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:
(1) the report be noted;
(2) Committee to receive a briefing on how complaint information and feedback will be used for system and service development in the future.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received which stated that he became threatening and angry when challenged in respect of the metered fare being charged, and failed to provide his driver identification when requested.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was at the taxi rank by the castle when a passenger approached him and asked to be taken home. He asked if she had a preferred route and proceeded with the journey, and as they were about to go over the Fairoak roundabout she queried the reading on the meter. She said he was ripping her off but he explained it was the normal meter price and she could take it up with the council if she wanted.
The passenger asked him to stop so she could get out and refused to pay the fare. He saw another cab coming and waved him down to explain the situation. The passenger asked for his ID and he said she could take a picture of his plate number. He recorded a video on his phone but had lost it while backing up his device recently.
Members queried why he had refused to show identification to the passenger when she requested it. The driver suggested that she had been aggressive to him, and he didn’t want to leave his seat. He had reached behind instead to get his papers from the back seat because this included the meter certificate which showed it was functioning correctly.
The Sub Committee explored the discrepancy between the fare requested and what the witness normally expected to pay. The driver didn’t know why exactly it was higher than normal, as every meter was the same. He recalled that when she got out of the cab, he said she could just give him what she had, not necessarily the whole fare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness reiterated the details in her statement, a number of which contradicted the driver’s account. She suggested that the driver had not asked her about her preferred route, but she had asked to avoid Newport Road because it often took longer. As they stopped at the lights on Lake Road East, she noticed that the fare was higher than usual. She got taxis home a lot, frequently after midnight, and the fare was normally around £16. When she challenged this, the driver said that the council set the rates but clearly didn’t want to talk about it any further.
She added that when the driver reached into the back of the car she thought he was grabbing at her, which was distressing. He got out the meter certificate but she realised the meter was still running and by then had reached £21.70. She said she wouldn’t pay anything until he provided his name and badge number so she could make a complaint. She tried to get out of the vehicle to take a picture of the plate number but he locked the doors, and at one point claimed he didn’t know his registration number.
The driver then flagged down another taxi driver who spoke to both of them. The second driver agreed that the fare was higher than expected and suggested that she pay it before taking it up with the council. The driver had been aggressive and rude throughout, and she felt scared and unsafe.
Members discussed the witness’ account and asked whether she accepted the explanation that the doors locking could have been an automatic feature. She explained that she asked the driver to unlock the door but he didn’t. It was only when the second driver came back that the door was unlocked.
In response to questions from the driver’s representative, the witness stated that she couldn’t recall the starting amount on the meter when she got in the taxi. It was only when they got to the lake that she realised the fare was higher than normal. The Licensing Officer added that the council had retrospectively calculated a reasonable fare for the trip at the night-time rate to be about £17, though it might have been higher due to the bank holiday.
The driver’s representative asked whether the witness accepted that meters were checked by authorised council officials and could not be tampered with by the drivers. The witness did not agree, and suspected that it was either set to a higher rate or was already running when she got into the vehicle.
The driver’s representative suggested that the incident could be seen as a misunderstanding. The driver was just doing his job in getting her home, starting and stopping the meter accordingly, and it was not right that he was challenged about what he was required to charge. The driver then flagged down a third party to help defuse the situation.
The witness acknowledged the points made but still felt upset about the experience, and had not used a hackney carriage since. She emphasised that the driver’s conduct was unacceptable, since he had been aggressive and nasty and refused to provide his licence number.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received which stated that he displayed aggressive and intimidating behaviour by shouting and gesturing towards a cyclist using the regular bus lane.
The driver was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had been cycling on Newport Road, coming from Roath towards Bute Park. There was a cycleway near the prison but he didn’t join it, choosing instead to use the bus lane which he was entitled to do. He stopped at a red light, and as he pulled away again a taxi started honking at him. The driver overtook him close by and shouted and gestured for him to move over. This was very upsetting and intimidating. It had happened before with other drivers, some of whom had been physically aggressive towards him.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the witness.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared relevant convictions on his DBS certificate as part of the application to renew his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been driving along the bus lane on Westgate Street last November. A bus inspector flagged him down and came over, and they had an altercation which led to the driver being accused of racism. This went to court and he was convicted and fined. He couldn’t afford to appeal and paid the fine in instalments.
He added that he had driven taxis for more than 15 years and never had a complaint. It was an unfortunate incident but he had taken it on the chin and hoped to move on. He relied on his job to pay the rent and support his family, and would be willing to do the relevant BTEC course if it would help.
Members queried what exactly he was alleged to have said. The driver explained that it was allegedly a racial slur, but he disputed saying this. He acknowledged that he shouldn’t have gotten angry, and anything similar were to happen again he would just ignore it and go to the next job.
The driver’s representative reiterated that he had driven taxis for more than 15 years and had a good record with no recent issues. He had disputed the complainant’s version of events but couldn’t afford to challenge the conviction so had to accept the fine and everything that came with it. Outside of work, he was of good character and worked with charities and food banks. Taxi driving was his sole source of income, and it was of vital importance that he be able to keep his licence. He had also indicated his willingness to complete the relevant qualification in order to shore up his knowledge and ability.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for two weeks, and that the driver be required to complete the BTEC Certificate In Taxi & Private Hire Driver (Level 2) within three months.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had been convicted of offences resulting in him being disqualified from driving.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in 2021 he had taken a job on Cyncoed Road whilst driving for Uber. While driving on Newport Road, he saw a cyclist in the bus lane and passed him when the gap was sufficient. The traffic slowed down and the lane split into two, with his lane diverted slightly towards the middle of the road. The cyclist came up behind him, thinking that the taxi had cut him off, and kicked the car twice, swore at the driver and broke the mirror.
The driver added that he wanted to prosecute the cyclist for this damage so he pulled into the left on Colchester Avenue to stop him leaving the scene. As his vehicle stopped, the cyclist went into the front wing and hit his shoulder on the door. The ambulance and police were called, and the cyclist went to hospital while the driver was arrested. He was released with no charge that day but learned about a year later that criminal proceedings were underway, which led to him being disqualified from driving for two years.
He emphasised that he had not intended to do the cyclist any harm, only move across to stop him running off as he knew he wouldn’t have any registration. It was the worst mistake he had ever made, and he had lost years of earnings and a mortgage as a result.
He added that he had been a taxi driver for 34 years, and had done school runs for 17 of those. He had an excellent record and always went above and beyond for his passengers, and felt he was a good ambassador for the city of Cardiff. He missed doing the job a lot, as it was not only his source of income but also his social life. He didn’t feel he would be able to work anywhere else, and hoped he would be allowed to keep his badges.
Members asked what he would do differently if an incident like this were to happen again. The driver accepted that his reaction had made him the culprit, and in the future he would just ignore it and carry on with the next job. He stressed that what happened that day was out of character for him.
Members queried the details of the incident, noting that a news article about it differed in some respects. The driver maintained that this was an inaccurate report that got key details wrong.
Members asked how he felt about sharing the road with cyclists in general. The driver emphasised that he took his responsibilities both as a taxi driver and under the Highway Code very seriously, and he understood how dangerous a car could be when used improperly. He acknowledged that by not pulling over and calming down he had made a very serious error, but it would never happen again.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire licence be suspended until such a time that the driver produces a certificate of the SQA ‘Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver’ qualification.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction to consider.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged he had several convictions from his younger days, but he had come a long way since then and turned his life around, and did not pose any danger to the public.
Members noted that the guidance advised not issuing the licence in a case like this unless there were exceptional circumstances, and asked what these might be. The driver explained that his last conviction was seven years ago, and since then he had a clean record. He had been working consistently since then and had become a real part of the community who was always helping others out.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had recently received an endorsement on his licence due to defective tyres. He had bought a car which passed its MOT, and while driving it back to Cardiff was stopped for a bald tyre. He had received three points and a fine for this.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating he refused to take a journey from Cardiff train station to Penarth after allegedly saying he was available for hire.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that the driver in attendance at the meeting was not the one he had dealt with and submitted a complaint about.
RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating that he refused to take a passenger using the meter and requested £30 for a journey within the Cardiff boundary.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that the complaint related to an alleged incident on 3rd February 2024 which was the evening of the Wales v Scotland International rugby match. At 8.55 pm on the evening of 3rd February 2024 and the time of the alleged incident St Mary’s Street would have been very busy. The driver was not working but was present as he had pre-arranged to pick up his nephew as he knew he would have been struggling to get out the city after the rugby international match. There was evidence from the nephew that he had made arrangements with the driver to collect him and take him home.
He added that the driver did not speak to the witness and had no reason to speak to him as he was there only to take his nephew home. Further, if the driver had been working taking a fare to Pentwyn would have cost more than a typical Saturday night due to the level of congestion in the city. It was noted that the journey to Roath with his nephew took 45 minutes and Pentwyn would have taken double that time.
He suggested that perhaps the witness was confused as he had asked the driver five times how much it would cost to take him to Pentwyn. He also referred to the photograph submitted by the witness. He stated that there was no illuminated sign in the middle of the roof of the car with the word Taxi written on it as he was not working but waiting for his nephew.
The driver’s representative queried why the driver would refuse a fare if he was working because he would be paid more if journey took longer due the congestion in the city centre. He also added that the driver was not someone who has caused the council problems, always used the taxi meter and provided the correct questions when asked.
Summarising he said that the balance of probabilities would suggest that the incident did not happen. There were two statements to support the driver – his and his nephew’s, and the statement that the complainant had to repeat his request five times to the drive, and also the witness was not present. He suggested that the driver was a fit and proper person and that the allegation was not substantiated.
RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he took payment of £25 from a member of the public in a private hire vehicle without the fare being booked in advance, and then offered and took payment for a second un-booked fare with the same member of the public the following day.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the timeline in the case was crucial and referred to the fact that the allegation dated back to July 2023. The witness had stated he made a booking with the taxi company but the company had a record of him cancelling the booking at 12.03 am. The driver was not working that night which had been confirmed by the taxi company. The witness had suggested he had spoken to the driver and the driver had asked for confirmation that the name matched the booking.
The driver’s representative said that the original booking was cancelled and had not been received by the driver as it had been allocated to another driver – the implication being that it was the original driver who had the name and details from the taxi company.
The driver’s representative stated that the witness had been taken to their home address, and the driver had to wait a significant period before the witness was driven to his destination. The witness had been pleased with the charge of £25 and commended, who he believed was, the driver on the level of service provided.
However, a few hours later at 3.00 am the witness claimed to have seen the same person. He had gone from commending someone on a £25 fare to an argument around a £6.50 fare. The driver’s representative noted that this did not make sense. According to the witness statement he stated the fare was normally cost £6 to return home again and then claims he was told to exit the vehicle as he does not have the full fare.
The driver’s representative stated that the witness did not describe the driver, car, colour, make or registration details. He also did not contact the taxi company until 10 to 14 days after the alleged incident. He was then advised to contact the Council which was 6 months later in 2024.
He said that the driver was contacted for the first time eight months after the original allegation in July 2023 and asked whether he recalled something happening. It was noted that the driver would have made between 8,000 to 10,000 taxi journeys during that time and was adamant that he did not pick the witness up. The witness also referred to a BACS payment but the driver had never taken a BACS payment.
Responding to questions the driver’s representative clarified the booking process. He explained that when booking on the app or at the taxi base the passenger was asked for their name, pick up point and destination. The driver would then receive confirmation on an app and had the option of accepting or rejecting the booking. If they accept the fare, they would receive the pick-up and destination details and the name of person who had made the booking. Only the driver who accepted the booking would be able to view the booking. If the passenger had cancelled the booking what would be logged on system was that the booking was cancelled and the driver would no longer have access to that journey but it would remain on the company system.
To summarise, the driver’s representative stated that the driver disputed the complaint in two respects. Firstly, it was not him and secondly, in relation to the allegation itself it was not substantiated on its own merits as £25 was accepted for the first fare and then £6.50 was claimed by the witness to be an overcharge for the return journey. It was also noted that the witness was not present to clarify issues.
RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken.
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he declared he had a conviction for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.
The Sub Committee heard the case in the absence of the driver. The driver was contacted during the meeting by telephone to confirm his attendance. However, no response was received. The application had been scheduled to be heard at 11.30 am. To allow time for the driver to arrive the Sub Committee waited until 11.34 am before commencing the hearing.
The Sub Committee noted the circumstances and the driver’s conviction for the possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. Additional information had also been provided by the police. The driver had no previous complaints and had been driving since 2007, however the Sub Committee were mindful of the guidance on determining the suitability of applicants and licensees in the Hackney and Private Hire Trades and that a licence should not be granted unless at least 7 years had elapsed since the completion of any sentence.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be revoked as of 7.08.24
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had 6 penalty points on his licence, arising from two offences committed on 29th July 2022 for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks and driving otherwise than in accordance with a license. The applicant failed to declare these endorsements on his application for a grant of a licence and ticked the ‘No’ box when answering the question on the application form.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was a fit and proper person. He said his conviction had been a mistake. He had been living abroad and had been in possession of a driving licence since 2008. When he returned to the UK in July 2022 he had not known that his driving licence was not valid until he had been stopped by the police. When he contacted the DVLA he said they did not have an explanation for him as to why his licence was not valid.
When the driver attended court for the driving conviction, he informed the Sub Committee that he had been told he could drive with his international driving licence but could take his driving test again. He did so and passed within one month. He said he paid for insurance for the vehicle but it was not accepted as his driving licence was showing as not valid. The insurance company emailed him to say the payment was rejected and he confirmed he had not received an insurance policy document. The driver said he had held a full driving licence for the last 2 years and had not accumulated any points during those 2 years.
Responding to questions the driver informed the Sub Committee that he had not declared the points on his application form as he had not understood what the term ‘endorsement’ meant. He confirmed he now knew what the term meant.
He also confirmed that when he held his first UK driving licence he had been in possession of a card and photo and that he was aware it was valid from 2008 to 2018. He informed the Sub Committee that he had changed his address and was going to change his licence but was convicted before he had managed to do this. The driver confirmed he was aware of the seriousness of the offence as the police had taken his car and he had to obtain an insurance document to release it.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating that he refused to take a journey from Cardiff train station to Penarth after allegedly saying he was available for hire
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative asserted that the driver had not broken any rules and suggested he had had been singled out by this complaint. He was not registered with the ICO and was not legally allowed to store information about customers and their trips as he was self-employed.
The Chair noted that the allegation from the witness was that the driver was asked to take someone in his cab and said yes, but then changed his mind and refused the fare. He acknowledged that Penarth was out of the Cardiff area, but the witness’ contention was that this was not why it was refused
The driver’s representative suggested that the driver was not obligated to explain to a member of the public why he wasn’t able to take a fare. The driver added that the witness did not ask him whether he was booked, and just said ‘Penarth’ as his window was rolling down. He also suggested that it wasn’t a formal rank as it was only his taxi there.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that he was out with his family on a day out, and as they worked their way down the rank they were turned down by quite a few cabs when he said they needed to go to Penarth. A few of the drivers told them to ask the first cab on the rank, which he did. After he turned down the fare, another driver advised him that this was not allowed, and so he made a complaint. His daughter told him that it was like that every weekend when she tried to get to Penarth.
The driver reiterated that he had not heard anything from the witness other than ‘Penarth’, and would not have been able to get back in time for his next booked trip if he had accepted it. He did not have a record of it but regularly took passengers to Penarth and other destinations outside of town. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he emphasised that he had no objection at all to taking passengers anywhere they asked.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had complained about another driver too, and this driver had not been singled out.
The driver’s representative summarised that while there was an issue with some drivers cherry-picking jobs, this driver had made clear that he did not do that. He only turned this one down because he had a job booked already and wouldn’t have been able to get back in time. He had done nothing wrong legally and did not deserve to be punished.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he declared he was disqualified from driving and had received a driving ban from the DVLA.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that his offence had occurred when he was having a very bad day. He was going through a lot of stress and his wife had just filed divorce papers. He was working as a chef and finished late, and had drunk two pints. He undertook another vehicle while it was raining heavily and was pulled over. After that, he lost everything and didn’t have any other opportunities for work. He hoped that Members would give him another chance to get back on the road and earn a proper living.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was still working as a chef but was only able to do occasional part-time work as he did not have a car and it was hard to travel long distances. He relied on his wife and friends to give lifts but this was not always possible.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had made some silly mistakes but he wanted to feed his family and children. He stated he was a businessman and not aggressive
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had re-applied for a Private Hire Driver’s Licence as he had previously owned a takeaway shop which he had sold and wanted to do something comfortable and easy. He had previously been in possession of a Private Hire Driver’s Licence in Newport (6 months) and Cardiff (just under a year). He had stopped after 6 months in Newport as he did not like travelling. He had not renewed either licence.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with the Authority but was convicted for taking his daughter out of the county without the mother’s consent in 2019. He was also referred to committee in 2019 and subsequently had his licence revoked.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he first moved to Cardiff in 1994 and his daughter was born in 2012. He was then banned from the UK for 10 years and moved back to Romania. In 2014, he was accused of kidnapping his daughter. His wife moved to London and he was unable to go to his daughter’s school or doctors. His wife and daughter then moved back to Romania, and he had attended court on six occasions to try to gain custody of his daughter as she had returned from Romania with injuries.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee the driver explained that he had not seen his daughter for 4 or 5 years and she was now 12 years of age. He had received a prison sentence for taking his daughter out of the UK without her mother’s consent. Whilst in prison he was attacked. When he came out of prison he was not feeling well so he had handed in his badge. He informed the Sub Committee that he was now fit and well and wanted to come back to work as quickly as possible. He explained that it was just a family quarrel and there was no violence involved.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his DVLA licence. He was also referred to committee and subsequently had his licence revoked.
The driver explained that he had not committed any speeding offences whilst working as a taxi driver. He had been a delivery driver with his own shop and the police had caught him on camera speeding. He now had a clean driving licence. He stressed that he had never committed any crimes and had now learnt his lesson. For one and half years had had no employment, lost his licence and lost his shop. He informed the Sub Committee that he had a security job but that only provided him with 10 days’ work per month which was not enough and asked for another chance.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee the driver explained that the court had given him the chance to drive despite his points and said that if he made another mistake he would receive a 6 month ban. The police then stopped him for a worn tyre and he lost his licence for 6 months and his shop. He said that he had tried to use the train but the last one was at 10.00 pm and there were no busses. Sometimes he slept on the sofa which was hard. He explained that he had lost his licence before his taxi licence and had disclosed this information in his last application. The car with the worn tyre was his only car and the one he used as a taxi.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That:
(1) the Committee notes the Unaudited Draft Statements of Account 2023/24;
(2) the Committee notes that following the external audit, the Final Statements and the Audit of Accounts (ISA260) reports for 2023/24 will be reviewed by this Committee, prior to consideration by Council;
(3) The Head of Finance to provide the Committee with an update on the works to reinstate St Davids Hall into operation.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to:
1.
Approve the nomination to the SEWCJC Governance and Audit Sub-Committee as set out in the Amendment Sheet;
2.
Approve the nomination and appointment of a new non-executive director to the Board of Cardiff Bus as set out in the Amendment Sheet;
3.
Approve the company’s proposed appointment of Mrs Jen Doody to the Board of Cardiff Bus as an executive director;
4.
Approve the nomination of Councillor Garry Hunt for consideration and appointment by the company’s Board as the new Chair of Cardiff Bus.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to:
a.
Note the determinations of the IRPW in its Annual Report published in February 2024 attached as Appendix A;
b.
Note the Guidance for Principal Councils, Community and Town Councils, National Park Authorities, Fire and Rescue Authorities and Corporate Joint Committees in Wales – remuneration of members shown at Appendix B;
c..
Delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer to finalise the draft Members’ Schedule of Remuneration (Appendix C) to reflect the appointments made at the Annual Council;
d.
Delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer to update the Members’ Schedule of Remuneration in the Constitution and 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:
I. To note the outturn position for the financial year ended 31st March 2024.
II. To approve the Annual Return and authorised the Chair to sign the Annual Return on behalf of the Joint Committee, and its subsequent submission to Audit Wales to commence the 2023/24 audit.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with a different local authority and had the licence revoked. He also had a motoring conviction for CU80 (use of mobile phone while driving) which resulted in 6 penalty points.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was a hard worker who just wanted the best possible life for his children. He was a courteous and friendly driver who treated customers well and had experience driving for Uber before.
He had received the penalty points in 2021 for parking on a double yellow line. A police officer informed him he had committed an offence but then acted unprofessionally, which another police officer apologised for, so he didn’t realise he had actually received the points until he applied for a change of licence in Newport. Newport City Council then revoked his licence because of his failure to declare the points.
Members queried the history of complaints highlighted by Newport council. The driver acknowledged he had received some complaints while working for Uber but felt that this was because some customers would complain about anything. Since leaving Uber he had worked for Amazon but wanted to serve the public as a taxi driver again.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that the six points on his licence were made up of 3 points for parking on a double yellow line and 3 for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t feel this was a fair punishment and believed the police had fabricated their charges. He had not put in an official complaint because he didn’t have the money to go to court.
Members asked if the driver would be happy for his children to travel in a taxi driven by someone who had six points on his record. The driver responded that he would not.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident with the police officer provided by the driver. Members queried why he hadn’t shown the video to the authority until now. The driver responded that he hadn’t seen the point, and added that he had given it to Newport council at the time of his hearing.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that information was received by the Licensing Authority alleging suspected drug misuse that was a cause for concern with Adult and Children’s Services. Due to the nature of his role as a taxi driver and the high likelihood of transporting vulnerable passengers, these concerns were shared with the licensing authority, including a DNA test that was requested by the Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the DNA test stemmed from a family matter where he had voluntarily put himself forward to be tested as a possible carer for a child. He was shocked when he saw the results, having never used drugs in his life, and disputed it immediately with the testing company, his solicitor and the local authority. He had managed to arrange a new test through the local authority the day before the hearing and believed the results would show he had not taken drugs at any point in the last 12 months.
He added that he was dependent on the school run for his livelihood, as it was about 80% of his income. He had driven schoolchildren and children with special needs around for more than six years and loved it. He had no support from Universal Credit as he was self-employed, and was only just about keeping his cab running to pay the bills. This experience had turned his life upside down and been very damaging. He wanted to clear his name and get back to working the school runs.
Members asked about the time period the new test would cover, and when the results would be available. The driver confirmed that it would cover the last 12 months, so that it included the time of the original test and could clear his name properly, and the results would take up to two weeks.
The Sub Committee discussed the possibility of deferring the case until the results of the new test were available. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the next scheduled date was 5th June, and the driver would remain suspended from the school contract and able to drive his taxi in the meantime.
RESOLVED – that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee
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 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.
Audit Wales Recommendations Update
Members received a presentation after which the Chairperson invited questions and comments from Members.
Members asked if they were getting the right information and the complete update as the presentation did not seem to fulfil the recommendation requirements. Officers explained that this was an overview, and that full and complete information will be provided to a future Committee meeting.
Members noted that the presentation included figures from six months ago and asked if there were updated figures to share with the Committee. Officers explained that there were no updated figures as yet, they will report back to Committee as soon as they can.
Members were disappointed that the presentation did not address the progress on all Audit Wales recommendations and were assured that a full report on the options appraisals would be brough back to Committee.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was aggressive, made rude gestures and drove his vehicle in a way as to cause concern.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that the parking layout outside Heath Hospital had recently changed, and this had caused some confusion for the public. As taxi drivers they often needed to explain to people where they could park and where they might get a ticket. People were normally very understanding and grateful for the advice but in this case the people he spoke to got aggressive and told him to go away. He was only trying to help but the way they responded made him feel terrible.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that her recollection of events was very different. She and her son were picking up her husband after major surgery, and her son dropped her off at the entrance before driving off and coming back to pick them up. Her son made sure to go to the designated pick-up point, which was clearly signposted. As he pulled up, the taxi driver got out of his car and started shouting that they couldn’t park there. Her son calmly responded that they would only be 30 seconds, but the driver continued shouting and put his middle finger up at them. He then reversed his car very close to theirs in order to make it difficult for her son to pull out. She wound the window down and said she was going to report him, and he said ‘go ahead’.
The driver suggested that the witness had parked in the taxi rank and he was telling them they couldn’t park there. The witness insisted that they had not parked in the taxi rank at any point, and had followed the signs instead.
The driver added that his vehicle had a parking sensor and camera so he would not have reversed right up against the complainant’s car as they claimed. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he confirmed that the camera did not record video footage.
Members queried how the parking system at the hospital worked, which the Licensing Officer clarified was not regulated in the normal way as the taxi rank was not designated by Highways. Instead, there was a private agreement for taxis to be allowed to use certain bays, with a private company issuing tickets when people contravened the signs. It was a notoriously busy area which used a one-way loop to prevent cars pulling into the A&E bays.
The Sub Committee discussed the contrasting stories in detail and highlighted the need for taxi drivers operating at a hospital to be especially empathetic and patient with the public, even if they sincerely felt they were doing something wrong.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver had notified the authority he had been convicted of a motoring offence CU80 (use of a mobile device while driving).
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated he was sitting in stationary traffic with the handbrake on when he took a moment to plug the charging cable into his phone. He didn’t realise that there was a policeman next to him who informed him that he had committed an offence. He had been driving for more than 20 years and never had a single point on his licence before this, and had learnt his lesson and would be much more careful in the future.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he hadn’t appealed the penalty because he accepted that he had touched his phone. He didn’t see the point in taking it to court because he had done what he was accused of, and he declared the offence to the council as soon as possible. He added that he had already been punished further for his actions in addition to the initial fine, because his insurance had gone up significantly.
The driver’s representative added that while the offence of using a mobile device while driving was a serious one, his vehicle was stationary at the time and he didn’t have any passengers, meaning that he wasn’t actually causing any risk to other road users. However, it was an offence, and he had accepted his punishment. The representative suggested that the driver had been punished enough already, and that his spotless prior record and clear remorse should be taken into account. He was an honest and reliable driver who would never make a mistake like this again.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver reported to the licensing office that he had his DVLA licence revoked due to accumulating speeding points over a short duration of time, and that his licence was within 2 years from first grant. It was disposed of that he would need to reapply and complete his theory and practical tests again, which he had done.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that he had received 3 points on three consecutive days in July 2023 at the exact same place on Western Avenue. He hadn’t realised that the speed limit had changed from 40 to 30, and the clocked speeds (37mph, 38mph and 38mph) indicated that he genuinely believed he was under the limit. He was a very good and reliable driver who had never had any issues before or since.
The representative added that the driver had lived a difficult life and had to work very hard to get where he was today, and his income was vital to his family and to get both of his children through university. He was certainly a fit and proper person to drive a taxi, and he just wanted to support himself and his family. He accepted that having 9 points on his licence was a serious thing, and would be particularly observant of speed limit changes in the future.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a conviction contrary to the guidance.
The driver was not in attendance so the application was deferred.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the driver previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted of causing injury whilst dangerous driving. The driver had not held a relevant licence with the authority since this application.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was convicted for dangerous driving in 2013, after an accident which he deeply regretted. He had never had an accident before this and he hadn’t since. He went to jail for it and served his time but still lived with it today.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s colleague gave a character reference. He explained that the driver had been associated with the taxi industry for a very long time, and a long time had passed since his offence. He had seen how he behaved with other drivers, passing on knowledge and experience to students coming through, and transporting children as a contractor for the local authority. He had proved he was a fit and proper person, and there was no value in continually punishing people for the same thing. He was not the same person he was 11 years ago, he now had a family and wanted to get his licence back.
The Sub Committee queried a recent offence on the driver’s DVLA licence history, where he had received 6 penalty points for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. The driver clarified that at this time he was renting out more than 400 cars, and this particular one was being driven in Hampshire. His business was in difficulty at the time and he wasn’t able to access the building where the letters arrived regarding this offence. He wasn’t the driver of the vehicle but as the director of the company he was responsible for it.
RESOLVED – that the application be refused.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that a motoring conviction had been declared on the application. The offence was IN10, using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the offence happened in November 2022. Immediately prior to that, he had been out of the country due to a family emergency. There weren’t enough funds in his account for the direct debit for his insurance to go through so it was cancelled, but he didn’t receive any notification of this. He was then pulled over by police (in his own car rather than in a private hire vehicle), fined £400 and given seven points on his licence. He added that he was currently licensed by Newport City Council, who were aware of the offence and had recently renewed his licence.
RESOLVED – that the application be granted.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to:
1.
Approve the audited Statement of Accounts 2022/23 – Cardiff Council and Cardiff Harbour Authority (Appendix 1);
2.
Approve the Annual Governance Statement 2022/23 (Appendix 2);
3.
Note the Audit of Accounts Reports (ISA 260) from Audit Wales on the Statement of Accounts of Cardiff Council and Cardiff Harbour Authority for the year ending 31 March 2023 (Appendices 3 and 4);
4.
Approve the Cardiff Port Health Authority Annual Return 2022/23 (Appendix 5);
5.
Note the final Letters of Representation for Cardiff Council and Cardiff Harbour Authority included within Appendices 3 and 4;
6.
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;
· 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.
RESOLVED – That:
(1) the Committee noted the Audit Strategy;
(2) the Committee approve the Internal Audit Charter 2024/25 (including the Governance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference 2024/25, ahead of a request for approval by Council);
(3) the Committee approve the Internal Audit Plan, 2024/25
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to:
1.
Approve the draft Corporate Plan 2024-27;
2.
Delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any minor amendments as necessary to the Corporate Plan 2024-27 following consideration by the Council on 7 March 2024 and prior to publication by 1 April 2024.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License following a mystery shopper operation which resulted in the driver failing to use the meter and charging more than the legal fare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he wasn’t able to recall the incident in question but was extremely sorry, and assured Members that it would never happen again.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that he had taken part in a joint operation alongside the licensing department in his role as a special constable, operating in plain clothes alongside a police support volunteer. They had undertaken test purchases to check the compliance of private hire and hackney carriage vehicles throughout the evening. Late in the evening, they approached the cab in question as it was plying for hire on Albert Street and requested a journey to the Tramshed. The driver requested £10 up front, which they paid. The meter was not used at any point during the journey and the driver made no attempt to give them any change.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not sure whether he had used the meter, but he understood that he was supposed to. It might have been broken but he didn’t remember.
Members asked how often the driver asked for a fare up front. He responded that it depended on the customer and the journey, but he would generally do it at the end.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days, and that the driver be required to undertake the relevant SQA qualification (Level 2 Certificate Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver) at his own cost.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License following a mystery shopper operation which resulted in the driver failing to use the meter and charging more than the legal fare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he had asked for payment up front before taking two passengers from near the castle to an address in Cathays. He had asked for this because it was common on a Saturday evening for passengers to do a runner. He also did not have a card reader in his cab and had had problems before with people who weren’t able to pay at the end of the journey.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the meter had been running throughout the journey, and had calculated a fare of £7.10. He had tried to give the passengers their £2.90 change at the end but they left before he was able to.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that he had taken part in a joint operation alongside the licensing department in his role as a special constable, operating in plain clothes alongside a police support volunteer. They had undertaken test purchases to check the compliance of private hire and hackney carriage vehicles throughout the evening. This particular journey was from Castle Street to the Blackweir Tavern, and the driver asked for £10 up front which they paid.
The witness added that he had an unobstructed view of the meter throughout the journey, and while it was switched on it was not recording a fare. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he confirmed that the driver had not said anything about it being broken, and neither he nor the other passenger had requested that it be switched on.
Members asked the driver if he regularly charged passengers up front. The driver responded that he did on the weekend, as this was when people doing a runner was most common. Members asked whether he had told the passenger up front that he would give him change at the end, which he confirmed he did not.
Members asked the witness if he had noticed the driver trying to give him the £2.90 change. The witness responded that he had not noticed this, and added that they made sure within the test purchasing process to give the driver every opportunity to do this. It was not intended to trip drivers up, just to check compliance.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 14 days.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint alleging rudeness and swearing at a passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had arrived at the main entrance of Heath Hospital to pick up a pre-booked fare. The passenger was in a wheelchair and had some difficulty getting into the car, so he helped her get in and folded up her wheelchair to put in the boot. She became stressed and shouted at him. It was a frustrating situation as cars were waiting behind them and being very impatient. The passenger said she was going to make a complaint because he had been rude to her. After paying the fare, she said that he wasn’t fit for the job and swore at him before leaving.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he regularly picked up passengers from Heath Hospital, and many of them were disabled.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed that she had sworn at the driver. She did not swear other than when she was giving her explanation of what had happened to Dragon Taxis. The driver insisted that he had not sworn at her either.
The witness added that she was very tired at the time and had needed more help than usual to get into the car. She understood that it was a stressful situation but emphasised that she did not raise her voice or shout. She got the impression that he didn’t want to help her despite taking the fare. He swore and complained constantly, so she told him he wasn’t fit to be a taxi driver. It was a horrible experience and she felt threatened as she was unable to leave the car with her wheelchair in the boot.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness confirmed that she regularly used taxis, including Dragon ones. She normally asked for a wheelchair accessible vehicle but they were few and far between, and her chair folder, so she often used regular ones.
The driver asserted that when he first opened the door for the passenger, she shouted at him to get her chair before he had a chance to do so, and that she argued and swore throughout the journey. The witness denied that she had used bad language.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint alleging attempted overcharging.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he and other drivers regularly asked for money up front late at night at the weekend. He accepted that he had asked the passengers for money up front but stressed that he had turned the meter on and intended to give them their change at the end.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses stated that they approached the taxi on Castle Street in the early hours and asked to go to an address in Gabalfa and then on to Whitchurch. The driver asked them for £30 up front, which they felt was excessive. They asked him to put the meter on but he said it was broken.
The witnesses added that they did this journey regularly and the fare would normally be significantly less than £30, and they were aware that drivers were required to use the meter, so they challenged him on this. They did not get in the cab and instead went to the next driver, who agreed to take them on the meter straight away. Members queried how much they usually paid, which the witnesses estimated was between £12 and £14.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he knew he should not be driving if his meter was broken. He added that his meter was not broken and disputed that he had told the passengers that it was. A licensing officer had checked his meter the next day and found it to be working.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that in his experience, all drivers asked for money up front after a certain time of night as this was the only way to stop passengers running off without paying. Members emphasised that his job was to take passengers with the meter on, and that the council’s regulations did not permit taxi drivers to charge up front for fares starting and ending within Cardiff.
The Licensing Officer clarified that drivers were allowed to ask for a reasonable deposit, but this should not be more than half of the total fare. The £30 allegedly requested up front in this case was far in excess of the value of the journey.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 14 days.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been convicted of 3 motoring offences amounting to 9 penalty points.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver highlighted that he had declared the 9 points at the earliest possible moment rather than waiting until the renewal date. He explained how each of the offences had occurred and stressed that he now drove much more carefully as a result.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been convicted of an offence which resulted in a prison sentence.
The driver was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s solicitor stated that he was unable to attend as he was serving a custodial sentence. He was not able to advance any further information on behalf of the driver.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire driver’s licence be revoked.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a driver’s application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that he had a conviction contrary to the guidance.
In the absence of the applicant, the item was deferred.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that upon renewal of his licence there was an issue with the DBS process. Following a committee hearing in January where the initial case was discussed, the driver was given a month’s suspension in order to complete the new DBS process, and was told that failure to provide the certificate would result in the case being brought back to committee. The driver also failed to return his badges during the time period required.
The driver was not in attendance. The Licensing Officer explained that the driver had asked for more time to provide the DBS, and suggested that the committee extend the suspension imposed at the January meeting until he did so.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for one month.
RESOLVED that:
1. the draft Corporate Plan 2024-27 (Appendix A), subject to any amendments authorised under recommendation 3, be approved for consideration by Council on 7 March 2024;
2. the response to any recommendations made by any of the Scrutiny Committees (Appendix C) in relation to the draft Corporate Plan 2024-27be considered and agreed;
3. authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any consequential amendments to the draft Corporate Plan 2024-27 required to reflect the response to Scrutiny Committee recommendations (agreed under recommendation 2), prior to consideration by Council on 7 March 2024;
4. Council be recommended to delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any minor amendments as necessary to the Corporate Plan 2024-27 following consideration by the Council on 7 March 2024 and prior to publication by 1 April 2024.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.