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 – T H A T the draft Statement of Licensing Policy be approved and the
Policy referred to Cabinet and Full Council for final approval.
Reason for decision
To ensure that the Licensing Authority fulfilled its duty under the Licensing Act 2003.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – T H A T having regard to the report, the Guidelines adopted by the
Public Protection Licensing Committee and the representations made by the
Applicant, Members determined that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to
hold a hackney carriage and private hire vehicle driver’s licence.
Reason for decision
Members found that there was insufficient information provided to them to constitute
grounds for departing from the adopted guidelines on determining the suitability of
applicants.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he was disengaged as a driver from Veezu for multiple complaints of using his phone while driving, for a poor standard of driving making passengers feel unsafe, and for being rude, hostile and threatening.
The Sub Committee received representations from witnesses to an incident which had occurred at Llandough Hospital. Members were advised that the driver locked a passenger with a brain injury inside the vehicle when he was advised that the passenger’s mother would pay the fare at the destination. The passenger refused to travel in the vehicle and was very upset and anxious following the incident. The driver was reported to have been rude, hostile and threatening.
Further representations were received from a different witness relating to a separate incident when the driver was said to have displayed a poor standard of driving and watched TikTok videos on his mobile phone during the journey.
A third witness provided a statement regarding the driver using his mobile phone during a journey.
Members were advised that Veezu had received reports of each incident from their customers and they had disengaged the driver from their platform as a result.
Members questioned the witnesses to each incident and sought clarification from the driver regarding his actions.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days for unacceptable conduct.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he urinated into a bottle on a public street.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. The driver accepted that his actions were unacceptable and apologised unreservedly for his actions. Members were advised that his actions would not be repeated in the future.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he displayed intimidating, unprofessional and unacceptable behaviour to a passenger.
Members received representations from two witnesses who were passengers in the vehicle. Members were advised that the passengers were having a conversation regarding the payment method. The driver was said to have suddenly become very angry and began shouting and using bad language. He then refused the fare and ordered the passengers out of his vehicle.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his conduct.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter for a journey within the Cardiff boundary and overcharged for a fare.
Members received representations from a witness who was a passenger in the vehicle. Members were advised that the passenger was in Mill Lane in the city centre and wanted to travel to Manor Way. The fare was usually in the region of £15. The witness approached the driver’s taxi and was advised that the fare would be £25 as it was after midnight and she would have to pay the fare in advance. The witness stated that four other taxi drivers surrounded her and attempted to convince her that the fare she was quoted was correct. She felt intimidated as she was a single female. The passenger also stated that the fare meter was not used during the journey.
Members also received representation from an officer from Cardiff Licensing. Members were advised that a fare from Mill Lane to Manor Way should be around £12.70.
The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that the driver accepted the seriousness of the allegations and was aware that the meter should be used for all journeys in the city. The driver acknowledged that a payment of £25 was received but could not recall any other details of the journey.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days for overcharging and not using the meter.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared 7 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had four penalty points on his driver’s licence before he was licenced as taxi driver. He then received 3 further points for going through a red light in Bridgend.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that since the renewal of his licence he had failed to provide his DBS certificate.
The driver did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a relevant conviction contrary to the guidance.
The applicant did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had motoring convictions and previous criminal convictions contrary to the guidance.
The applicant did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he had received six penalty points for not disclosing the identity of a driver. Members were advised that the applicant had moved from Sheffield to Cardiff. He had updated the address details on his drivers licence. He was caught speeding in Newport but the letter had been sent to Sheffield and he was unaware.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
The applicant advised Members of the circumstances relating to a conviction for using a mobile phone whilst driving. The applicant stated that his phone was sitting in a cradle on his dashboard when he hit a pothole. The phone fell between his feet and he reached down to get it. This was witnessed by a police officer. The driver accepted that he should have pulled over first in order to retrieve his phone.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Act, and the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application for the grant of a Personal Licence.
The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s reasons for applying, namely that he and his wife had been offered an opportunity and that obtaining the licence would enable him to return to employment and give back to the community. This was taken into account as part of their overall consideration.
However, Members attached significant weight to the fact that he did not declare his conviction on the application form. This non-disclosure meant that his application did not present a full and accurate account of his background. Members considered his explanation for this omission, which was that it was an error on his part and that he had relied on advice from the licensing office.
Members also considered the nature and circumstances of the conviction, which arose from an offence of failing to provide a specimen at the roadside. The applicant had explained that this occurred after a long day, that he had panicked when approached by the police, and that he suffered from breathing difficulties following Covid-19. He further acknowledged that this was a significant mistake in his life.
Members attached significant weight to the seriousness and recency of the conviction, which was recorded in November 2024. They did not find that the explanation provided for either the offence itself or the failure to declare the conviction was sufficient to allay their concerns regarding the applicant’s reliability, judgment, and ability to uphold the responsibilities associated with holding a Personal Licence.
Having weighed all of the evidence before them, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the mistakes he had made and emphasised that he had been a responsible driver for nearly thirty years. He believed that he had briefly been distracted on a couple of occasions while chatting to passengers, which led to him not paying enough attention to the speed limit.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had three convictions for speeding, one in a 30mph zone and two in 20mph zones. One was on Greenway Road in Rumney and another on Manor Way. He had not realised that he had to declare each offence to the licensing authority as soon as it happened.
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 License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s friend explained that he had made several mistakes in the same spot within just over a week, in an area that he was unfamiliar with.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the offences had all happened in the CF72 area near Llantrisant. He normally worked in the city centre and didn’t know the area very well. He had been caught going 25mph on two occasions and 26mph on the other. He had reported the offences upon renewal, not being aware that he had to before then.
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 License given that the driver had a conviction for common assault which he failed to declare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that it had stemmed from a family argument, after which he was arrested for assault. He didn’t feel he had done anything wrong but had been to court and been convicted, having pleaded guilty on the advice of his solicitor. He needed his job to support his family.
Members queried the timeline of events and heard that the assault had occurred in 2021 and he was convicted in 2022. The driver had submitted his renewal application the day after going to court and had not declared the pending conviction, nor had he declared it in 2025 when he renewed his licence. The driver suggested that he had made a mistake and had not intended to hide it.
Members queried a further traffic offence declared on his latest application, and heard that he had been pulled over for going through a red light on Newport Road last year. The driver explained that he didn’t believe the light had been red at the time.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had admitted to making mistakes and served his punishment.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he was disqualified from driving for 6 months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was ashamed of himself for being there, and that he was a responsible member of the community in Cardiff who respected the city. He had been disqualified from driving due to totting up offences, having been caught speeding twice and failing to comply with a red light. The speeding offences had been for going 28mph in a 20 zone and 37mph in a 30.
Members asked when the disqualification had taken place, and heard that it lasted from July last year until January.
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 License given that the driver had 6 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that a friend had been driving him back from Birmingham, but struggled to do the last leg of the journey due to back pain. He wanted to help his friend get home so he drove his car, believing that this was legal because he was fully insured on his own vehicle. He was pulled over for not having his lights on, and found out that he had committed an offence of driving without the correct insurance.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that his friend’s car was a private vehicle rather than a taxi. He had been driving in the UK since 2019 and the offence had happened in 2024.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging he gave a fixed charge for a journey within the Cardiff boundary, refused to use the meter and became angry when questioned.
The Sub Committee received representations from witnesses who were passengers in the vehicle. Members were advised that the fare was for six passengers with three stops in Radyr, Morganstown and Pentyrch. The driver requested £30 for the journey but the fare was usually in the region of £20. The witness requested the driver to use the meter and he refused to do so.
The driver accepted that there was a dispute regarding the fare but felt that the passengers were becoming aggressive so he asked them to leave his vehicle. The marshal at the taxi rank spoke with the customers and they were advised to get into another vehicle.
The Sub Committee viewed CCTV evidence of the incident and questioned all parties in order to clarify the sequence of events.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for refusing a fare.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 6 points on his driving licence.
The driver accepted that he had been using a mobile phone whilst driving. He was unable to recall whether he had passengers in the vehicle at the time and accepted that he should have notified the Licencing Office.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence. Members were advised that all the offences were reported to the Licensing Office at the time they occurred.
RESOLVED – that the driver receives a written warning for driving offences.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
The driver did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driver received 3 penalty points for speeding and 6 points for permitting the use of his vehicle whilst uninsured.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had failed to declare that he had been disqualified from driving for six months.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence for speeding.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License. Members were advised that Veezu had disengaged the driver from their platform following multiple complaints from customers.
The driver was not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 8 weeks.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver was not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence for speeding.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(11)
Application 11
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Members were advised that the applicant had was convicted of money laundering in 2023 for an offence that had occurred in 2019. The applicant advised that he gave a friend a lift, and the car was surrounded by plain-clothes police officers who arrested them. His friend was selling drugs and had a large amount of cash on him.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he pushed in at the Heath hospital rank, and in a separate incident on the same date, said he would beat another driver and pushed them.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been a taxi driver for ten years with a clean record. He believed that the complaint was part of a targeted campaign of harassment against him. He recalled that as he had attempted to leave the rank, another driver had blocked his car and he had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting him. He felt the other driver had been aggressive and unprofessional, while he had remained inside his car to protect his passenger and prevent the situation escalating.
The driver also disputed the complainant’s suggestion that he had followed him afterwards. He just wanted to work without being harassed, but felt he was being bullied by other drivers because he followed the official rules rather than an unofficial system. The driver’s representative added that there was no official rank in place at the Heath hospital, where the incident had taken place.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he saw the driver pick up an old lady by the hospital and drive away. When he returned, the witness went over and asked why he was pinching fares from the back of the rank. The driver then threatened him, saying he was going to smash his face and that he couldn’t fight back because he was old. He also used abusive language which the witness found very offensive.
The witness added that he believed he had been followed by the driver on more than one occasion, and that other drivers had an issue with how he didn’t follow the queuing system. He emphasised that he was not an aggressive person and had not received any complaints himself. He was less concerned about the driver pinching fares than his conduct towards other drivers, and the language he used towards him.
Members asked how much time had passed between the initial pickup and the confrontation when the driver returned. The witness estimated that it was 30-45 minutes later. Members asked whether there was anyone else present, and heard that three other taxis were parked there in addition to the driver and the witness.
The driver’s representative emphasised that it was not an official rank, and the driver was entitled to pick up the fare from where he was. He did not feel that the witness’ description of the incident fit with the video Members had viewed. He considered it to be a he-said-she-said situation that was not deserving of sanction.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken, with the driver receiving an advice letter about their professional conduct towards other drivers.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been receiving alleging that he did not have a card reader and did not display his vehicle or driver’s ID badges.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not have anything to add to his written statement. The driver’s representative suggested that his badges had been visible in the window.
Members asked whether the driver was aware that he was not allowed to ply for trade without a card machine, so continuing to work after leaving it at home was a breach of his licence. The driver confirmed that he was aware of this, and added that he only realised he had forgotten it when the customer asked to pay by card. It was his first fare of the night, at around 1am, having started working at 12:30am. He didn’t charge passenger for the journey and then went home.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that the driver did not attempt to look for the card reader at any point, and just asked for cash immediately. He added that the badge holders on the windscreen appeared to be empty. The driver’s representative disputed this, suggesting that the photo provided was not clear, and it may have been a transfer rather than the physical badge.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had not charged for the fare upon realising his mistake, and then finished his shift and went home. He had made a mistake but would learn from it and always have a card machine available in the future.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging he charged more than the legal fare by applying a £1 charge for payment by card.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t recall the incident but did not normally charge for card payments. His representative added that there had been a long gap between the incident and his interview about it, which wasn’t the driver’s fault.
Members asked whether the driver was aware that he wasn’t allowed to charge additional fees for card payments. The driver confirmed that he was, and that he only charged the meter price within the city boundary. The driver’s representative suggested that it may have been an honest mistake as he didn’t recall it.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled getting into a taxi at the train station to go to the Hilton as she had a suitcase. Upon arrival she took out her card to pay the fare and saw that the driver had added an additional £1. She challenged this as she thought it wasn’t legal, but the driver said he was allowed to add a charge. The witness wasn’t sure if the law was different in Wales so she paid the extra pound, but took a picture of his plate just in case.
She added that the driver’s demeanour had changed when she took a photo, and he had hurried her away. She had made the complaint because she was concerned that vulnerable passengers who were unaware of the rules might be taken advantage of.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he was rude and dismissive about a passenger’s mobility issues.
The driver was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had booked a taxi and then requested a different route. The driver became rude and said that she shouldn’t give him orders. When they arrived at the drop-off point, he refused to go any closer than 30 metres away because there was a van there, even though he had plenty of space to go around. He raised his voice and was intimidating and disrespectful towards her, and asked repeatedly if she was going to leave his taxi.
She added that she had felt unsafe and intimidated by the experience. She had mobility problems, but even if she didn’t, the driver should have stopped at the agreed spot.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had failed to provide a DBS certificate since renewal of his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had had an issue with the renewal process, and provided his previous DBS certificate to the committee. He had not yet received his new DBS but would provide it as soon as possible.
Members noted that the previous DBS showed a conviction in 2020 for possession of a knife, blade or sharp pointed article in a public place, and for threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour with the intention of causing fear or violence. The driver explained that this had been the result of a confrontation with a bailiff who clamped his car and then called the police on him. The driver added that he had learned his lesson and had had no problems since, and worked to support his children. He had declared the conviction to the licensing authority when it happened.
Members noted that he had been asked to provide a DBS in August, several months into the renewal process. The driver apologised for not producing it yet and said that he would follow up as soon as possible.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days for failure to provide a DBS certificate in a timely manner.
(7)
Application 7
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had been issued with a Simple Caution by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council in respect of a plying for hire offence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had taken a fare from Cardiff to Pontypridd, and having dropped them off, was flagged down and stopped by an Rhondda Cynon Taf licensing enforcement officer. He accepted that he wasn’t licensed to pick up fares in Pontypridd, and accepted a caution from RCT council.
The driver added that he genuinely didn’t realise he had to report the caution to Cardiff as well. He had declared it upon renewal as it was a question on the application.
The driver’s representative added that the driver been licensed since 2017 without incident and was clearly a fit and proper person. He had pulled over when hailed and been caught out by a licensing enforcement operation, and had been cautioned rather than prosecuted. He also felt it was understandable that the driver had not realised he had to report it to a different authority immediately.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that several years ago he had unwittingly laundered money for a friend who used him to transfer money between accounts. He only became aware of the full details when the case went to trial for fraud. It was several years ago and he had not been involved in anything illegal before or since. Members asked about the timeline and heard that the offences had taken place in 2022 and gone to court in 2024.
He added that in the last few years he had been training as an apprentice carpenter and would soon be fully qualified. He had tried to turn his life around and expected it to be difficult to be self-employed as a carpenter, so he hoped to become a taxi driver to support himself further.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been convicted of two domestic common assault offences in 2022, which he understood shouldn’t have happened. His record was otherwise clean, and he had driven taxis in Cardiff for 18 years before his licence had been revoked in 2024. He felt that he had changed his life since the offences and was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.
A friend of the applicant added that after he was found guilty, he received a 14 week sentence and a community work requirement. It was a minor assault and an isolated incident, and there was no serious likelihood of him reoffending. He had also completed a six month program on building better relationships.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
RESOLVED that the press and public be excluded from the hearing in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Licensing Act (Hearings) Regulations 2005, to enable the Sub-Committee to take legal advice.
(CLOSED SESSION)
Members discussed the issues relating to the application.
(OPEN SESSION)
The Lawyer advising the Sub-Committee gave a comprehensive overview of the legal advice tendered.
The Chair indicated that the Sub-Committee had considered the application and representation made and the needs and interests of all parties in terms of the Council’s Statements of Licensing Policy, statutory guidance and the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003.
The Sub‑Committee RESOLVED TO GRANT the application for a new premises licence as modified, subject to:
• Conditions consistent with the operating schedule (Appendix C),
• Mandatory conditions under the Licensing Act 2003, and
• The following modification:
Live Music
Friday & Saturday 1900- 2300
Recorded Music
Monday – Sunday 0900 - 2330
Supply of Alcohol
Monday - Sunday 1100 – 2330
1. No off sales are permitted at the premises.
2. An incident recording book, bound in numerical order, shall be maintained at the premises showing details of the date and time of all assaults, injuries, accidents or ejections, as well as details of the members of staff involved, the nature of the incident and the action/outcome. The book must be kept available for inspection by the Police and authorised officers of the Licensing Authority.
3. Comprehensive recordable CCTV system will be installed and maintained covering the trade areas whilst encompassing all ingress and egress to the premises. The system must continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain at the premises. The system must be capable of providing pictures of evidential quality, in particular facial recognition. All recordings must be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time. Recordings must be made available immediately upon the request of a Police or Authorised Officer.
4. The premises to keep up to date records of staff training and refresher training in respect of age-related sales including proxy sales to persons who are drunk and identifying and preventing drug misuse in written or electronic format available for inspection on request by an authorised officer.
5. The capacity of the premises will be calculated by way of fire risk assessment and staff to ensure capacity it adhered to at all times.
6. Emergency lighting and fire alarm testing to be recorded and maintained.
7. Structural safety of premises to be maintained.
8. External lighting around premises and in car park and to be maintained at all times.
9. Notices shall be clearly displayed in the premises to emphasise to customers the prohibition on providing sales of alcohol to persons under the age of eighteen years.
10. Notices shall predominantly displayed at all exists requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and leave the area quietly.
11. Notices shall be predominantly displayed in all areas used externally asking patrons to respect the needs of the local residents and use the area quietly.
12. No bottles, shall be moved, removed, or placed in outside areas between 0900 hours and 1800 hours.
13. Outside areas to be kept free of rubbish.
14. A Challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification shall bear their photograph, date of birth and a holographic mark.
15. A log shall be kept detailing all refused sales of alcohol. The log should include the date and time of the refused sale and the name of the member of staff who refused the sale. The log shall always be available for inspection at the premises by the police or an authorised officer of the Council whilst the premises are open.
16. Key staff members to have undertaken safeguarding training and premises to have a designated safeguarding officer.
17. No adult entertainment is permitted at the premises.
Reasons for Decision
The Sub‑Committee carefully considered the application and operating schedule, the Officer’s report and agenda pack, the written and oral representations from other persons, the oral submissions made on behalf of the applicant, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, and the Statutory Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.
The Sub‑Committee determined the application on its individual merits with a view to promoting the four licensing objectives.
The Sub‑Committee attached significant weight to the fact that no relevant representations were received from any Responsible Authority, including South Wales Police, licensing, Environmental Health and Trading Standards. Members considered this to be a strong indication that the application did not give rise to concerns of a regulatory nature in respect of the licensing objectives.
The Sub‑Committee carefully considered the written and oral representations from residents. These included concerns regarding noise nuisance, particularly from music and the use of the balcony area, late‑night bottling out, anti‑social behaviour, the potential change in the nature of the premises and increased use by the public, together with issues relating to traffic, parking and highway safety.
The Sub‑Committee recognised these concerns as genuinely held. However, Members noted that certain matters raised, including parking, traffic conditions and behaviour beyond the premises, are not licensable matters or are beyond the control of the premises licence holder and therefore cannot be determinative of the application. These matters were nevertheless considered insofar as they related to the licensing objectives.
The Sub‑Committee placed considerable weight on the evidence and assurances provided by the applicant. Members noted that the premises is a long‑established golf club and that the intention of the application is not to fundamentally alter the nature of the premises but to modernise its licensing arrangements and support its ongoing viability.
The Sub‑Committee noted that the applicant acknowledged the concerns raised by residents and had taken steps to address them, including agreeing to a voluntary modification to restrict bottling out to between 09:00 and 18:00 hours, and confirming that a clear point of contact would be available for local residents.
The Sub‑Committee further noted the measures in place to promote the licensing objectives, including the provision of comprehensive CCTV coverage, the operation of a Challenge 25 policy and staff training in relation to age‑restricted sales, safeguarding arrangements including designated safeguarding officers, a course marshal system, incident recording procedures and general responsible management practices.
Members were satisfied that these measures, together with the conditions attached to the licence and the agreed modification, were appropriate and proportionate to address the concerns raised.
In particular, the Sub‑Committee was satisfied that the prevention of crime and disorder would be promoted through the presence of CCTV, trained staff and established management practices. Public safety would be promoted through structured safety and safeguarding arrangements. The prevention of public nuisance would be addressed through the restriction on bottling out, together with conditions relating to noise control and the use of external areas; and the protection of children from harm would be ensured through the Challenge 25 policy, staff training and safeguarding measures.
Accordingly, the Sub‑Committee concluded that the concerns raised by residents could be appropriately mitigated by the conditions attached to the licence together with the agreed modification. Members were satisfied that those measures were necessary and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.
In light of the absence of Responsible Authority objections, the applicant’s engagement and willingness to mitigate concerns, and the robustness of the proposed conditions and operating schedule, the Sub‑Committee determined that the grant of the premises licence, as modified, would promote the licensing objectives.
The Sub‑Committee therefore resolved to grant the application.
Right of Appeal
Any party to the decision has the right to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receipt of the formal decision notice.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application, subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police.
The Sub Committee noted the concerns raised regarding antisocial behaviour, drug supply, and the general character of the area. However, no evidence had been presented to demonstrate that these issues could be directly attributed to this premises.
Members further noted that the premises had been operating for approximately eight months and that no evidence had been presented of breaches, enforcement action or complaints during that time. While the applicant had limited experience of running a licensed premises, they placed weight on the absence of any issues during the period the premises has been trading.
Members also noted that the premises was not located within a Cumulative Impact Area, and therefore negative cumulative impact was not a matter they could take into account when determining the application, and the commercial demand for a premises was not a consideration for the Sub Committee.
Having considered all the evidence and representations, they were satisfied that the grant of the premises licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. Members noted that the Licensing Act allowed for any person to apply to review a licence in future should evidence arise that the operation of the premises was undermining any of the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – T H A T having regard to the report, the Guidelines adopted by the
Public Protection Licensing Committee and the representations made by the
Applicant, Members determined that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to
hold a hackney carriage and private hire vehicle driver’s licence.
Reason for decision
Members found that there was insufficient information provided to them to constitute
grounds for departing from the adopted guidelines on determining the suitability of
applicants.
April 21 Minutes and DN (LW)
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter for a journey within the Cardiff boundary and overcharged a passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that when the complainant had approached his taxi and asked to go to St Mellons, he told her it would likely cost more than usual as it was an event day. She said she normally paid around £20 to get to that area. Throughout the journey she was very quiet and eventually asked to be dropped off by the roundabout by Tesco, but he felt it wasn’t safe there. She paid £20 in total but no more.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver estimated that the meter had read £25 or £26 when she got out. He was used to customers trying not to pay, especially when drunk, so he occasionally asked for a deposit, and his card machine wasn’t working at the time. He knew he had to provide that option but it had stopped working just before the journey.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that when she got in and asked to go to St Mellons, she told the driver she had £20 cash or could pay by card. He said it would be £30, and then immediately asked for the £20 cash. His meter wasn’t running, which he claimed was due to the event that day but she knew that wasn’t how it worked.
She added that the driver then insisted she pay another £5 by bank transfer. She tried to do this but her banking app wasn’t working, so he said he’d drive her to a cash machine to get the money. She didn’t feel safe doing that so she asked to get out. The driver asked for her name and address as she left, which she did not provide. She emphasised that whether or not she had been drinking was irrelevant.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver suggested that he had asked for the extra money because the meter had gone above £25. The witness suggested that the meter had not been on at any time during the journey.
The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, clarified that all journeys within the Cardiff boundary should be on the meter. He calculated the journey taken as being worth approximately £19.65, at most a couple of pounds more depending on stops and traffic lights. The £30 requested was significantly more than that in any case.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for 28 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had been stopped by a Licensing Enforcement Officer carrying passengers within the Cardiff boundary failing to use the meter.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been waiting at the rank for a while as it was a quiet night. The customers had approached him and asked to go to Llanishen, which he said would cost £17-18 on the meter. They were happy with this so he didn’t turn the meter on, despite knowing it was a requirement.
The witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, added that the vehicle had been pulled over during a licensing operation which found that the meter was either not on or not working. He spoke to the passengers, who confirmed that they were advised at the outset of the journey that it would be a cash fare of £17, and he cautioned the driver for failing to use the meter. He asked him to reset the meter afterwards, which he reluctantly accepted.
Members asked the driver if he had used the meter on his previous journeys that day, and heard that this was his first fare of the day. Members asked why the vehicle had been stopped in the first place, and heard that this was due to a defective numberplate light.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(4)
Application 4
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter and charged a fare in excess of the legal tariff.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t remember the exact trip or the fare he charged, but if a customer felt they had been overcharged then he understood it was a serious issue. He knew he had to use the meter correctly and charge the approved fare, and he had reflected carefully since he learned of the complaint. He suggested that personal and financial pressure may had affected his judgement, and he took full responsibility and was willing to refund the customer if needed.
Members asked why the payment receipt had showed a different name to the driver, and heard that he had been temporarily using his daughter’s card reader because his was damaged. He understood that using someone else’s account was not allowed, but wanted to be able to continue working while his was broken.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he had been visiting Cardiff from Glasgow last summer. He had arrived at the central railway station with a lot of bags and sought a taxi from the rank there to the Premier Inn on Pentwyn Road. He didn’t have any cash so asked the driver if he had a card reader before getting in. It had been a pleasant journey where he and the driver chatted a lot, but he was shocked when the driver told him the price was £34.50. He couldn’t see any meter to prove this was a fair price but didn’t feel he could walk away without paying, so he did so by card.
The witness added that he spoke to an Uber driver the next day who was appalled when he mentioned the cost. The other driver suggested that he make a complaint as it reflected very poorly on the city for visitors to be ripped off. The witness used several more taxis during his time in Cardiff and none of the fares were anywhere close to £34.50.
The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, explained that he had investigated the complaint and initially found it difficult to identify the driver due to the different card reader and bank account. He had calculated the fare as having been worth approximately £19.30, and then interviewed the driver for potentially overcharging and failing to use a meter.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver reiterated that he didn’t recall the journey in question but had learned a lesson from the complaint. The witness suggested that it was unlikely he didn’t remember it, as he had a distinctive Glaswegian accent and they had spoken in detail about the city and both of their family links there. He did not want to be refunded for the journey, only to ensure it didn’t happen to anyone else.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(6)
Application 6
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction and a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was enthusiastic about driving and wanted it to be his livelihood. He had made mistakes in the past which had led to being disqualified, but felt he was a different person now and was fit and proper to drive taxis in Cardiff.
Members asked about his convictions and disqualification, which the applicant clarified had been for six months in 2022. He didn’t feel that his convictions had been correct decisions but he had accepted them. He had been accused of attempting to drive with a drug level above the specified limit, but emphasised that he had just been sitting in his car and not trying to drive it.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he wanted to contribute positively to the city. He had several convictions from 2024 but hoped he would be considered a fit and proper person. He wanted to work to support his family rather than being on benefits, and hoped he would be allowed to drive taxis as he liked driving and had a clean licence.
Members asked for more details about his convictions, which the applicant explained had been for threatening or disorderly behaviour, resisting arrest and criminal damage to a police vehicle. He accepted he had done something wrong and emphasised that he would not do it again, and had undertaken an unpaid work requirement and paid the fines. He felt that the offences had been based on a misunderstanding as he had been very new in the country at the time.
Members asked why he had not declared his convictions on his application, and heard that he had misunderstood the question as being about his driving licence rather than his personal life.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions and a previous criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he his first conviction had been in 2018 for possession of cannabis, and he had plead guilty in court and took full responsibility for his actions. He had since been sent back to court four times for not completing a community order, but felt this was partly due to an administrative error and provided evidence that he had completed the necessary requirements.
He clarified that the other offence had involved driving a family member’s car while he didn’t have a licence. He had refused to provide a specimen following this, not realising at the time that this was a crime.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that she had been disqualified from driving for six months in 2023 after totting up points on her licence. She hadn’t been in a good place and had been going through a difficult family time, but had overcome that now and felt she’d grown up, and the points had expired. She drove coaches for a living and was seeking a taxi licence to expand her options.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.
RESOLVED – The Sub?Committee heard from the applicant, considered all evidence, submissions, and written material, and reviewed the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the National Licensing Policy Framework, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, and the Cumulative Impact Assessment. The Sub?Committee also heard the oral representations made by the local ward member on behalf of a local resident.
The Sub?Committee noted that the premises had been trading for a significant number of years and had established a positive track record of management. It also noted that no representations had been received from either South Wales Police or Environmental Health, and the Sub?Committee attached appropriate weight to the absence of objections from the responsible authorities.
The Sub?Committee considered the explanation provided on behalf of the applicant that the current door restriction was imposed more than two decades ago in different regulatory circumstances, and that subsequent planning decisions had permitted later use of the Westgate Street entrance. The Sub?Committee also acknowledged the applicant’s position that extending the operational hours of that entrance would improve customer flow and support effective management, particularly during peak times, without undermining the licensing objectives.
However, the Sub?Committee also acknowledged the concerns raised by the local ward member on behalf of residents, particularly in relation to the unique characteristics of Westgate Street, its proximity to the Principality Stadium and Cardiff Arms Park, and the limitations faced by some residents due to conservation area restrictions preventing the installation of double glazing. The Sub?Committee accepted that residents regularly experience elevated levels of disturbance during major events and that the reopening of an additional access/egress point could potentially increase the risk of public nuisance if not carefully managed.
The Sub?Committee had regard to the fact that the objections centred primarily on the prevention of public nuisance and considered whether the proposed variation, if granted, would adversely impact that licensing objective. In doing so, the Sub?Committee took account of the applicant’s assurances regarding continued responsible operation, the existing use of door staff, and the willingness of the applicant to adopt additional controls through a formal management plan.
Balancing all the evidence, the Sub?Committee concluded that the premises had demonstrated a history of compliance, that responsible authorities had raised no objections, and that the proposed variation could be permitted without undermining the licensing objectives, provided that additional safeguards were applied. The Sub?Committee therefore considered it appropriate and proportionate to grant the variation subject to additional conditions designed to address concerns relating to public nuisance, particularly on major event days.
Accordingly, the Sub?Committee resolved to GRANT the application subject to the following additional conditions:
• There will be no exiting from the doors on Westgate Street on major event days after 9pm.
• The premises shall operate a documented door management plan designed to minimise disturbance to nearby residents. The plan must outline procedures for controlling entry and exit, managing external areas, preventing noise from patrons, and addressing any incident that may impact local residents. The plan shall be kept on the premises and made available for inspection by authorised officers.
The Sub?Committee further noted that the application sought to include the following wording:
“The entrance doors to the Westgate Street frontage shall not be used by customers or staff for the purpose of exit/egress to and from the premises between the hours of 23:15 and 09:00 Monday to Saturday and between 22:45 and 09:00 on Sundays except in the case of emergency.”
For clarity, the Sub?Committee resolved to amend this to read:
“entrance/egress to and from the premises.”
The Sub?Committee considered that these conditions struck the appropriate balance between supporting the needs of the business and addressing the concerns of local residents. The Sub?Committee concluded that, with these measures in place, the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance would be promoted.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – T H A T the age policy guidelines for the vehicle be waived in this
instance, and that the applicant be allowed to proceed with the application process,
including safety testing.
Reason for decision
Committee were satisfied that the application for the vehicle should proceed in this
instance, including testing at the Alps, where its safety and suitability would be
assessed.
26-03-17 Minutes and DN (LW)
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage Driver’s License given that a complaint was received alleging he placed a customer in another vehicle in danger by opening the rear passenger door of that Hackney Carriage whilst it was in
motion.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had driven taxis since 2016 and had never been before the Sub Committee. He recalled that he had been waiting a long time at the rank by the Heath hospital, and helped an elderly gentleman who needed directions before allowing another driver to take a short fare as they needed to leave soon. He then saw another driver come from the back of the rank and call over a customer, which happened regularly as customers tended not to know about the queuing system.
He walked over to the vehicle to tell the customer that she should have got in his car, and put his hand on the door. He disagreed with the witness’ recollection that he had run over to them, as he wasn’t able to run due to a series of knee operations. He recalled that the vehicle was stationary when he put his hand on the door, but it moved away and then stopped again. He asked the driver why he had jumped the queue, and the passenger got out and got into a separate cab as she didn’t want to travel in either of theirs. The driver acknowledged that the passenger had been scared and distressed and apologised for this.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness (the passenger) recalled that she had been in a hurry because she had gone to the wrong hospital and needed to get to Llandough. She knew to go to the front of the rank but saw that the first driver was talking to someone, so she went to the next available car and got in the back. As it pulled away, she realised that the passenger door was being opened, and was certain that this happened while the car was moving. The person opening the door then remonstrated with the driver, which she found very distressing. The door shut and she asked the driver to stop so she could get out. The man who had opened the door seemed out of control and was shouting and threatening.
The second witness, who had picked up the passenger and had his door opened, recalled that when the customer first came over, he told her to go to the front of the rank, but she was in a rush and the first two drivers were unavailable, so she got in and he started driving away. He was focusing on joining the lane on the right when the other driver opened the door and started shouting at him, which he found shocking as it put him and the customer in danger.
The Sub Committee viewed two videos of the incident, one being CCTV of the rank and the other having been recorded afterwards by the driver whose taxi door was opened.
Members noted that the car was clearly moving when the door was opened and asked how the driver responded to this. He suggested that he had meant it was stationary until he came near it, and he opened the door because the window was closed.
Members discussed the queuing system and noted that this was an informal arrangement between drivers. They suggested that allowing another driver to take a short fare just beforehand could have been interpreted as meaning that he was not accepting fares at that time, and that this minor misunderstanding had only escalated into a serious issue when he came over and opened the door of a moving vehicle.
The driver’s representative asked if the witness had seen the CCTV video at the time she made her statement, which she confirmed she hadn’t. The representative asked if she recalled the second driver signalling her to get in, which she was not sure about, but she remembered that at the time he seemed to be the next available car on the rank.
In summing up, the driver’s representative emphasised that his client had been waiting patiently at the front of the queue, following the system set up by council officers to ensure fairness. He felt the other driver had picked up a fare he wasn’t entitled to and sought to speak to him about it. Opening the door was a momentary situation, and he let go almost immediately as the driver stopped the vehicle. The representative also provided further references on behalf of his client.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(3)
Application 3
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been reported for hostile behaviour and shouting and for not providing details after an accident.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that on the day in question he picked up a passenger in Whitchurch and stopped behind a bus. Moving around the bus to overtake, he saw oncoming traffic and moved back. As the bus pulled out, he tried to maintain his position and moved back into traffic. He heard beeping behind him and then the person behind him said he had hit her car so he pulled over to speak to her.
The driver emphasised that he had been respectful throughout the conversation. He had said that he didn’t think his car had touched hers because there was no damage to either, and had explained that her car was now facing the wrong way on a one way street. He took a video of both cars to show the lack of damage, and noted that any contact would have left paint marks as the cars were different colours. He added that she had asked to use his phone, and when he said no she tried to grab it, which he found intimidating. He didn’t feel she had a claim, and she didn’t ask for any details even though he was wearing his taxi badge.
Members asked whether the driver had a dashcam on his vehicle. He explained that he didn’t at the time but had since installed front and back ones. He added that his car had sensors for reversing and automatic brakes, which did not make it impossible for him to hit another car, but made it less likely.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that rather than rolling back, the driver had reversed out of a side street while she was waiting stationary to the side of the bus at a red light. She beeped her horn but his car hit hers. She had not sought to make an insurance claim afterwards, and was concerned by his behaviour rather than her car. She felt that his driving had been reckless and his tone aggressive, and he had driven away without providing details.
The driver’s representative asked if the witness had contacted Veezu afterwards. She confirmed that she had, regarding the driver’s behaviour rather than as an insurance complaint, and Veezu had advised her to contact the council. She wasn’t seeking to gain anything from the situation and felt it was about accountability.
Members viewed a video taken by the driver after the incident. The witness clarified that the incident had happened on Merthyr Road, before they pulled over in a side street. The driver had parked in a bay and the witness alongside him.
The driver’s representative asked the witness why she had asked for his phone. She explained that hers was in her car and she wanted to call her husband, having felt like the driver was being confrontational and twisting the facts to make it seem like the incident had happened somewhere else.
Summing up, the driver’s representative suggested that there was no clear evidence that a collision had taken place, with no damage to either car, and that there was no evidence to support the allegation that his client’s conduct had been poor.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been reported for intimidating and abusive behaviour towards a member of the public.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he had been working at the Cardiff Central rank, and when it was his turn he said to the passenger that he was the next driver and helped put her suitcase in the boot. She explained that she always took a photo of the taxi badge when she took a cab. He responded that he was licenced by the council, and that if she wasn’t comfortable with him she could go with any other driver, and he helped get her suitcase back out. In his memory that was the end of the incident, and he didn’t use any bad language, call her a racist, or speak in any other language.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that when she got to the train station rank, the driver came straight over and took her bag so she got her phone out and took a photo of the licence plate. She had done this as a safety precaution for many years since having a bad experience in a taxi, and either took a photo of the numberplate or screenshotted the driver’s Uber profile to sent it to her husband. She felt this was entirely reasonable as it was a dark night and she was a woman on her own in an unfamiliar city.
She added that when she explained what she was doing to the driver, he thought she was accusing him of being dangerous, and said she was being racist. He took her suitcase out and put it on the road, and started shouting to other drivers and waving his arms. Two or three other drivers put up their windows and turned away from her, and none seemed willing to take her so she walked away. A different driver saw she was upset and was very helpful, and explained it was better to take a picture of the taxi badge rather than the numberplate. She emphasised that she never said she wouldn’t travel with the driver, but he made it clear he wouldn’t take her after she took the photo.
Members asked if she had told the driver what she was doing before she took the photo, and heard that she didn’t have the chance to as it happened very quickly. He picked up her bags immediately and put them in the boot so she took the photo at the same time. She did not feel it was out of the ordinary to take a photo of the numberplate, and was surprised by the reaction.
Members asked the driver why he had an issue with the passenger taking a photo of his numberplate, which he insisted that he didn’t. He had driven taxis for 27 years and had never had a problem with customers taking precautions for their own safety. He suggested that the passenger had thought he was an Uber driver, and he had assured her that he was licensed by the council. The witness disagreed with this, as she had sought directions to the official rank and knew he was a licensed Hackney Carriage driver.
Members asked whether the driver understood that saying something along the lines of ‘if you don’t like it you can leave’ might have sounded like he didn’t want to take the passenger, regardless of intention. The driver emphasised that he hadn’t been aggressive and didn’t accuse the passenger of being racist. The driver’s representative suggested that he understood how the passenger felt, and in hindsight it would be a learning point for the driver.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his future conduct.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had 15 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that contrary to the details in the report, his first licence had been awarded in January 2010 and he had completed the BTEC course. He valued his work highly and fully appreciated the seriousness of the situation, and didn’t want to lose everything he had worked for.
He explained that none of the speeding offences concerned had been dangerous or reckless. They included going at 68mph in a 60mph variable speed limit zone on the motorway, and 62 in a 50mph zone where he had failed to see a sign, and he acknowledged that both of these were poor driving. In court, he had pleaded excessive financial hardship if he was unable to continue driving, and this was granted alongside a significant fine.
He had submitted testimonies from numerous clients and hoped this gave Members confidence in his ability to provide safe and secure passenger transfer. Most of his work involved government contracts and he had always had good reviews. He now used a speed limiter and cruise control at all times.
Members queried one of the offences which involved failing to provide information as to the identity of a driver. The driver explained that he normally waited for the reminder of a ticket to come through, and when he didn’t receive one he thought it might have been withdrawn. It was only when the summons came through six months later that he realised the seriousness of the situation.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – T H A T the Committee was satisfied that the Applicant remained a fit
and proper person to retain a hackney carriage and private hire driver’s license,
Reason for decision
Having regard to the information provided in the report and at the meeting.
February 27 Minutes and DN (LW)
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – T H AT the age policy guidelines be waived and that the vehicle be
presented for testing.
Reason for decision
Committee were content to allow the vehicle to be presented to the Alps Depot for
testing, which would determine whether the vehicle was mechanically fit to be
licensed.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance, and had failed to declare both this conviction and that he had been refused a licence by Newport City Council on his application form.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had committed an IN10 offence in 2020 while caring for his grandparents. He drove their car to the shop without checking the insurance, and was stopped by the police. He took full responsibility for this and had accepted his punishment. He emphasised that it was a one-off mistake which would never happen again. He was a very careful driver who had received no points of any kind since, and the endorsement was now removed from his licence.
Members asked why he had incorrectly filled out his application when it asked about previous convictions and whether he had been refused by any other authorities. The applicant explained that he had declared the conviction on his Newport application, but when they refused him he panicked, feeling a lot of financial pressure as he needed a livelihood. He understood that he had made a mistake in being dishonest on his application, and was regretful of this decision and felt it didn’t reflect his character.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance, and had failed to declare that he had been refused a licence by Newport City Council on his application form.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had committed an IN10 offence by driving a short distance in an uninsured vehicle while his other car was being repaired. When he applied for a taxi licence, he misunderstood the question about whether he had been refused by another local authority, and believed it was only asking about Cardiff. He had come into the taxi office to apply and had mentioned being refused by Newport while he was there.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(4)
Application 4
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 previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his driving licence. He was referred to the Public Protection Sub Committee and subsequently had his licence revoked.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had come before the Sub Committee in early 2025 and been advised to apply again at the end of the year. He recalled that he wasn’t driving a taxi when the offences occurred in 2020, because at the time he was running a shop in Newport instead. He committed a number of speeding offences in his personal vehicle and totted up too many points, but was allowed to continue driving after pleading exceptional hardship. He was then pulled over for having defective tyres and disqualified for six months. The disqualification had been served and he now had no points on his licence.
Members asked when he had first become a licensed taxi driver. The applicant explained that he had been licensed by Cardiff in 2010, and had operated for ten years without any issues. He had applied to Newport and Wolverhampton councils for a licence last year and been refused.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(5)
Application 5
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(6)
Application 6
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 a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he accepted full responsibility for the MS90 offence he had committed. He hoped Members could take into account the exceptional circumstances he was going through at the time, as he and his family were dealing with a traumatic series of events. He had been constantly travelling from his home to the hospital, and didn’t pay due attention to the form he needed to fill out.
He emphasised that it was not an attempt to mislead anyone or any sort of dangerous driving offence, but rather an oversight, but he accepted responsibility for his mistake. He understood the standards expected of licensed drivers and felt he was a fit and proper person.
Members asked if he was licensed anywhere else. The applicant clarified that he had been licensed by Newport since 2022, but lived and worked in Cardiff, so would prefer to be licensed there.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.