The constitution, councillors' conduct, audit, performance and complaints.
What councils do
How the council itself is run: its constitution, staff, buildings, IT, complaints, and how councillors behave.
Who decides
The full Council agrees the constitution. A standards committee deals with councillors' conduct; the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales investigates complaints.
Having a say
Complain to the council first; if you're not satisfied, you can go to the Ombudsman. Council meetings are public, and many are broadcast.
In numbers
Welsh councils plan to spend £67 per person on this in 2026-27.
It ranges from -£4 in Monmouthshire to £167 in Blaenau Gwent.
Council tax collected: 95% across Wales (2025-26).
Council tax unpaid at the end of the year: £119 million across Wales (2025-26).
Council tax still owed from earlier years: £199.3 million across Wales (2025-26).
Council tax written off: £9 million across Wales (2025-26).
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a 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 public be excluded from the meeting at this point during consideration of this item as the Committee discussed exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14, 16 and 21 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
RESOLVED – That:
(1) The report be noted;
(2) A summary of the actions taken across the Council arising from lessons learned be presented to a future meeting of the Committee;
(3) the Audit Manager in consultation with the Chairperson consider the development of an assurance map for legal and regulatory activities.
RESOLVED to:
(1) Note that the Monitoring Officer has not received any complaints under the Corporate Joint Committee’s Code of Conduct for Members for the period from 1 April 2024 to 15 January 2025;
(2) Consider the arrangements for members’ declarations of interests set out in paragraphs 5 to 10 of this report; and
(3) Consider the arrangements for members’ registrations of gifts and hospitality set out in paragraphs 11 and 12 of this report.
RESOLVED: That the Committee:
i.
Note the correspondence update arising from recent scrutiny meetings;
ii.
Sign off any updates to the work programme (Appendix A);
iii.
Note the updates to Task & Finish Group activities (including Appendix B);
iv.
Consider and agree any way forward arising from the letter from the Chair of the Governance & Audit Committee (Appendix C);
v.
Note (and consider) links to relevant papers from other Council Committees;
vi.
Note (and consider) links to recent Inspection Reports.
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
• the mid-year assessment of the Council’s performance as set out in this report and Appendix A, including the delivery of key commitments and priorities at the end of Quarter 2 of 2024/25, and the actions being taken to ensure the effective delivery of the Corporate Plan 2024-27 be noted.
• the response to any recommendations made by the Policy Review and Performance (PRAP) Scrutiny Committee in relation to the draft mid-year assessment be considered and agreed.
• Authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation & Performance to make any consequential amendments to the draft mid-year assessment required to reflect the response to PRAP Scrutiny Committee recommendations (agreed under recommendation 2).
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1) Application 1
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: Council AGREED:
1.
To approve the audited Statement of Accounts 2023/24 – Cardiff Council and Cardiff Harbour Authority (Appendix 1);
2.
To approve the audited Statement of Accounts 2023/24 – Cardiff & Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund (Appendix 2);
3.
To approve the Annual Governance Statement 2023/24 (Appendix 3);
4.
To note the Audit of Accounts Reports (ISA 260) from Audit Wales on the Statement of Accounts of Cardiff Council, Cardiff Harbour Authority and Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund for the year ending 31 March 2024 (Appendices 4, 5 and 6);
5.
To approve the Cardiff Port Health Authority Annual Return 2023/24 (Appendix 7);
6.
To note the final Letters of Representation for Cardiff Council, Cardiff Harbour Authority and Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund included within Appendices 4, 5 and 6;
7.
To note that the following documents will be signed following the conclusion of the meeting:
Statement of Accounts for Cardiff Council – Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources;
Statement of Accounts for Cardiff Harbour Authority – Corporate Director Resources;
Statement of Accounts for Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund - Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources;
Annual Return of Cardiff Port Health Authority – Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources;
Annual Governance Statement – Leader of the Council and Chief Executive;
Audit Certificate for the Cardiff Council and Cardiff Harbour Authority – Appointed Auditor, Audit Wales;
Letter of Representation for Cardiff Council - Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources;
Letter of Representation for Cardiff Harbour Authority – Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources;
Letter of Representation for Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund - Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources.
RESOLVED:
1. That the report be noted;
2. That Members send any further questions on the Education and Lifelong Learning Directorate Control Environment report, relevant to the committee’s terms of reference, to the Audit Manager.
RESOLVED – That:
1. The contents of the Internal Audit and Investigation Team Progress Reports be noted;
2. The deferral of the 27 audits from the Audit Plan 2024/25, as highlighted in Appendix B, be approved.
RESOLVED: that the Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2024-25 (Appendix 1) be noted, prior to its submission to Governance and Audit Committee and Full Council in November 2024.
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 – 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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that he displayed conduct unbefitting of a licensed driver.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had taken a booking by the supermarket in St Mellons and waited there for the customer. Two people arrived, an old woman and a younger woman with her. He thought he only had one customer, and that the younger woman was helping her to the car. A minute or so into the journey the passenger said ‘where is my daughter?’, so he stopped at a petrol station to turn around. The passenger suddenly asked where her daughter was again and this confused the driver, so he called his operator. The passenger became panicked and angry and so he asked his operator if he could drop her back at the original spot and leave.
The driver refuted the suggestion in the witness’ statement that he had stopped to fill up his car, as well as the suggestion that he had spoken in an aggressive manner.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had experience working with older people who required extra assistance. He always got out of his car to help them get in, but in this case she was already being assisted.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that she and her mother were at the garden centre when she booked a taxi home for two people and received a text confirming this. The driver was not paying attention as they came up to the vehicle so she helped her mother into the car. She asked the driver to open the boot, at which point he shut the door and drove off, so she rang the operator and spoke to them. It took about 15 minutes for the taxi to return with her mother inside, who was quite shaken. The driver got out and came over, not to help her out but to tell her very loudly to get out of his vehicle, in what she felt was an aggressive way. Eventually another driver came along and they went home.
Regarding the driver’s statement that he had spoken to the passenger, the witness explained that her mother was profoundly deaf and couldn’t have conversations with people unless they were very close and looking directly at her. The booking had been clearly made for two people and her mother had told him to return her immediately. She also disputed the driver’s suggestion that her mother had been angry and aggressive, noting that she was 96 years old and 4’9”.
Members asked if there was any other conversation between the witness and the driver. She explained that she had just said ‘hello’ initially and then asked if he could open the boot.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for two weeks.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver smoked a cigarette whilst in his licensed vehicle and proceeded to drive and act in a manner not considered fit and proper.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been having a cigarette outside his vehicle while waiting for the customer to arrive. When the passenger got in, he smelt smoke and told him that he had a lung condition. The driver acknowledged his mistake and in hindsight should have moved further away from the vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that the driver had been smoking inside the vehicle, and that he had asked if the passenger minded if he continued. He challenged the driver on this as he knew it was illegal, and the driver threw it out of the window. The witness emphasised that he had weak lungs and was coughing throughout the journey, but needed to get home and kept quiet so the driver did not terminate the trip.
The driver turned up the music very loud, which the witness felt was intended to intimidate him, and exceeded the speed limit during the journey. When asked about his badges, he said he didn’t use them, which made the witness suspect that he was not driving legally.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver explained that he took his badges out of his car overnight because it had been broken into before. He had his badge on him in this instance but it might not have been in the window. He understood the requirements about displaying the badge.
The driver’s representative asked about an altercation with a group of people in another vehicle mentioned in the driver’s statement. The witness explained that while they were stopped at a red light, the passenger side window was wound down to get rid of the smell of smoke, and some young men nearby heard them arguing about it. He didn’t feel this was relevant or indicative of the whole journey so didn’t he include it in his own statement.
The driver’s representative acknowledged that he understood why the witness was upset at smelling smoke, and the driver would move further away from the vehicle in the future. He asked that Members show leniency in this instance, suggesting that the situation had been escalated by the witness. The driver had been licensed to drive taxis for 13 years and had never had a complaint of this nature before.
The witness disputed the suggestion that the driver had only been smoking outside of his vehicle, but emphasised that his attitude was the main reason for his complaint.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver declared he had 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the three offences, which he had incurred in 2022, 2023 and 2024 respectively. He accumulated heavy mileage each year, normally 40,000-50,000 miles, and his priority was customer safety and excellent customer service. He understood there was no excuse for exceeding the speed limit but had appealed one of these convictions as a 30mph sign was covered by trees, but this had been unsuccessful.
He assured Members that he was a safe driver who went above and beyond for his passengers. He had been a licensed taxi driver for nearly seven years now and had received no complaints in that time. It was his main source of income, and he would endeavour not to put himself or the licensing authority in this situation again.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that none of the offences had occurred while he had passengers in the vehicle.
Members discussed the delay between the last SP30 conviction in February and the driver notifying the authority in August, noting that he was obligated under the conditions of his licence to inform them of any offence as soon as it occurred. The driver responded that he had declared it upon renewing his licence, and apologised for failing to do so sooner.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver declared he had three SP30 motoring convictions and was pending a further two.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the convictions. He had worked as a taxi driver for many years and loved the job and being a part of the community. He supported his family on his single income and worked long hours to do so. He understood the responsibilities of being a taxi driver and the challenges of the job.
The driver’s representative updated Members on the status of the two pending convictions. The driver had received three points for one of them, meaning he now had twelve in total, and he had been ordered to take a speed awareness course for the other offence.
The Sub Committee queried whether he had received any kind of ban. The driver responded that he had paid the fines and had not had any notification of a ban, so he was still driving. He had been informed of the last set of points about three weeks ago and had a speed awareness course booked in October.
The Chair suggested that it was unusual to be offered a speed awareness course when a driver already had nine points, and noted that there was no evidence of whether he had been suspended or not. It was suggested that the driver be suspended until the licensing authority received evidence that the last two offences had been settled and the DVLA had not suspended him.
It was suggested that the matter be deferred to the next Sub Committee on 6th November. The driver’s representative noted that a month was a long time to wait when taxi driving was his main source of income. It was instead agreed that the driver would present the evidence to the licensing authority as soon as possible, while the authority would also check with the DVLA in the meantime.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended until the driver presents evidence to the licensing authority that the two recent convictions have been settled with no driving ban.
(5)
Application 5
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 License given that the driver declared he had two SP30 motoring convictions and one SP50 motoring conviction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t intend to make excuses, but did feel he was a fit and proper person to safely drive a taxi. Two of his speeding offences happened in the same place on Manor Way, after the speed limit there was reduced from 40mph to 30mph. On both occasions he was travelling to the hospital to visit his mother without passengers in the vehicle and was caught going at 36mph.
He admitted that this was wrong and had taken his punishment. He had taken this experience on board and was now an even more careful driver than before. He did a lot for his passengers and took public safety very seriously. He had a character reference from a funeral director whose clients he regularly drove around, and felt he was a good representative of the city of Cardiff.
Members asked why it took several months to inform the licensing authority of these convictions. The driver responded that he was aware of the obligation to notify the council, but the court process had finished in April and he had sent off his licence. After it came back, he notified the authority after a week or two, which he acknowledged he should have done sooner.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver declared he was disqualified from driving and had received a ban from the DVLA.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had a taxi licence since 2008 and as of the start of 2024 had not had any points on his licence. He had a drink and a meal with some friends one evening and gave one of them a lift home, not realising he was over the limit, and was pulled over. He was banned from driving for 15 months, which was reduced to 12 upon doing a course.
Before this ban had expired, he drove his car in an emergency, needing to pick up stock for the shop he ran, and was pulled over by the police for driving while disqualified. For this, he was given a nine month ban, fined and required to do community service.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that it was never safe to drink alcohol before driving, and this had been a huge mistake. He understood the severity of his crime and the impact it had on people. Driving while disqualified had also been a terrible mistake and he had faced the consequences of this.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
a.
to approve the amendment of the Members’ Schedule of Remuneration 2024–2025 with effect from 1st October 2024, as attached at Appendix A;
b.
to authorise the Monitoring Officer to update the Members’ Schedule of Remuneration in the Constitution;
c.
to delegate authority to the Head of Democratic Services to make any necessary amendments to the 2024-2025 Schedule from time to time during the municipal year in order to reflect any changes in membership of the Council, Cabinet or Committees or as a result of any Supplementary Reports issued by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales.
RESOLVED: that
1. the contents of the report and its appendices be noted, including the observations and any recommendations made by: (i) the Performance Panel (Appendix 3a); (ii) the Governance & Audit Committee (Appendix 4a) and (iii) the Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee (Appendix 5a);
2. Authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation & Performance, to make any consequential changes to the draft Annual Well-being Report 2023/24 arising from recommendation 1 above; and
3. the Annual Well-being Report 2023/24, be recommended including any agreed amendments under recommendation 2 above, to Council for approval.
4. Authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation & Performance, to put in place arrangements for a Panel Performance Assessment to take place in the 2025/26 performance year.