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)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver overcharged for a journey from St Mary’s Street to Cathays and did not use the calibrated meter in order to determine the fare. There was also a double charge on the card used to pay for the journey.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that late on a Sunday night, he saw an intoxicated woman who wasn’t being allowed back into bars on St Mary’s Street being refused by other taxis. He could see that she was frustrated and wanted to help her get home. She said that she didn’t have enough cash and wasn’t sure how to use the card on her phone, so he passed her his phone with the payment app open so she could practise paying. She asked to give a £15 tip, which would mean paying around £25 for the journey rather than around £10. Her card was declined several times before it went through.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events, emphasising that she had not asked to tip him and was entirely aware of how to pay by card using her phone. She had only realised the next morning that she had been charged two payments of £25.70, which she called her bank to cancel because they were still pending. The two payments were eight minutes apart, so it seemed that the driver had taken two separate payments at the start and end of the journey.
The Sub Committee asked the driver about the double payment and heard that this may have been a technical issue with the payment app he used due to the declined payments. There was no physical receipt to give the passenger as the app sent him a notification of payments the next day.
Members queried whether the driver had asked for payment before the journey began, which was not permitted for fares within Cardiff. The driver responded that he had tried to help the passenger because she wasn’t sure how to use her phone to pay. The witness reiterated that she knew how to use her phone to pay by card, and suggested that the driver had not passed her his phone.
The driver’s representative suggested that there was evidence of the card being declined several times, and that the witness might have accidentally paid twice while drunk. He added that the money taken out of her account had been returned, and suggested that an honest mistake had been made. The witness emphasised that she was certain she had not accidentally tapped it twice.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he expressed sincere regret about his past actions and took full responsibility for what he had done.
Members noted that the applicant had applied for a licence recently and was refused then, and asked what had changed. The applicant explained that he was working 60 to 70 hours a week to support his family as the cost of living was very high, and he could make more money driving taxis.
RESOLVED – that the application be refused.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was arrested after a policeman pulled him over while driving and saw a bag of drugs in the car. He emphasised that they were not his and that he had passed a drug test, but had received a caution for possession of a Class A drug.
He added that since this had all taken place, he had moved back home, gotten married and taken on new responsibilities, and was keen to drive taxis. He understood the gravity of the situation but felt he was a more responsible person now.
RESOLVED – that the application be refused.
(4)
Item 4 was deferred to the next meeting in the absence of the witness.
(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 stating that the driver drove his licensed vehicle in a dangerous manner and used demeaning language.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was being accused of hitting a pedestrian and her luggage with his car. He explained that he had been working at the coach station when a coach came towards him so he had to pull into a parking bay on the side of the road. A woman was stood there with her luggage, so he beeped his horn and then rolled down his window and respectfully asked her to move.
He added that the woman then started shouting at him and accusing him of knocking over her luggage, before telling everyone else on the rank that he was a dangerous driver who had tried to hit her, which meant he got no business that night. He had driven taxis for 33 years and had been licensed in Cardiff for 26 years without any complaints being made against him, and emphasised that his car had not touched her luggage.
The Sub Committee viewed videos immediately following the incident provided by the witness. Members noted that the driver had cameras on the front and back of his vehicle and asked whether this footage was available. The driver explained that he normally deleted this after a week, and had not thought it was needed in this case as he was not contacted by the police.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she knew the area well and usually ordered a cab using her phone as the coach was getting in, before waiting in the same spot where there were several empty parking spaces. There was no pavement for pedestrians, only a muddy embankment, and she used a cane to help her walk.
She recalled that the taxi came by without stopping and without the driver asking her to move, and so she had to jump back to avoid being hit, with the car knocking her bags over. She asked the driver whether he had seen her and he said yes, so she asked why he had continued reversing, and he told her to shut up.
Both parties disputed whether or not the driver had beeped his horn or spoken to the witness before moving into the bay, and whether or not the taxi had knocked the luggage over. The driver’s representative acknowledged that the driver could have de-escalated the situation, and suggested that he keep the dashcam footage for longer than a week in the future.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had been issued with a caution by South Wales Police.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned in 2022 for a public order offence against a former partner who had stalked him. He did not feel he posed any danger to members of the public, and had driven taxis since 2006 with no complaints made against him.
The Sub Committee asked why he had only declared the caution on his renewal form rather than as soon as it happened. The driver explained that he had mistakenly believed this was only required for convictions, and apologised for the oversight.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared a previous conviction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, namely a small hammer which he had left on the seat of his taxi after using it to fix the wheelchair ramp.
He explained that a passenger had run off without paying after going from Cardiff to Cwmbran. The driver had waited outside his house for some time before speaking to someone else there, who persuaded the passenger to come out and pay up. The passenger claimed that he had followed him with a weapon and threatened him with it, so the driver called the police to explain.
The Sub Committee asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had emailed the council to inform them but had misspelt the email address.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To approve the Statement of Principles for Gambling (or ‘Gambling Licensing Policy’) 2025-2028, set out in Appendix B, for publication on 1 April 2025 and subsequently adopted for use from 12 May 2025;
2.
To authorise the Head of Shared Regulatory Services to make minor administrative amendments to the approved Statement from time to time, should the need arise.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and oral representations made on behalf of the applicant and by local residents, GRANTED the application.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, 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, REFUSED the application.
The Sub Committee considered that the Cumulative Impact Policy applied in this case and no evidence was presented to support the view that the application was an exceptional application.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1 was deferred in the absence of the witness.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he displayed dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour including shouting and cursing at a pedestrian.
The driver’s representative noted that the report suggested that his licence had been suspended by the Sub Committee for 10 days in 2016, and clarified that this was not the case as no suspension was awarded upon appeal.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that two people were trying to cross the road in front of the New Theatre and the light was amber so he stopped. He didn’t know what triggered it but one of them came to his car and used foul language towards him. He straightened up his car and then drove off when the light turned green.
Members asked whether the driver had seen the CCTV video of the incident, which he had. Members viewed the video and suggested that it contradicted what he had said in his statement about his taxi being stationary until the light was green. His statement also suggested that the female pedestrian was not using any sort of support to cross the road, which the video showed she was. The driver reiterated that he stood by his statement, and added that all other pedestrians had crossed the road by the time his taxi reached the crossing.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he and his wife were walking back to their car and approached the crossing as the light for it was green. As they crossed the road, the light turned flashing amber, so they continued as they had right of way, relatively slowly as his wife was using a crutch. The taxi came round the corner quickly and came close to him, which he found particularly worrying as he’d had two knee replacements. The driver used abusive language towards him regarding his age, but he did not recall using any bad language himself. The taxi drove off and he noted down the numberplate in order to make a complaint.
The driver’s representative suggested that the crossing in front of the New Theatre often caused confusion between drivers and pedestrians as it lacked a crossing box. He acknowledged that the witness and the driver had different views about who had right of way, but disputed the suggestion that the driver was speeding round the corner.
The driver’s representative added that the video seemed to show the pedestrian speaking to the driver first. The witness acknowledged that the video showed him going to speak to the driver, but suggested that this was only because the driver had wound down the window and shouted at him. Otherwise, he would have continued walking.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(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 from South Wales Police stating that the driver committed a number of speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had not been driving his vehicle on most of the occasions listed in the report. Friends of his had used the car for private use rather than as a taxi and received speeding tickets, and one of these friends who had committed three of the offences had left the country for family reasons so he was hard to contact. The driver didn’t want to lose his livelihood so he took responsibility for the offences, accepted nine points on his licence and paid a fine. After that, South Wales Police had made a complaint to the licensing authority.
Members queried the details of specific offences provided in the report, where a number of different names were nominated as having been driving the vehicle at the time. The driver stated that one of the individuals was a friend of his, and another was the friend’s wife. Members noted that it had not been possible to trace either person and the police did not believe they existed. Members queried one of the offences where the driver had initially nominated his wife but then changed it to his own name and attended a speed awareness course. The driver apologised for making a mistake in this case.
Members noted that the driver’s wife had nominated herself as the driver on one form, and asked if the driver understood that he was the only person insured to drive his taxi as it was a licensed vehicle. The driver suggested that a number of his friends borrowed his vehicle on occasion as it was a large van, and their insurance covered it. The Legal Officer clarified that this was not the case. Only the licensed taxi holder could use the vehicle, and it was not possible to get private insurance to drive someone else’s taxi.
Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that there were historic offences going back to 2020, and the police took responsibility for failing to flag them up until now. He had been unable to track down several of the individuals nominated and suspected that they did not exist, and were certainly not insured to drive the vehicle. Other offences had been blamed on family members who had accepted they were driving at the time, which meant they would also have been uninsured.
The witness also suggested that the times of the offences, several of which had occurred after midnight, including on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, suggested that the vehicle was being used as a taxi at the time. He noted that the driver had admitted to three of the offences, taking three points and paying a fine, after being challenged. It was the police’s view that the driver had been driving the vehicle on all of the occasions listed, and had done everything possible to avoid being banned.
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 Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver committed three speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had misread the date of the offence on the first letter and nominated his wife as the driver of the vehicle at the time. This was an honest mistake rather than an attempt to falsify the form. He believed that the second offence was a mistake on the part of the authorities as his Uber log showed he was driving elsewhere at the time. On the third occasion, he believed he was giving his cousin a driving lesson and allowing her to drive the vehicle, but now realised that he had been the driver at that time.
Members asked how often his wife drove the taxi, and heard that he often took off the plates and allowed her to use it to go shopping. Members asked whether there had been L plates on the car when it was photographed speeding when he believed his cousin had been driving the car. The witness, representing South Wales Police, confirmed that there were not.
Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that it was an easy process to check who was driving the car at the time as he had access to logs through Uber. The driver was the only person insured to drive his licensed vehicle, and his wife and cousin were not. His cousin had taken the blame and attended a speed awareness course for an offence she had not committed.
Regarding the driver’s suggestion that one of the offences was a mistake by the authority, the witness noted that the job records from the time and date in question showed that the vehicle had picked up a fare close to the camera several minutes before the offence was committed. The police’s view was that the driver had dishonestly attempted to avoid punishment for speeding offences on a number of occasions.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his licence in respect of three speeding offences.
The Chair queried a pending driving offence from October 2024 referred to in the report. The driver responded that he had not received any information about this offence since then, and didn’t know why this was the case. The Chair suggested that the hearing be deferred to allow the pending offence to be resolved, so the Sub Committee could have the full information when considering the matter.
RESOLVED – that the case be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had accumulated nine points from three offences, two of which had been on the same day when a speed limit on Western Avenue changed from 40mph to 30mph. He was doing less taxi work now and more school runs.
Members asked whether the driver was aware of his responsibility to inform the licensing authority as soon as the offences were committed, rather than upon renewal more than a year later. The driver responded that he had not been aware of this and apologised for failing to do so.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had apologised for his mistake and accepted his punishment. He had been caught speeding twice in one day in an area where the limit had just changed, and on both occasions was going below the previous limit, so it was clearly an honest mistake.
Members queried how many points the driver had in total, and heard that he had received three in April 2023, six more in June 2023 and had three pending as of January 2025. Members noted that if the pending offence resulted in three more points, he would have to come before the Sub Committee again.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had six penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90).
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been convicted in January of this year, having unintentionally misidentified his wife as the driver of a vehicle he shared with her. He originally wrote her name down on the form but then realised he had been driving and took responsibility. He had received six points on his license as a result.
Members queried the delay between the offence in May 2024 and declaring it to the licensing authority in January 2025. The driver explained that he had to wait until January for his court hearing, after which he had declared it to the authority. The driver also clarified that the offence took place before he became qualified as a taxi driver in Cardiff, having been licensed in Newport before.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken,
(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 previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his DVLA licence. The driver had been referred to the Sub Committee and subsequently had his licence revoked.
The driver explained that he had been to the Sub Committee and been refused several times before. He didn’t have any additional evidence to prove his fitness but he had been a licensed driver for twelve years and never had any problems. He had tried to work in other jobs like security since losing his licence, but taxi driving was his passion. He was trying to support his family and getting his licence back would make a huge difference.
Members noted that the Sub Committee had revoked his licence in 2022 in line with its guidance after he had received 15 points, and had suggested that he reapply after five years. The driver emphasised that his offences had all been only slightly above the 30mph limit, in a private car rather than his taxi, and had been committed nearly five years ago.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, 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.
The Committee considered that there was no evidence presented to suggest that the application would undermine the licensing objectives.
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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a speeding offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence.
The driver was not in attendance.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained when the name given on the NIP form was not the registered keeper of the car, the next step was to carry out an insurance check to find out whether they were insured on it. The police then contacted the licensing authority to find out whether they were a licensed taxi driver, which they were not.
On this occasion, when challenged, the driver admitted that he had falsely filled in the form, and filled it in again correctly. In the police’s view, it was a basic attempt to pervert the course of justice, and the driver had acted intentionally to get someone else to take the blame.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he was displaying illegal number plates on his Hackney Carriage vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that it was a genuine mistake, and he was not aware that he had been using a ghost plate until the police came and took it from him. His son had bought it as a gift several years ago as it had 3D lettering that looked better, and he had been unknowingly driving with it since then. The plate had been registered with the DVLA and had not been noticed on several MOTs. He provided the Sub Committee with a receipt for the plates which described them as ‘UK standard’.
The driver added that he did not know what ghost plates were until the police seized them from him. He suggested that if he had really wanted to avoid being caught committing an offence, he would not have put his hackney plate right next to the ghost plate on the rear of his vehicle. The police’s statement had made clear that they would not have been able to trace him if not for the hackney plate.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that when the speed limit changed from 40mph to 30mph on Manor Way, advice letters were sent out to drivers who were caught breaking the new limit. Suspicions were raised when this number plate didn’t read, and the police were only able to identify the vehicle from the taxi plate next to it. Possession of the plates was illegal, which was why the driver had received a fixed penalty notice and paid a fine.
The witness added that the ghost plate was not actually UK standard as it didn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it, but acknowledged that this was not obvious. He was surprised that this was not noticed during several MOTs but could not speak for the garage that had passed it. In his experience, ghost plates were only fitted to vehicles so they could avoid cameras, and they had been on the vehicle for some time. It was not possible to say for sure whether the vehicle had gotten away with any other offences in that time.
The driver’s representative added that the plates would have seemed legal to the untrained eye and had since been replaced with legal ones. He emphasised that the driver had been a taxi driver of good standing for nearly twenty years, and had made a genuine mistake and not intended to deceive anyone.
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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a motoring offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he had made a mistake by nominating the wrong driver. He got confused about the date that it happened because he and his wife shared another car, and he wrongly nominated her as the driver on that day. His wife had also not noticed that it was the wrong car when she was notified of the offence.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the car they shared was a Vauxhall Corsa while his taxi was a Mercedes E-Class. Both of them were insured to drive the Corsa while only he was allowed to drive the Mercedes.
The driver noted that there was a mistake in the police’s statement, which stated that the offence occurred on a Sunday when actually it was on a Thursday. The witness, representing South Wales Police, acknowledged the error in the statement but clarified that the NIP form displayed the correct date, in addition to clearly stating the make, model and number plate of the vehicle.
The witness noted that the number plates of the two cars in question were not particularly similar. He added that their records showed he was carrying a fare at the time, and as the offence involved going through a red light at speed it would go to court.
The driver added that he was disappointed in himself for not looking at the form properly and making a mistake. He had driven taxis for more than ten years and had never previously had a complaint.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence 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 Licence given that he was disqualified from driving in November 2024 for 56 days.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that on the day in question he was coming back to Cardiff from Bristol. He was too slow to decelerate when he came off the A48 and the speed limit changed, and there was a police vehicle behind him which pulled him over for speeding. It was the first time this had happened in 16 years of driving, and he had apologised and accepted his punishment.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the suspension had expired in mid-January and he was back driving now. Having been disqualified in November, he had declared his offence to the council in December and handed in his plates then.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had already been punished, having received a fine and a suspension, and asked that he be given a second chance.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90).
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that some time ago he had been trying to sell a car and allowed a potential buyer to take it for a test drive. Upon being notified that the car had been caught going 29mph in a 20mph zone, he provided the driver’s details but the police had been unable to find them. The driver suspected that the individual may have had a licence from another country or provided a fake name. He had been unable to track down the driver and in the end felt he had no choice but to accept the points and declare this to the council.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the vehicle in question had not been his taxi. He allowed a friend of a friend to take the car out on their own without checking their licence, which he accepted was a mistake. His friend had failed to provide the individual’s proper details and as a result they were no longer friends.
The driver added that taxi driving was his only source of income and he needed to support his children. If he had known any of this would happen then he would never have let someone else drive his car.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 21 days.
(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 6 penalty points on his driving licence for breaching the requirements as to control of the vehicle including a mobile phone offence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points and a fine for using a mobile phone while driving. His phone screen had lit up in the passenger seat and a police officer walking by spotted it, and he ended up having to go to court. He had tried to explain that the phone screen had come on automatically but the police claimed it was in his hand.
The driver believed he was innocent and disputed the police’s version of events but had accepted the judge’s verdict. He clarified that he had been driving his wife’s car rather than his taxi. He apologised for not notifying the council of the offence as soon as it had happened, having been under the impression that it only had to be reported upon renewal.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(7)
Application 7
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 failed to declare on his application form that he had previously been licensed by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and that his licence with that authority had been revoked in May 2024 on the grounds of public safety.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that when he was licensed in Merthyr he wasn’t aware that they did not allow him to drive in Cardiff. He had now done the Cardiff knowledge test and wanted to get licensed so he could drive a taxi in the city.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that Merthyr council had revoked his licence after a complaint from a passenger who said he locked her in the taxi. He disputed that he had locked her in and suggested that the passenger had refused to pay the fare, leading to an altercation.
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 and Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been kicked out of his home when he was 16 and had subsequently gotten into trouble. He was convicted of wounding, affray and assault after several fights, with the last conviction coming in 2002, relating to an incident in 1999. When the last case went to court, he was sentenced to 240 hours of community service, and since then he had maintained a clean record. He now had a daughter and a house and felt he had shown he was a good man.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had worked as an HGV driver before sustaining an injury in a car accident which left him in a wheelchair for several years. Since then he had worked to get his fitness back and was confident driving again. The car accident had led to a disorder which caused his hands to twitch but his doctor was happy for him to drive. The Licensing Officer added that the applicant had provided a medical certificate confirming this.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
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 stating that he attempted to charge a customer an extra amount for paying by debit card and was attempting to charge a fixed fee and not utilise the calibrated meter in the vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had taken card payments long before it was mandatory to offer them, and often picked up passengers near the train station who did not have cash on them. On the night in question, at about 1am he saw the witness waiting for a taxi and asked him if he needed to pay by card, which he did. The passenger asked how much it would be to go to Penylan, which he said would cost about £10.
The driver added that he had accidentally pressed the £1 extra button on SumUp while waiting to leave the rank but did not intend to charge this. He was aware of the rules against charging more than was on the meter, even though he had to pay fees on card payments. The driver suggested that during the journey, the passenger was upset and rude. After arriving at the destination, they paid the £9.30 fare listed on the meter by card and then took pictures of the inside and outside of the car. The passenger was not charged anything extra, which the receipt showed.
The driver’s representative added that there had been no previous complaints against the driver, and he had been taking card payments for six years now without ever being accused of trying to charge more than what was on the meter.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver emphasised that he knew it was not legal to charge a transaction fee for card payments, and stressed that he had added the £1 fee by mistake at the start of the journey and then not tried to charge it at the end. He also emphasised that he had not asked for a fixed fee, but had just said that a trip to Penylan would likely be around that amount, and then put the meter on as requested.
The witness recalled that he had hailed a taxi at the bottom of St Mary’s Street on a Friday night, which was always busy. He found a taxi which was willing to take card, as he didn’t have cash and this was before a card reader became a requirement. He asked the driver if he could go to Penylan and the driver said ‘£10’. The witness said ‘we’ll see what the meter says’, because he was aware of the requirements for journeys within the city boundaries. The driver then said there would be a £1 fee, which he disputed.
The witness insisted that he had not been rude or angry. At the end of the journey, as he exited the vehicle he took a photo of the numberplate, because he didn’t think it was right that the driver had tried to charge him a fixed fare within the city boundaries.
Members asked what the fee was at the end of the journey. The witness responded that he paid £9.30 and suggested that the photo he took of the meter showed a £9.30 total with a £1 fee having been added to it. The driver clarified that the £1 fee had not been added to the fare, as he had to press an extra button to add this on before taking payment, but did not do this because he had pressed the £1 button accidentally.
The driver added that he had never been accused of overcharging before, and he always used the meter even when he went outside of the boundaries to places like Penarth.
The driver’s representative suggested that the situation may have stemmed from a misunderstanding when the driver advised that the likely cost to go to Penylan would be around £10, which the passenger interpreted as a fixed fare.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained the offences and acknowledged complacency on his part, particularly regarding two of his speeding offences which had occurred in the same week. At the time he was going through a personal crisis with his partner being ill in hospital, and he failed to notice a recent change in speed limit in an area from 40mph to 30mph.
Members asked why the driver had only declared 6 penalty points when renewing his licence when he actually had 9. The driver explained that the second offence in that week, in June 2023, was not actually penalised until the following February, which he still did not understand. He had paid the fine initially but then had it reimbursed in December 2023, so he assumed it had been a mistake and they had charged him twice for the same offence. In January 2024 he was summoned to court and told that he hadn’t paid the fine. He co-operated in every way he could and accepted his punishment for speeding, which ended up being a larger fine than the original one. At the time he renewed his application, he believed there were only 6 points on his licence.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the two offences in the same week were committed on Manor Way. The driver added that he drove past there almost every day because he lived nearby. He was not making excuses but felt there were some mitigating circumstances on his mind when he failed to notice the change to a 30mph road, and he did not deny that he was speeding.
Members noted that with 9 points now on his licence, he would need to be very careful in order to keep driving at all. The driver agreed and stressed that he was very aware of this. Taxi driving was very important to him because it allowed him to work flexibly and care for his wife. He reiterated that the offences had been a temporary lapse of judgement which he had owned up to.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had a conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had made a big mistake six years ago, while he was new in the country and had been drinking. He had sexually assaulted a woman who reported him to the police, and he had accepted a caution for this and apologised.
Members asked why he had not declared this on his application form. The driver explained that he didn’t know that he needed to at the time, having only been in the UK for a year and only having had limited English skills then. At the police station he had come under the impression that accepting the caution and apologising would be the end of the matter. He didn’t know it would show up on his application but he needed a job and didn’t want to be turned down. He felt very ashamed, both for what he did and for not declaring it.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(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 issued with a caution by South Wales Police which he did not declare on his renewal application.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received a caution for battery in 2022 after an incident between him and his wife. He pushed her and she called the police, and he was arrested and released with a caution. When it came to renew his licence, he misunderstood the question and thought it only referred to convictions, not cautions.
Members asked why he had not declared the caution immediately in 2022, let alone failing to do so in 2024 upon renewal. The driver responded that he didn’t realise it was something he had to declare as he had been released straight away. He had understood it as a warning rather than something on his permanent record, and apologised for this.
Members suggested that having been a taxi driver since 2008, he would have renewed his licence several times before, and should have been aware of the need to inform the licensing authority as soon as possible if he committed any sort of offence. The driver apologised and reiterated that he was under the impression that a caution was more like a warning.
The driver added that in 16 years in the trade he had never had any incidents of this or any other nature. The offence was something in his private life which he and his wife had now resolved.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days, and the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
This case was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED: that
1) the Special Procedures functions which are required by law to be discharged by the statutory Licensing Committee, within its approved Terms of Reference, and the proposed arrangements in this regard, as set out in paragraph 10 of the report be noted;
2) the delegation to the Shared Regulatory Services Joint Committee of all Executive functions under the following Parts of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and regulations made thereunder be approved:
(i) Part 3 Chapter 1, Smoke free premises, places and vehicles;
(ii) Part 4, Special Procedures; and
(iii) Part 5, Intimate piercing on children;
3) It be noted and agreed that the Shared Regulatory Services Joint Committee will be responsible for granting all authorisations and delegations required by the Head of the Shared Regulatory Service and SRS officers in order to effectively discharge the delegated functions;
4) the amendment of the SRS Joint Working Agreement to reflect the arrangements approved under recommendations 1, 2 and 3 above be approved; and
5) the Director of Governance & Legal Services be authorised, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet member, to agree the terms and execute the required Deed of Variation to the Joint Working Agreement.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1) Application 1
This item was deferred to a later meeting.
(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 information had been received stating that he allegedly committed four speeding offences, but when contacted by police regarding these offences, returned documents with details stating that other drivers committed these offences. It was also alleged that when questioned by Licensing Officers, the driver stated that someone in his household had returned the documents. The driver had also disclosed a driving offence which was not on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he accepted responsibility for the speeding offences as he was the only person who drove his taxi, but he believed that someone else had filled out the inaccurate forms. He had had some family problems in the last few years and was worried that someone might have filled in the forms maliciously to get him in trouble.
The driver’s representative reiterated that the driver accepted responsibility for the speeding offences, and added that he would have filled in the paperwork accurately and responsibly had he received it. He had been driving a taxi in Cardiff for nearly twenty years with a very good record. He hoped that the Sub Committee would take into account that taxi driving was his sole source of income and he needed to support his family.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver confirmed that he did not know any of the names provided in the paperwork, and did not think the forms were in his handwriting.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that in his view, the only reason the forms would have been filled in falsely would have been to help the driver avoid a penalty for speeding. He did not accept the explanation that they had been filled out maliciously by someone else, as they had resulted in the driver getting away with several speeding offences until he was eventually caught out.
Members queried the supporting documentation and heard that the driver had initially provided a copy of an informal rental agreement with another individual for temporary use of the vehicle. South Wales Police had not been able to track down this person and confirm that they either existed or had the required licence and insurance to drive a taxi. The witness suggested that having initially been caught speeding, the driver had claimed someone else was driving, only to realise that this would be a breach of the insurance and then admit it was him.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(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 stating that he refused to take an assistance dog, claiming he had a medical condition.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that on the day in question he was suffering from bad hay fever which was making him itch and sneeze. He accepted the job, but when he saw it was a dog he called Dragon Taxis and apologised for not being able to take the passenger. The operator explained that he wasn’t allowed to refuse a guide dog but he had to insist because it was a medical issue. He was very sorry to have inconvenienced the passenger, and would not do it again.
The driver’s daughter added that he had a history of hay fever and medical records to support that. It could be triggered around pets and it was hard to drive when he was sneezing and coughing. He felt it was better to arrange an alternative, but did not intend to offend or dismiss the customer in any way. He had never had another complaint and had already been suspended by Dragon Taxis for a month for this incident.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver said that he was unaware that he could apply for a medical exemption certificate which would allow him to not take assistance animals. Rather than a specific allergy to dogs, it was hay fever which could sometimes be exacerbated by them. He understood that without an exemption certificate, he was legally required to take them.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that she booked a taxi from Leckwith to Barry at about 8:15pm. She could see on the Dragon app that the driver who had accepted the job was at the traffic lights nearby, so she went out to wait for him, only to see him do a U-turn and park on the opposite side of the road. It was dark so she didn’t approach the car. She then got a call from Dragon asking whether it was a guide dog, which she confirmed.
The witness emphasised that the driver should have come over and spoken to her in person if he was unable to take her and her dog. The operator had not explained why the driver was not willing to take the dog. She found it humiliating and exhausting to have to fight for equality to access a taxi.
The Sub Committee listened to recordings of the two calls in question provided by Dragon Taxis, one with the passenger and one with the driver.
The driver apologised to the witness for his mistake, which he assured her would never happen again. He had never turned down taking a dog before and understood that it was required as part of his licence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning, and be required to complete the relevant SQA course within twelve weeks.
(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 stating that he had 11 points and £300 in fines on his driving licence. This was in respect of 3 speeding offences, 2 other speeding offences where he was fined £290 and £250, and a further speeding offence for which he attended a speed awareness course. None of this information was provided by the driver, as required in Section M of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers Licence Conditions.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had committed six speeding offences and made a mistake when filling out the necessary forms, because he thought he was driving his private car when it was actually his taxi. He went to court for the offences and received 11 points in total, and had sent evidence of his offences to the licensing authority.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that this case had been flagged due to the six offences occurring in a short space of time, and during the investigation it was discovered that the driver had nominated two different people who were found not to be insured on the taxi. He was sceptical of the suggestion that the driver could have been confused about which car was involved, as each NIP form displayed the make, model and registration in bold capital letters on the front page. The witness suggested that the driver had only now decided to tell the truth having gone to court for the six offences, where he had agreed a deal to take 11 points and be able to continue driving.
The driver responded that his confusion over the vehicle was due to him being new to driving the taxi at the time, and the two cars having similar numberplates. He had also suffered a number of family tragedies around that time which would have contributed to his stressful situation. Members queried whether a picture of the vehicle would have been provided in the letter, which the Legal Officer clarified was not automatic although it could be requested.
The driver’s representative summarised that the driver had believed the speeding offences had each been committed in his private vehicle rather than his taxi, and had provided the real names of his friends and family who had been using the other car at that time. He now accepted that he was mistaken and had been driving his taxi on each occasion. He had since been punished in court for each offence with fines and penalty points.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(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 a caution for battery.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not feel that battery was an accurate description, as it related to a domestic dispute where he and his wife had both pushed each other. The Legal Officer clarified that the definition of battery included physical contact and not necessarily hitting or wounding. The police had found sufficient evidence to charge him with it, and by accepting the caution, he had admitted the offence.
The driver’s wife added that he was not a violent person at all but they had had a bad day, and he had then misunderstood what he was admitting to when he accepted the caution due to not speaking English as a first language. She hoped that Members would take into account that they had a mortgage and children to support.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver stated that he had been unaware of the duty to inform the licensing authority of any offences, and would do so straight away if anything happened in the future.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for one week, and that the driver receive a written warning.
(6) Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver was alleged to have provided false information to South Wales Police in relation to identifying the driver following a speeding offence notification.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had received a speeding ticket and spoken to a friend about it, who advised him to put down a false name as it was his second offence. This was a stupid mistake which he never should have done. He had learned the hard way and apologised.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that the driver had now accepted that he lied on his form, but previously sent a fraudulent insurance document to back it up. The witness had spoken to the company in question, who made clear that they had not issued the policy. The driver had been able to plead guilty to the original speeding ticket rather than to lying on his form, receiving three points rather than six and a smaller fine. He had knowingly and deliberately lied to the police, and offered no defence other than that he didn’t want a ticket.
The driver’s representative asked that the Sub Committee take into account the circumstances of the case. The driver had accepted that he had lied and given the reasons behind that. There was a scam going round where drivers were misled by individuals promising that they could make offences go away in return for money. The driver had not been honest at the outset but had been now, and he understood the importance of honesty and integrity when serving the public. He categorically assured Members that he would never do anything like this again, and would help with further inquiries into the issue.
The witness suggested that the driver knew from the start what he needed to do to declare his offence properly, having previously received a speeding ticket and complied with the legal requirements, but chose not to this time. He compounded the issue by continuing to knowingly lie, and only told the truth after being caught.
Members asked how many points the driver had on his licence in total, and heard that he had six.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
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 the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and Pollution Control.
The Sub-Committee considered the application on its individual merits and considered the report, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub-Committee have also considered all submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicants, local residents and local ward councillors during the hearing.
The Sub-Committee noted that South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control initially objected to this application. However, their objections were withdrawn prior to the committee meeting as the applicant agreed their proposed conditions.
The Sub-Committee also noted that the applicant had amended the application prior to the hearing and the operating hours proposed had been reduced.
The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the applicant successfully demonstrated that they are responsible licence holders and the operating schedule and conditions agreed with South Wales Police and Pollution Control would ensure that the granting of the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee therefore resolved to grant the licence with the agreed conditions and amendments made prior to the hearing.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver refused to take a passenger on a pre-booked fare and became abusive and threatening.
The driver was not in attendance at the meeting.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recounted that he had called Veezu and booked a journey that involved several stops on the way back to his home. The driver called him a few minutes before the pickup time and asked where he was, apparently unaware that the pickup time had been arranged for a few minutes later. The driver shouted that he couldn’t wait.
After he got into the vehicle, the driver refused to take him to the agreed stops on the way back home. He asked if he could speak to the dispatcher, in response to which the driver raised his voice again. At one point when the vehicle was stationary, the driver opened the passenger side door and stood in his way while shouting at him. A passer-by had to come over to the car to calm the driver down. The taxi company apologised and sent another driver to complete the journey.
The witness explained that this had been a distressing experience which he found it hard to relive, and he had trouble sleeping afterwards. He wished he had called the police at the time but had been too scared. He felt that the driver should not be driving if he was not capable of doing his job without being aggressive on several occasions, escalating each time, and he was concerned about what could happen to his next customer if there was nobody there to intervene.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks, and that the driver be required to undertake the relevant SQA qualification within three months.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction to consider.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had two convictions, the first for the possession of false identity documents and the second for a money laundering offence. He made no excuse for what had happened in the past and had been working full-time since getting out of prison. He used to be a security driver and had got his SIA licence back this year.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had also applied for licences from Newport and Wolverhampton councils, and both had been refused.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he worked as a delivery driver for Dominos and Amazon in addition to security driving. He wanted to be a taxi driver because his partner was a carer and he wanted to be able to be more flexible so he could look after their child.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant previously held a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence with Cardiff Council that was subsequently revoked.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver emphasised that what happened in 2015 was not reflective of him. He had learned a lesson and not made any mistakes like that since, and he hoped to get a second chance.
Members queried the circumstances of the revocation of his previous licence for fraud, and heard that he had been contracted to do a school run. He had given jobs to his colleagues to complete, and several of the drivers did not complete these jobs, without his knowledge. As the person in charge, he accepted responsibility and felt he had served his punishment over the last eight years, and assured the committee it would never happen again. The Legal Officer clarified that school run operators were not permitted to subcontract.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence be refused.
(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 following a complaint received alleging that he deliberately refused to take a fare that involved carrying a guide dog.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been on the way to pick up the passenger when his car cut out at some lights. He had been having issues with it for several weeks but hadn’t mentioned it to the operator because he needed the work. He thought he had sent the job back but then realised that he hadn’t. He cancelled the trip but then his car started again, and he drove past the passenger who was stood behind some parked cars, not seeing his dog.
The driver acknowledged that he told Veezu he was no longer in the area, which was not true. He suggested that he panicked because he didn’t want them to stop him driving, and because he needed the money and knew the car would cost a lot to fix. He apologised for the inconvenience caused to the customer, and emphasised that he had picked up hundreds of disabled passengers over the years and never had a complaint. As a result of the incident, he had lost his job with Veezu.
The Sub Committee asked for more details about his car and heard that it had cut out before, but not for a couple of days leading up to the incident. Members noted that the driver log showed he had accepted another job just a few minutes after breaking down, and queried how the car could have been unfit to take a passenger one moment and fine the next.
The witness addressed the Sub Committee, explaining that he had used Veezu to book a trip to the hospital. He was following the job on the mobile app so he knew when the car was approaching, despite being visually impaired. He recalled the car slowing down as it passed him, then it went towards the far end of the estate and the job disappeared on the app. The same driver reappeared on the map shortly after and then disappeared again. A few minutes later, he was able to find another Veezu driver to take him to the hospital, but was late for his appointment.
Members queried whether the original driver communicated with him at any point to explain the situation, and heard that he had not.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the representative from Veezu stressed that he had not taken an opinion in his representation, and had provided driver logs, call logs and GPS tracking which had been agreed as accurate by all parties. All bookings undertaken were logged in their system, and he could not recall any other specific instances of fares being cancelled for similar reasons so close to the pickup time. To his knowledge, there were no previous complaints of this nature against the driver.
Members asked what happened when a Veezu driver declined a job close to the pickup time, and heard that when jobs came up, nearby drivers had a period of flexibility where they could accept, decline or return to base at their discretion. In this case, because the driver had travelled to the booking after accepting it, he was required to call the operator and explain why he had returned to base outside of that time period.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks.
(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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver allowed his licensed vehicle to be driven by unlicensed drivers on three occasions, each resulting in a speeding offence. It also stated that the driver was the only person insured to drive the vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that on three occasions after being caught speeding, he had asked someone to help him fill out the DVLA documents because his English was not very good, before signing them himself. He found out later that this person had filled in false names, and on the fourth occasion he was caught speeding he filled out the form himself. He had not committed any offences other than these four. He hoped that the committee could take into account that he was supporting his family and had recently lost his father.
The Sub Committee noted that getting someone else to fill out these forms was considered fraud regardless of whether the driver signed them before or after the false information was added. The driver confirmed that he understood it was his responsibility to make sure it was correct when he signed it.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, reiterated that the forms made very clear that they were only to be filled in by the person in question. They noted that on the fourth occasion the driver was able to fill in the form himself, and that he lived within walking distance of a police station, where he could have gone to request assistance if he was having any trouble.
Members asked what would have happened if the driver had declared his speeding offences in the proper way. The witness explained that the first offence would have led to a speed awareness course, before the next three would have been 3 points each. This meant a total of 9 points, which would now be 6 with 3 having expired.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(7)
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 and Private Hire Driver’s Licence following a complaint alleging that he charged and obtained more than the legal fare and failed to provide a proper receipt on request.
The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee, acknowledging that the facts presented in the witness statement were accurate. He felt that the evidence provided showed it was indefensible and apologised to the witness and the committee He highlighted the driver’s personal life, noting that he was a doctor and a family man who had switched professions because his wife was disabled.
The driver’s representative added that he had trained the driver personally under the old BTEC system and felt responsible for not having got the message across about the importance of taxi drivers’ conduct. He suggested that education would be more appropriate than prosecution, and that this could be an opportunity to retrain the driver rather than just revoke his licence. He driver had admitted his mistake and acknowledged his guilt, and was willing to do the new SQA qualification which had more of a focus on mobility and disability issues.
The driver echoed his representative’s statement and apologised to the witness.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness thanked the driver for his apology. He added that earlier on the day in question, he had had similar issues with another taxi, which was why he did not challenge the fare in this case even though he knew he had been overcharged. He hadn’t used a taxi since this incident and it would take a long time before he felt comfortable using one again, which had a debilitating impact on his independence.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks.
RESOLVED – T H A T having regard to the consultation responses and the
discussion at Statutory Licensing Committee, that the proposed Statement of
Licensing Principles for 2025-2028 detailed in the report and Appendix A be
approved and referred to Full Council for final approval.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting.
C150 WELSH LANGUAGE STANDARDS ANNUAL MONITORING
REPORT 2023-24 (REF) –
The reference from Learning and Culture Scrutiny Committee held on 19th
September, 2024 was presented.
The Cabinet Member said that there were interesting points raised at the meeting,
some of which had not arisen previously, e.g. there was insufficient school transport
for one Welsh Medium Primary school which was subsequently been raised with
Officers within the School transport Team.
Committee also discussed the difficulty in attracting and retaining Welsh speaking
teachers as there was a shortage of teachers able to teach through the medium of
Welsh across Wales, commenting that the Council should look to maximise the
opportunities to recruit and retain teaching staff and others with Welsh language
skills. The Cabinet Member said that the Vale of Glamorgan Council had applied for
and gained funding to train teachers whilst in school to work towards addressing the
issue.
The Committee referred a comment to Cabinet to consider a proposal that the Vale
of Glamorgan considers a bid to host the 2029 Urdd Eisteddfod in Barry which the
Cabinet Member was happy to support and had written to Officers accordingly. The
Leader said that the National Eisteddfod had not been held in the Vale of Glamorgan
since 2012 and had been hugely successful at that time and looked forward to
finding out if that bid would be possible.
RESOLVED – T H A T the comments and recommendations of the Learning and
Culture Scrutiny Committee held on 19th September, 2024 be noted.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting.
C151 ANNUAL CORPORATE SAFEGUARDING REPORT 2023-24
(REF) –
The reference from Learning and Culture Scrutiny Committee held on 19th
September, 2024 was presented.
Committee discussed School Governors undertaking safeguarding training as not all
of them had completed the relevant Safeguarding modules which needed to be
addressed.
There was also discussion concerning how much staff time was spent implementing
safeguarding in schools with decisions taken as to how each case should be treated
or referred, including Home Office PREVENT training. The Cabinet Member said
that all staff were trained regularly on such matters to be aware of the different
issues and challenges faced by children and young people.
RESOLVED – T H A T the comments and recommendations of the Learning and
Culture Scrutiny Committee held on 19th September, 2024 be noted.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting.
C152 ANNUAL CORPORATE SAFEGUARDING REPORT 2023-24 (REF) –
The reference from Governance and Audit Committee held on 23rd September, 2024
was presented.
There was discussion concerning whether all Councillors were Disclosure and
Barring Service (DBS) checked and it was confirmed that all Councillors were
checked and any Councillor who had a responsibility or was on a Committee
concerning children and young people or vulnerable people had an Enhanced DBS
check. It was also asked if there was provision for DBS checks to be carried out on
a rolling basis.
Committee also discussed abuse in the home and whether some of the figures
quoted were specific to the Vale of Glamorgan or wider and whether figures were
comparable to other Local Authorities, which Officers were going to respond to.
Councillor Williams added that there was recognition at both Committees that it was
a Corporate safeguarding report and that both Members and staff had a duty to
report any issues regarding safeguarding, which the Leader agreed was vitally
important.
RESOLVED – T H A T the comments of the Governance and Audit Committee held
on 23rd September, 2024 be noted.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting.
C153 FINANCIAL STRATEGY 2025/26 TO 2029/30 (REF) –
The reference from the Extraordinary Corporate Performance and Resources
Scrutiny Committee held on 2nd October, 2024 was presented.
There had been discussion concerning the forecast funding gap of £9.392m for
2025/26 and that the figure was likely to grow due to emerging pressures. The
Leader said that further reports considering the matter would be coming to Cabinet in
the next month.
The Section 151 Officer commented that the Vale of Glamorgan was a relatively low-
funded Authority and had set a relatively low level of Council Tax compared to other
Local Authorities which was a challenge with increasing costs, e.g. private sector
rents.
Committee discussed wide-ranging potential areas of action and recommended that
Cabinet consider investment in spend to save projects and potential for a strategic
procurement function. The Leader said that with regards spend to save, that was an
area relative to the Reshaping agenda and the comment would be referred into that
process. Regarding the strategic procurement function, the Leader said that the
Council was currently in an arrangement with other Local Authorities for a shared
procurement service and would pass that comment to Ardal.
RESOLVED – T H A T the comments and recommendations from the Extraordinary
Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee held on 2nd October,
2024 be noted.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting.
C154 CLOSURE OF ACCOUNTS 2023/24 (REF) –
The reference from the Extraordinary Corporate Performance and Resources
Scrutiny Committee held on 2nd October, 2024 was presented.
Committee considered the year end revenue position and noted there being a
surplus of £2.08m at year end which was proposed to be transferred to reserves as
follows:
- Establish a new and temporary £2m reserve to offset Education Deficits in
2024/25 on a provisional basis whilst the Council worked with schools on
establishing a coordinated approach to tackling school deficits;
- The balance of £80k had been transferred to the General Fund.
The level of Useable Reserves had reduced in year although by less than had been
projected but some of those commitments had been slipped into 2024/25 in
accordance with Capital Expenditure slippage.
Committee asked Cabinet to consider the possibility of there being a dedicated
procurement officer for schools which would fit in with the financial support already
offered to schools, although procurement was now a matter being dealt with under a
joint agreement with Ardal. Officers would be asked to investigate the suggestion.
The financial position within schools was discussed and there was discussion and a
recommendation for further consideration to be given for Governing bodies to be
provided with further support and guidance regarding school budget deficits. The
Leader said that the school-based Finance Team did work with schools and would
be happy to assist Governing bodies, as well as other schools being able to offer
peer support.
Committee also asked for future closure of accounts reports to detail planned and
unplanned use of reserves more clearly, which the Head of Finance would look to
address in future reports.
RESOLVED – T H A T the comments and recommendations from the Extraordinary
Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee held on 2nd October,
2024 be noted, with detail passed to relevant Officers for consideration.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting.
C155 CORPORATE PARENTING PANEL –
The minutes of the Corporate Parenting Panel meeting held on 8th July, 2024 were
presented.
The Cabinet Member, who was the Chair of the Panel, said that the Corporate
Parenting Charter had been considered at the meeting. It had been agreed that a
future workshop be organised in November for the Panel to look in detail at how to
meet all the relevant requirements.
The Panel also considered the latest Children Looked After figures for the Vale of
Glamorgan.
Councillor Williams noted that the minutes had not yet been formally agreed by the
Panel who would consider them at the November meeting and any amendments
would be brought back to Cabinet or would be considered as agreed if no comments
were received.
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the Corporate Parenting Panel meeting held
on 8th July, 2024 be noted, subject to consideration at the next Corporate Parenting
Panel in November 2024.
Reason for decision
In noting the minutes.
C156 CARDIFF BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE –
The minutes of the Cardiff Bay Advisory Committee meeting held on 10th July, 2024
were presented.
The Cabinet Member, who was reappointed as the Chair of the Committee, said that
the Committee had discussed the Timetable of Meetings, navigational safety, a
general progress from the Harbour Authority and an update from Natural Resource
Wales on dissolved oxygen levels. There had been one minor pollution incident
which had been quickly resolved.
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the Cardiff Bay Advisory Committee meeting
held on 10th July, 2024 be noted.
Reason for decision
In noting the minutes.
C157 APPOINTMENT OF LOCAL AUTHORITY GOVERNORS ADVISORY
PANEL (REF) –
The minutes of the Appointment of Local Authority Governors Advisory Panel
meeting held on 9th October, 2024 were presented.
The Cabinet Member was pleased to see how many people had been prepared to
put time and effort into supporting local schools as Governors. There were currently
only two vacancies yet to be appointed. The Leader acknowledged the commitment
that Governors made in needing to understand matters such as safeguarding,
finance, school performance and thanked all those who had volunteered to take on
those roles.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the minutes of the Appointment of Local Authority Governors
Advisory Panel meeting held on 9th October, 2024 be noted.
(2) T H A T the following appointments be made to the schools as set out below:
School No. of Vacancies Appointment
All Saints CiW 1 None – remains vacant*
Cadoxton Primary 1 D. Stolzenberg
Cogan Primary 1 C. Shillabeer
Colcot Primary 1 J.D. Rogers
Cowbridge Comp 2 S. Blackman and D. Farrell
Dinas Powys Primary 1 N. Meredith
Evenlode Primary 2 A. Thomas and K. Nolan
Gladstone Primary School 1 Councillor P. Drake
High Street Primary 1 L. Banks
Holton Primary 2 J. Scott and S. Pengelly**
Jenner Park Primary 1 E. Ryles
Llangan Primary 1 E. Thomas
Llandough Primary 1 Councillor G.D.D. Carroll
Llanfair Primary 2 S. Bonnar and N. Phillips
Oakfield Primary 2 L. Banks and C. Hunt**
Pencoedtre High School 1 D. Carter
Peterston S Ely Primary 1 S. Evans
Rhws Primary 1 J. Nixon
Romilly Primary 2 M. Kennedy and C.
Withycombe
South Point Primary 1 B. Millhausen
St Cyres Comprehensive 4 H. Evans; Councillor C.P.
Franks; S. Pengelly and S.
Dowling
St Illtyd Primary 1 M. Evans
St Nicholas CiW 1 C. Hunt
St Richard Gwyn 2 D. Carter
One appointment made, one
vacancy remains*
Sully Primary 1 E. Parker
Whitmore High School 2 Councillor N. Marshallsea and
Councillor E. Goodjohn
Y Bont-faen 1 M. Evans
Ysgol Bro Morganwg 5 D. Griffith; G. Evans; H.
Llewellyn-Morgan; R. A. Evans
and S. Evans
Ysgol Pen Y Garth 1 R. Griffiths
Ysgol Sant Baruc 2 S. Evans and O. Williams
Reasons for decisions
(1) In noting the minutes.
(2) To endorse the appointments to be made to the schools.
C158 DRAFT CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2025/26 AND INITIAL
CAPITAL PROGRAMME PROPOSALS 2025/26 TO 2029/30 (EL/PR) (SCRUTINY
– CORPORATE PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES) –
The Leader presented the report to gain approval for the Initial Capital Programme
Proposals for 2025/26 to 2029/30 so that they may be submitted to Scrutiny
Committees for consultation and to set out the Draft Capital Investment Strategy for
Cabinet Members to consider.
The Leader said it was important to be aware and have a clear idea of the costs of
new schemes considering significant pressures in relation to price inflation of
materials and labour, but that money had been put aside from reserves for some
matters within the programme as well as consideration given to other potential
funding such as borrowing, grants or s106 contributions.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T Draft Capital Strategy 2025/26 as set out in Appendix 1 be approved.
(2) T H A T the Initial Capital Programme for 2025/26 to 2029/30 be endorsed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To approve the Draft Capital Strategy for 2025/26.
(2) To consult Members on the Capital Programme for 2025/26 to 2029/30.
C159 REVISED HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE THREE YEAR RESURFACING
PLAN 2024 - 2027 (NBS) (SCRUTINY – ENVIRONMENT AND REGENERATION) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report to advise Cabinet of the changes used to
identify priority locations for resurfacing works and to agree the plan for 2024 – 2027.
Councillor Wilson said it was important to remember that the highway included use
by cyclists and pedestrians as well as vehicles, including both roads and pavements.
He referred to Appendix B to the report concerning the new Highway Maintenance
Scoring Matrix which also included Active Travel routes as well as school / public
Transport routes.
There was £2.9M in the capital programme for 2024/25, for resurfacing and
treatment works such as surface dressing, micro asphalt treatment and footway
improvement works, as detailed in Appendices A-1 to A-4 to the report.
The Leader said it was important to look at the various criteria, how traffic affected
highways in different ways in different areas and looked forward to the discussion at
Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of the revised Highway Maintenance Three Year
Resurfacing Plan 2024 – 2027, as attached at Appendix A – 1, 2, 3 and 4 be noted,
and the locations for resurfacing works be agreed in principle.
(2) T H A T the changes to the carriageway prioritisation scoring matrix to
incorporate active travel and cycle routes within the methodology be noted.
(3) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Director of Environment and
Housing Services to amend the Plan, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for
Neighbourhood and Building Services, if urgent highway resurfacing priorities were
identified.
(4) T H A T the matter be referred to Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny
Committee for consideration.
(5) T H A T subject to no comments that would affect the Plan as proposed being
received from the Scrutiny Committee, the Highway Maintenance Three Year
Resurfacing Plan 2024 - 2027 be agreed.
(6) T H A T where a location was listed on the Plan, the Council’s technical
officers within the Highway Maintenance team would prioritise the full extents,
however only partial areas may be completed, simply to ensure the best allocation of
budget and that any material of sound condition was not removed and replaced with
new.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To agree, the Highway Maintenance Three Year Resurfacing Plan 2024 –
2027, subject to its consideration by the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny
Committee.
(2) To ensure that areas impacting on Active Travel and routes used by cyclists,
were properly considered.
(3) To deal efficiently with changes to the Plan should other highway routes
deteriorate more rapidly than expected or constraints dictate that a change in priority
was required to ensure the most cost-effective use of the budget allocation.
(4) To ensure that the relevant Scrutiny Committee could consider the details of
the Highway Maintenance Three Year Resurfacing Plan 2024 – 2027, prior to it
being formally agreed.
(5) To enable the final Plan to be approved following its consideration by the
relevant Scrutiny Committee should no comments that affect the Plan as proposed,
be received.
(6) To ensure that the Highway Resurfacing budget (2024/25), was utilised as
efficiently as possible.
C160 CONTRACT FOR THE PROVISION OF SUPPORTED
ACCOMMODATION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE VALE OF
GLAMORGAN (SCH) (SCRUTINY – HEALTHY LIVING AND SOCIAL CARE) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report seeking authority to undertake a tender
process relating to the provision of the above services and sought delegated
authority to award the contract to the successful provider(s).
Councillor Williams gave thanks to all the staff involved in putting together the report
and for the work completed to be able to bring the matter forward for Cabinet to
consider as significant need had been identified in the Vale of Glamorgan and a lot
of work had been completed to put the matter forward for consideration. This was
echoed by fellow Cabinet Members.
The needs of the individuals within each of the three lots were quite different, hence
the need for the three different tenders.
The Leader said it was important work to avoid people in such circumstances feeling
alone at such a young age and important to be able to help them.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Director of Social Services, in consultation with the Cabinet
Member for Social Care and Health, be authorised to undertake competitive tender
processes for the provision of shared temporary accommodation services for
vulnerable unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people, temporary
supported living accommodation for vulnerable children and young people, and
emergency supported lodgings for vulnerable young people in the Vale of
Glamorgan.
(2) T H A T the Director of Social Services, in consultation with the Cabinet
Member for Social Care and Health, be authorised to award the contract(s) for those
services for an initial period of 5 (five) years with an option to extend for up to a
further 2 (two) years, following the completion of a tender process.
(3) T H A T the Monitoring Officer / Head of Legal Services and the Head of
Finance / Section 151 Officer in the Vale of Glamorgan Council be authorised to
execute a contract with the successful Provider(s).
Reasons for decisions
(1) To ensure that the Council provided shared temporary accommodation for
vulnerable unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people within the
Vale of Glamorgan in a cost-effective way that met the requirements of Welsh
Government UASC Guidance and the required standards of the Care Inspectorate
Wales (CIW).
(2) To ensure that the Council provided temporary supported living
accommodation and emergency supported lodging placements for vulnerable
children and young people within the Vale of Glamorgan in a cost-effective way that
met the requirements of Welsh Government Supported Living Guidance and the
required standards of the Care Inspectorate Wales (CIW).
(3) To ensure that the Council met the requirements of its Contract Procedure
Rules and Financial Procedure Rules.
C161 SHARED REGULATORY SERVICES (SRS) - AMENDMENT TO THE
JOINT WORKING AGREEMENT (JWA) (CEERS) (SCRUTINY – HOMES AND
SAFE COMMUNITIES) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report which recommended and sought approval
for a change to the Joint Working Agreement between the partner Councils for the
provision of Regulatory Services. The change would see the addition of the Public
Health (Wales) Act 2017 to the list of functions delegated to the Shared Regulatory
Services (SRS) Joint Committee.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the proposed change to the Joint Working Agreement under a Deed
of Variation between the partner Councils for the provision of Regulatory Services be
endorsed and recommended the same to Full Council for consideration and
approval.
(2) T H A T the Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal and Democratic Services be
authorised to execute the required Deed of Variation reflecting the change when
approved by Full Council.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To ensure that appropriate approvals were sought in relation to the proposed
change to the Joint Working Agreement through the addition of the Public Health
Wales Act 2017 to the list of functions delegated to the Joint Committee and
contained in Part 1 to Schedule 1 of the Shared Regulatory Services Joint Working
Agreement to be agreed by all three partner Councils.
(2) To enable the proper execution of the Deed of Variation to reflect the change
within the Joint Working Agreement on approval by Full Council.