fares within the city’s boundaries but the driver refused to do so. The complainant considered this to be common occurrence in his experience.
The driver denied refusing to use the meter. The driver considered that there was a misunderstanding around the estimated cost of the journey.
RESOLVED – That the hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be suspended for 7 days for refusing to use the taxi meter.
(3)
Case 3
The Sub Committee considered the case of a driver who had received a caution for sending a threatening message. The driver explained that he had become involved in a heated discussion with an individual known to him which resulted in him saying something unlawful on social media. The driver accepted that he had made a mistake and he regretted his actions.
RESOLVED – That the driver receive a written warning for non-disclosure of a conviction.
(4)
Case 4
Members were asked to consider an application for a hackney carriage/private hire drivers licence from an individual who had received penalty points for using a mobile phone whilst driving. The applicant explained that he was working food delivery driver and his phone was used to accept work via an app. The phone was illuminated on the passenger seat when he was stopped by police. He has since purchased a cradle for the device. The applicant had no other convictions.
RESOLVED – That the application for a hackney carriage/private hire drivers licence be granted.
(5)
Case 5
The Sub Committee received representations from a driver who had declared 2 motoring convictions for speeding. The driver was asked to explain the circumstances.
Members were advised that the first conviction came at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic prior to the vaccination roll out. The driver had passengers in the vehicle who were not complying with the covid safety requirements and he was concerned that he was at risk and his vehicle was contaminated. He was rushing to reach a safe place to disinfect his vehicle and there were no passengers in the vehicle at the time.
The second offence occurred when this vehicle was put on cruise control. He left the M4 and still had cruise control applied by mistake. The driver stated that as a result of his actions he has 11pts on his DVLA licence and he is now ultra-cautious due to the risk to his livelihood. He has had no further convictions for over a year and he was determined to continue with that.
RESOLVED – That the driver receive a written warning for motoring convictions.
(5)
Case 5
The Sub Committee received representations from a driver who had receive a conviction for conspiracy to supply drugs. The conviction was not declared on the driver’s renewal application.
The driver stated that during the course of his work he had transported people who were dealing drugs. The police charged him with being associated and implicated with the group due to evidence on his mobile phone.
RESOLVED – That the hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be suspended for 6 months for a conviction in relation to conspiracy to supply drugs. The driver must also complete the SQA qualification within 6 months.
(6)
Case 6
The Sub Committee received representations from a driver who had been involved in a road traffic accident in a taxi whilst being over the legal limit for alcohol. The driver explained the circumstances.
RESOLVED – That the hackney carriage/private hire drivers licence be revoked for a serious motoring conviction.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application subject to agreed conditions.
The Sub Committee heard from both the applicant and the objector and listened to all the evidence and submissions, as well as considering all written material. Members considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, our own Statement of Licensing Policy and considered all written representations made.
The Sub Committee noted that prior to the meeting, number of additional conditions were agreed. The applicants also confirmed that an additional condition is proposed with regards to collections of waste at the premises and agreed to reduce the terminal hour proposed for licensable activity on a Sunday to Thursday.
Members gave regard to the representations received from a member of the public and were pleased to hear that discussions are ongoing between the applicant and the owners association for the apartments. The Sub Committee were of the opinion that the granting of this application would not undermine the licensing objectives. Where there is no evidence that a Premises Licence will undermine the licensing objectives, there is a presumption to the grant the application.
Members therefore resolved to grant the application, subject to the agreed conditions.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee was advised that complaints were received from two members of the public regarding the conduct of a driver. The complaints related to an incident when the driver was alleged to have refused to use the taxi meter and asked for a £50 deposit.
Members received representations from the Solicitor representing the Driver, stating that the driver had initially refused the fare but then asked for a £50 deposit as a precaution because the complainants were intoxicated and he had seen them argue with two other taxi drivers before approaching his car. He added that the driver had been a driver for 10 years, was married with 5 children, his wife doesn’t drive and he wouldn’t do anything to jeopardise his job just for extra money.
There were no questions to the driver at this point.
Members received representations from the complainants. Members were advised that 2 female customers had been to a concert, they had one drink there then after the concert they headed into the city centre and had one more drink. They then approached the taxi and the driver immediately said it would be £50 deposit. The complainants said they were not intoxicated, it was a work night, they had children at home. They told the driver that one of the women worked for the Local Authority and she asked for him to use his meter. She said he would not listen, he said no and repeated that he wanted £50 deposit. The women walked off and said they would be taking a picture of his badge and reporting him.
Members were then advised that the complainants approached another taxi who asked for £40 deposit, they refused and took a picture of his badge, this was included in the paperwork. They then approached another taxi who said he wanted 2 separate fares rather than them sharing. They refused and took a picture of his badge but this was too blurred to be in the paperwork. The next taxi they approached agreed to take them and to use the meter. The women advised this driver what had happened and he said it had become common practice due the Uber etc. Members were advised that the trip had totalled £25 including a tip for both the women. The women added that they both have daughters and the are worried about them using taxis.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee on the fare that took them home, the complainants clarified that the fare was £22 and they gave a £3 tip.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver said he had been driving since 2012. Members asked if the driver has asked for deposits before as this is not normal practice and should be meter only. The driver said that he asks for deposits for fares outside the city.
RESOLVED – That the driver be suspended for 7 days for refusing a fare.
(2)
Case 2
The Sub Committee was advised that a complaint had been received from a member of the public who was a wheelchair user, regarding the conduct of a driver. The complaint related to an incident when the driver was alleged to have refused to take the complainant in his wheelchair, with his brother.
Members received representation from the complainant, stating that they had approached a wheelchair accessible taxi close to the New Theatre, told the driver where they wanted to go and when they went to the back of the vehicle, he drive off. Sub Committee were provided with CCTV footage of the taxi rank at the time of the complaint.
Members received representations from the driver who stated that he had been flagged down by the New Theatre, a man approached him and mentioned going to Ely with his brother who was in a wheelchair. The driver said he told the man to go and get his brother, he waited for a long time but they didn’t come. The driver claims that the man who approached him was swearing and he was frightened there may be trouble, he added that he did not speak to the wheelchair user. He added that he has been attacked and robbed previously so he is cautious.
The driver stated that he picks up disable drivers regularly, he regretted what had happened and apologised.
RESOLVED – That the driver be suspended for 7 days for refusing a fare.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence after he had not disclosed a police caution on his renewal application. The Licensing Officer outlined the case and the driver was asked to explain the circumstances.
The driver explained that his father had taken three passengers to London, they were being investigated by the Police who went to the family home with a warrant to take the fathers car for a few days and the driver had obstructed the constable as he thought he was taking the car for good and it was his fathers livelihood.
At the police station the driver had asked if the caution would show on his file and whether he needed to declare it to the licensing authority and the police had advised him it would not show on his file. He stated if he had known he would have declared it.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver further explained the situation and explained that the police had apologised for not making the situation clear at the time and that there would be no further action taken against him.
The driver added that he had previously declared an offence on an application and he would have done so on this occasion if he had known it would show on the DBS check
The driver was remorseful and stated that he is a good person and taxi driving is his livelihood.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning for failing to disclose a police caution on his license renewal application. License renewal approved.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence given that the Licensing Authority have been advised that Mr Hamad was subject to a conviction regarding consumer protection, unfair trading, hallmarking and Trademark offences. The Licensing Officer outlined the case and the driver was asked to explain the circumstances.
The driver explained that he had stopped taxi driving in 2019 and started work as a manager of a shop in Pontypool. He stated that his friend had brought tobacco and cigarettes from outside of the UK to sell in the shop. He had taken the good and a few days later, Trading Standards visited the shop to check the stock. They asked if the tax had been paid on the good when they were brought into the UK. The driver explained that he thought it had been but he then found that it had not. Trading Standards had taken the goods. The driver was taken to court in Newport he pleaded guilty and was fined. He had since resigned from the shop and has no connection to the business anymore.
The driver had declared the conviction on his licence renewal application.
RESOLVED – That no further action was required. Application renewal approved.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, APPROVED the application.
The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. Members also considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and Statement of Licensing Policy.
The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant and heard representations made by members of the public and also considered all written representations made. It was also noted that, prior to the meeting, the applicants accepted the proposed conditions from South Wales Police at Appendix C of the report.
The Sub-Committee recognised the concerns of the objectors; however, in determining this application, the Licensing Sub-Committee can only consider issues that impact the licensing objectives as a result of the licensable activity. It was noted that this premises already has a premises licence that includes off-sales, so they have been permitted to use the outside space. There were also a number of issues relating to parking and the ownership of the land that falls outside of the remit of this committee.
The Sub-Committee gave regard to the representations from other persons but felt that no evidence was presented that the granting of this application would undermine the licensing objectives. Where there is no evidence that a Premises Licence will undermine the licensing objectives, there is a presumption to the grant the application. If there is evidence that a licensed premises is undermining the licensing objectives, the Licensing Act 2003 allows any person to apply for a Review of the Premises Licence. They therefore resolved to grant the application, subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, APPROVED the application.
The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. Members also considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and Statement of Licensing Policy.
We have heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. We have also considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, our own Statement of Licensing Policy and considered all written representations made to us.
We note that, prior to the meeting, you submitted a number of additional conditions to meet the licensing objectives at Appendix B of the report. You also agreed to the proposed conditions from South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control.
We have given regard to the representation from a member of the public but felt that no evidence was presented that the granting of this application would undermine the licensing objectives. Where there is no evidence that a Premises Licence will undermine the licensing objectives, there is a presumption to the grant the application.
We therefore resolve to grant the application, subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control, and the additional conditions that you proposed at Appendix B of the report.
RESOLVED:
(1) That the Committee approve the proposed licence fees outlined in the report with an implementation date of 12 September 2022;
(2) That the Committee authorise the Head of Shared Regulatory Services to carry out the necessary public notice procedure; and
If objections are received within 28 days of the publication of the notice of the proposed changes to the fees, the matter come back before the next appropriate Committee meeting so that any objections can be considered, modifications be considered, and a new date for the introduction of the variations can be set.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee was advised that complaints were received from two members of the public regarding the conduct of a driver. The complaints related to an incident when the driver was alleged to have refused to use the taxi meter.
Members received representations from the complainants. Members were advised that a lone female customer entered the vehicle in Castle Street. The passenger wanted to go to Fairwater. The driver asked for the postcode of the customer and, once the journey had started, requested payment in advance. The customer stated that she was not prepared to pay in advance and asked the driver to use the taxi meter, as required by regulation. The passenger stated that at that point she felt unsafe and anxious. She asked the driver to stop the vehicle so that she could get out. The driver slowed down but didn’t stop. She got out of the vehicle whilst it was still moving.
Members also received representations from a witness to the incident. The witness was a friend of the passenger. They had enjoyed a night socialising in the city centre. The pair approached a taxi on Castle Street and the passenger asked to be taken to Fairwater. They checked in advance that the fare would be on the meter. The witness then took a photograph of the rear of the taxi and got into the taxi behind it with her partner. The witness realised that something was wrong when she saw her friend exit the vehicle whilst it was still moving.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the passenger and the witness denied that they were carrying food at the time of the incident. The fare would normally cost between £11 and £12 and the driver was asking for £15 in advance. The passenger knew that this was contrary to the regulations and she became worried that she would not get home safely.
The driver claimed that both the complainant and the witness were lying. They were carrying food and large fizzy drinks from McDonalds. When the passenger was asked not to eat food in the vehicle she became aggressive.
Members asked why the driver had not mentioned McDonalds food or food of any description in the extensive statement he had provided. The driver stated that he subsequently recalled the incident. The driver denied asking for payment in advance.
When questioned by Members of the Sub Committee, the driver stated that his first statement and his second statement were completely different because he was having to deal with some personal issues at the time.
In closing the complainant categorically denied carrying food and a drink at the time of the incident. Members were advised that she doesn’t eat McDonalds food as she is lactose intolerant.
RESOLVED – That the driver be suspended for 14 days for refusing to use the taxi meter.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was advised that a driver had received 6 penalty points for a driving offence.
The drivers representative stated the driver received 6 penalty points for using a mobile phone. The phone had fallen from its holder in the vehicle and the driver handled the phone when he picked it up. The driver accepts that this was a serious error of judgement and he regretted his actions.
The driver was unaware that he was required to report that he had received 6 penalty points to the Licensing authority.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he was driving his taxi but there were no passengers in the vehicle at the time.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning for a driving offence.
(3)
Application 3
The Committee was asked to consider an application for a new driver. During the renewal application the driver advised the Licensing authority that he received 6 penalty points for using his vehicle without insurance.
The driver was asked to explain the circumstances. Members were advised that the driver, his friend and his young son were shopping in a supermarket. The driver asked his friend to drive the vehicle from the car park to the adjacent petrol station because he young son was crying and he was trying to settle him.
A customer was said to have complained to the police that child was unrestrained in the vehicle whilst it was moving. Police arrived at the petrol station and questioned the driver and his friend. It was subsequently established that the friend was uninsured to drive the vehicle and the driver was charged.
The driver apologised for his mistake and accepted that he was responsible for checking that anyone driving his vehicle is insured to do so.
RESOLVED – That the renewal application for a hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be granted.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence after he received a criminal conviction whilst licenced. The driver was asked to explain the circumstances.
The driver made a statement. The driver advised the Licensing authority of his conviction by email on 22 May 2020 and he had been waiting to be asked to appear before the Sub Committee since. He was honest and upfront and accepted that he had made a big mistake. However, the customer at the time was aggressive and after 39 years as a taxi driver he was acting in self-defence.
The driver’s representative described the incident. The driver had picked up a fare on Churchill Way and had taken the passenger to Cardiff Bay. He had difficulty obtaining payment for the journey. An argument ensued and the driver thought that things could escalate. So, in self-defence, he pushed the customer away causing him to fall. He also took the customer’s mobile phone and left the vicinity. He subsequently threw the phone into some bushes nearby.
The driver was interviewed by the police and charged. The customer had chipped a bone in his elbow.
The driver was remorseful. During 39 years of driving he had completed over 250,000 journeys and he had never reacted in this manner previously, despite provocation. He accepted his actions were wrong and he could have handled the situation better. However, his actions were an isolated incident and there was no pattern of behaviour.
The driver was not a violent person and was always professional. As a result of this incident he no longer works nights.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning regarding his conduct and be required to complete the SQA qualification within 3 months.
RESOLVED: that
1. the issues and impacts to taxi fares set out in the report be noted
2. Approval be given to the application put forward by the Cardiff Hackney Alliance/Unite with an implementation date of 1 September 2022 (provided that there are no objections).
3. the advertisement of the variation in a local newspaper be authorised
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, APPROVED the application.
The Sub Committee heard from the applicant, listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. Members also considered the Licensing Act 2003 the Section 182 Guidance and the Statement of Licensing Policy.
The Sub Committee have also considered all written representations. It was noted that prior to the meeting the applicants accepted the proposed conditions of South Wales Police and their representation was subsequently withdrawn.
In light of the above and the representations received, the Sub Committee considered that the applicants had successfully demonstrated that the application did not negatively impact on the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee therefore resolve to grant the application, subject to the additional conditions agreed set out at Appendix C of the report.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, APPROVED the application.
The Sub Committee heard from the applicant, listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. Members also considered the Licensing Act 2003 the Section 182 Guidance and the Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee have also considered all written representations.
It was noted that prior to the meeting the applicants accepted the proposed conditions of South Wales Police and their representation was subsequently withdrawn.
In light of the above and the representations received, the Sub Committee considered that the applicants had successfully demonstrated that the application did not negatively impact on the licensing objectives.
The Sub Committee therefore resolve to grant the application, subject to the additional conditions agreed set out at Appendix C of the report.
RESOLVED: That the Council AGREED to:
1. approve the election of Chairs and Deputy Chairs (as appropriate) to the Regulatory and Other Committees and Groups as follows:
Committee
Chair
Deputy Chair
Constitution Committee
Cllr Russell Goodway
-
Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee
Cllr Sarah Merry as Deputy Leader
-
Council Appeals Committee
Cllr Lay
-
Democratic Services Committee
Cllr Jayne Cowan
-
Employment Conditions Committee
Cllr Chris Weaver
-
Licensing Committee
Cllr Michael Michael
Cllr Maliika Kaaba
Pensions Committee
Cllr Chris Weaver
-
Planning Committee
Cllr Ed Stubbs
Cllr Irene Humphreys
Public Protection Committee
Cllr Michael Michael
Cllr Maliika Kaaba
Bilingual Cardiff Working Group
Cllr Owen Jones
-
Local Authority Governor Panel
Cllr Sarah Merry as Deputy Leader
-
Investment Advisory Panel
Cllr Chris Weaver
-
Works Council
Cllr Chris Weaver
-
Health & Safety Advisory Forum
Cllr Chris Weaver
-
2. approve the proportional allocation of Scrutiny Chairs as set out in paragraph 4, Table A of the report; and
3. note the proposed appointments of the Scrutiny Chairs made by Party Groups pursuant to Part 6 of the Local Government Act (Wales) Measure 2011 as follows:
Scrutiny Committee
Chair
Deputy Chair
Children & Young People
Cllr Lee Bridgeman
N/A
Community & Adult Services
Cllr Bablin Molik
N/A
Economy & Culture
Cllr Peter Wong
N/A
Environmental
Cllr Owen Jones
N/A
Policy Review & Performance
Cllr Joel Williams
N/A