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).
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Members conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
RESOLVED:
That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
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 Private Hire Operator’s License given that one of the directors had been prosecuted by the local authority for his involvement in a case that resulted in an unlicensed driver undertaking a journey in a private hire vehicle for a school transport service.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that his former business partner had given a vehicle to an unlicensed driver without consulting him and stopped paying insurance, and this was what led to the prosecution. He highlighted that he held a clean operator’s licence in the Vale of Glamorgan and had driven taxis for more than 20 years without any issues.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant confirmed that he had an operator’s licence in the Vale of Glamorgan and was seeking a Cardiff one too so he could seek contracts for school and airport runs in the city. At the moment the company could only use drivers licensed in the Vale.
The Sub Committee asked how he would ensure that the previous issue with the unlicensed driver would not happen again. The applicant assured them that he would have a safeguarding system in place, with each vehicle and driver registered internally. He owned the vehicles himself and would be responsible for insuring them.
RESOLVED – application 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 Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging the refusal of a fare and questioning driver conduct.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not recognise the details in the witnesses’ statements, as he only ever drove with a meter. He did not recall the incident in question and did not recognise the witnesses.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he would have been working in his taxi at the time of the incident and that the badge number the witnesses had reported was his. Nobody else had access to his vehicle or badge, so the wrong number might have been written down.
The Sub Committee queried a previous complaint against the driver alleging refusal of a fare. The driver recalled that he only ever refused a fare when the passenger was particularly drunk or aggressive.
The witnesses addressed the Sub Committee, stating that they were going to a show at the Millennium Centre and got into a taxi on St Mary’s Street, which normally cost £8-£9, but the driver asked them for £16.50. They settled on £10 which was still above the usual fare for this journey. The witnesses noted down the badge number and contacted the local authority. They were certain that it was the same driver.
The witnesses did not recall seeing a meter in the vehicle but had not queried this at the time. They suggested that if the fare had been legitimate and the meter running, the driver would have just shown it to them when they challenged the fare. The Sub Committee discussed where the meter would normally be in a taxi, and heard that in Cardiff it was generally attached to the dashboard above the radio but could also be attached to the rear-view mirror. The driver confirmed that his meter was attached to the rear-view mirror, and added that if a passenger ever asked where the meter was then he was obligated to show it to them.
In response to questions from the driver’s representative, the witnesses stated that they had made a note of the badge number as the taxi was driving off. They added that the vehicle was a black and white Prius, and the driver confirmed that he drove one of these. The driver’s representative suggested that this was a common vehicle for taxis in Cardiff, and the witnesses may have confused it with another one with a similar badge number.
RESOLVED – suspended for 7 days
(3)
Application 3
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 following a complaint received alleging dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour, including making rude and abusive hand gestures.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver highlighted his clean record. He had driven taxis for many years and conducted school transport for special needs children for 14 years. He did not recall the incident itself but strongly refuted the allegation that he had made offensive gestures.
The driver added that he was unaware that the complainants had followed him into the car park afterwards, and suggested that this indicated they were hoping to have an altercation. As a taxi driver he understood that he had to negotiate a number of potentially stressful situations every day and maintain professionalism. He suggested that the complainants were not qualified to judge what constituted good driving.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses stated that the taxi had cut across them on Cogan Spur without indicating and nearly caused an accident, before braking hard without warning. The sudden stop caused one of the witnesses’ back pain to get worse. The witnesses contested the driver’s claim that he did not make any gestures towards them, and emphasised that they were not following him around the car park, but rather looking for a disabled bay which could be difficult to find when it was busy.
The witnesses stressed that taxi drivers were meant to set an example, as they were representing Cardiff Council and had the logo on the back of their vehicle. One of the witnesses added that he was a former driving instructor qualified to Grade 6 and also a former Special Constable, so he understood the definition of dangerous driving. He had known the driver personally for many years and would not have made this complaint unless he felt that it was very serious. The incident had been entirely unnecessary and put people in danger.
RESOLVED – written warning
(4)
Application 4
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 following a complaint received alleging the refusal of a fare and questioning driver conduct.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that a customer had entered his taxi upon leaving the Motorpoint Arena at about 11pm and asked to go to an address in Gwaelod Y Garth. He put in the wrong postcode by mistake and thought the destination was outside Cardiff, so he suggested a fare of £50. He then realised his error and tried to let the customer know but they had already left and got into another taxi.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had misheard the address as CF35 when he asked the passenger where they wanted to go. The actual postcode in Gwaelod Y Garth was CF15. The CF35 address was 24 miles away so he estimated that this would cost about £50, going by his usual £2 per mile price for trips out of Cardiff.
The Licensing Officer confirmed that while any in-district fare had to be calculated using the meter, there was no standard procedure for calculating fares outside of Cardiff as long as the fare was agreed with the customer before the journey began.
RESOLVED – written warning
(5)
Application 5
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 upon renewal of his licence his DBS returned a recent conviction from August 2022.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he had been convicted of domestic violence in 2022 and had since undertaken all of the community service and rehabilitation programs required by the court. He had been a taxi driver for more than a decade and had a very high Uber rating. He hoped he could prove to the Sub Committee that he was a professional and reliable individual who could be trusted to drive a taxi. He was trying to be a positive role model for his son and had learned a lot from the rehabilitation program.
The driver’s representative added that the driver had intended to appeal the conviction but had been unable to do so for financial reasons. He had been licensed in Cardiff for 15 years with an exemplary record, had participated in a rehabilitation course and had declared his conviction to the licensing authority at the earliest opportunity. He had no other source of income and was a single parent, so he depended on his license for his livelihood.
RESOLVED – license revoked
Application 6
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 he disclosed a conviction for plying for hire without a licence to do so, and received 8 points on his licence for driving without insurance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been driving taxis for 23 years and otherwise had a clean record. He had always driven a hackney carriage but had taken it to the garage the day before and was driving a private hire vehicle instead. While driving along Mill Lane, he saw two young women who did not seem to be getting picked up by anyone else, and he didn’t want to leave them on their own.
As they got in, he realised that he was in the wrong vehicle, but he took them to their destination anyway. He accepted that this was an error and apologised to the Sub Committee. This was the first mistake he had made in a long career and it would not happen again.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he accepted that he took them to their destination despite knowing that he shouldn’t. He suggested that he thought they might cause trouble if he asked them to leave. He confirmed that he understood the consequences of taking them as he did not have the correct insurance for a trip that wasn’t pre-booked.
The Licensing Officer clarified that licensed drivers in Cardiff were dual-badge, meaning that they could drive both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, and it was the vehicles themselves where the insurance varied. The insurance depended on the trip being pre-booked, and if it wasn’t pre-booked then it wasn’t insured. It was an offence to ply for hire without the required insurance.
The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee, asking the panel to consider the driver’s length of service and his spotless record. He had been a fit and proper person to drive a taxi for many years and this was a serious lapse of judgement which would never happen again. The representative added that the driver had already been punished for the offence with fines and points on his license.
RESOLVED – 28 day suspension
RESOLVED –
· That the report be noted.
· Audit Wales to establish whether the inequalities theme in their forward work programme includes work on digital inclusion and to report back to the Committee.
RESOLVED: that
1. the Participation Strategy 2023-27 be approved;
2. it be noted that no changes are to be made to the approved Petition Scheme, which is to be reviewed again in 2025/26;
3. The Constitution Guide be approved and the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make any minor amendments which may be required from time to time; and
4. authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Cabinet Members for Tackling Poverty, Equality & Public Health, to make any consequential amendments to the draft Participation Strategy 2023-27 following any recommendations made by the Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee, together with any other minor amendments, as necessary, prior to publication.
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 had been convicted of an offence of possession of a Class C Controlled Drug in 2019 and failing to surrender to bail in 2001.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he had a conviction for driving while drunk and had been banned from driving twice around 20 years ago. After that, a good friend advised him to stop drinking entirely, which he did. He didn’t mention this on the application because of the 10 year guidance, he didn’t think it would be considered relevant.
He added that the second matter, concerning possession of a class C drug, happened after he went to a wedding where he and his friends took khat before collecting what was left in a bag at the end and putting in his car. A few days later, the police searched the car, found the bag and gave him a caution for possession.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he hadn’t declared his caution on his application because he didn’t think he needed to, which was a mistake. The Sub Committee noted that the question on the application was very clear about the need to declare cautions.
The Sub Committee also sought to clarify that he understood it would not be acceptable to have drugs in the work environment even if someone else put them there. The applicant confirmed that he understood this.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
(2)
Application 2
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 been convicted of an offence for Common Assault on 15th January 2016 and also declared an IN10 giving 6 points on his DVLA Licence in May 2022.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that his conviction for common assault was due to poor judgement as a young man, when he had reacted badly to a difficult situation. As for the six points, he was using his father’s car while working as a food delivery driver and his father told him he was on his insurance, but this was not true. He did have food delivery insurance but this had not been accepted as a replacement. He was sorry for his mistakes and emphasised that it would not happen again.
The applicant’s friend spoke on his behalf, explaining that they were from the same city and had been friends since they were children. He had never known him to react like that in any situation before or since. He used to employ the applicant as a driver at his company and found him to be a model worker who never had any complaints.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant clarified that he had assaulted his partner. They had been together for more than ten years now and had two children. He confirmed that he had not used any support services such as counselling since his conviction.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
(3)
Application 3
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.
In the absence of the driver, the Licensing Officer clarified that this hearing was solely about the lack of a DBS certificate rather than what might be on it. He had just spoken to the driver, who confirmed that he had received the DBS, but as the licensing authority they had not yet received it.
The Committee suggested suspending the driver until he produced the DBS. The Legal Officer clarified that they had to specify a time period after which it could come back to committee, rather than leaving it open-ended.
The Committee agreed that a month’s suspension was appropriate. The Legal Officer added that the suspension could be lifted early if the driver provided a clear DBS before this time had elapsed.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for one month.
(4)
Application 4
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 a common law notification from South Wales Police was submitted in relation to an incident which stated that the driver was arrested for assaulting a person in 2023, thereby occasioning them actual bodily harm.
The driver’s wife addressed the Sub Committee, stating that she was the person he had been arrested for assaulting. She explained that the time leading up to the incident had been very stressful as they were moving house and had an autistic son, who that morning had nearly been hit by a car. She and her husband had to drive to the recycling centre with her following, but she got lost and became frustrated when he wouldn’t reply to her calls. When they got to the centre, they argued and he swore at her, then she hit him and he hit her back.
Someone else saw this and reported her husband for assault. She had tried to explain that she was fine to this person but suggested that the report may have been racially motivated because they were Muslim. She and her husband had been married for 18 years and known each other for 22, and had three children together, and he had never done anything like that before or since. Her husband apologised to her straight away but the police came around that night anyway because it had been reported as an assault.
The Sub Committee noted that driving a taxi could be a stressful job, and asked how he would deal with situations where passengers were impolite, drunk or angry. The driver responded that he would just ignore them, as he was an experienced driver who had been licenced in London before as well and had experienced violent passengers in the past.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver’s wife confirmed that they had not complained to the police about what they felt could have been a racially motivated report by the witness. The driver also confirmed that after the incident took place, the police took him to the station, gave him a caution and then released him.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 had been convicted of an offence of possession with intent to supply class A in 2018.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was truly remorseful about his previous behaviour, and there were no excuses for having been stupid and naïve. He was now aged 27 and had truly grown up and rehabilitated. Life had been difficult, and it had been hard to find decent and sustainable work. He had never been in any trouble before 2018 but fell in with people who exploited his naivety.
Since his conviction, he had had no further trouble with the legal system and tried to be the best possible citizen. He regularly attended his local mosque and had completed his SQA level 2. He wanted to show that he was a changed man who was committed to being a taxi driver. He posed no danger to the public and could conduct his duties in a professional manner. He had made a horrendous error in the past but did not want to be punished forever for the behaviour of someone who no longer existed.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the 6 points on his licence were from speeding offences in the last couple of years while working in Magor, and he wouldn’t do anything like that now.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence 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 the applicant had convictions on his DBS.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he had done everything possible to show that he could be trusted to drive a taxi, and understood the responsibilities of the role.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver accepted he had been to prison but believed he was innocent of the offences listed on his DBS, which included the possession of a class B drug and improperly obtaining another’s identity. He stated that he was not that type of person, and had not declared them on his application because they were a very long time ago. The Sub Committee noted that the most recent offence was in 2015.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
RESOLVED: that
1. 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 2023/24, and the actions being taken to ensure the effective delivery of the Corporate Plan 2023-26 be noted.
2. the response to any recommendations made by the Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee (PRAP) (Appendix C) in relation to the draft Mid-Year Assessment be considered and agreed.
3. 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
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he was driving on the 7th May at about 11:30pm and was flagged down by two gentlemen from the other side of the road. They crossed the road, entered the taxi and started videoing him. He didn’t realise they had an assistance dog so he said he couldn’t take it. He stopped a police officer and explained the situation, and the passengers explained that it was a guide dog so he agreed to take them.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver explained that he had not realised it was an assistance dog until the police explained after a few minutes. He had never had a guide dog in his taxi before and did not recognise it at first, but he had no issue with taking an animal.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, explaining that he had been on the opposite side of the road when his partner flagged down the taxi, and they often had to do this because otherwise taxis wouldn’t pick them up. He added that they had explained the requirement to take the assistance dog to the police since they didn’t seem to know it.
The driver apologised for the confusion and inconvenience and suggested that being recorded had made the situation more stressful. The complainant asked whether the driver had received training on his legal obligations, and added that the guide dog’s harness clearly showed that it was an assistance animal. They suggested that if the driver was unable to see they had a guide dog, then he was not fit to drive a taxi.
RESOLVED – 4 days’ suspension and a written warning
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he had just dropped off a passenger and was feeling tired very late in the evening, so he was not looking for a long fare. The complainant knocked on his window and asked to go to St Donat’s, which he said was too far away. He emphasised that he had not refused to take their assistance dog but was very tired and wanted to go home.
The complainant asked why the driver was still on the rank if he was very tired. He also clarified that he had told the driver St Donat’s Road, which was much closer than St Donat’s. The issue started as soon as the driver saw the dog. The driver of the taxi behind had agreed with them that the situation was out of order.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, stating that the three of them had approached the taxi with the dog and asked to go to St Donat’s Road, to which the driver locked the door. He didn’t say that he was too tired, just that he didn’t want to take the fare.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver explained that he had misunderstood their destination as being far out of town, and he was too tired for a long journey, having been working since 2pm. He also clarified that he had only been on the rank for two or three minutes before the incident. After he didn’t take the complainants, he went straight home.
The driver added that he had no issue with taking dogs in his taxi, having worked in the trade for more than a decade. Members noted that the video showed the driver saying ‘no dog’ after being told it was a guide dog. The driver suggested that he had not heard that it was a guide dog, and only turned them down because of his tiredness and his misunderstanding of the destination. The complainant acknowledged that the driver was tired but suggested he should not have been on the rank if he was not willing to take a fare. The driver responded that the official rank was on the other side of the road.
RESOLVED – 7 days’ suspension and a written warning
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he was dispatched to a job by Dragon Taxis and didn’t know who he was picking up. The dog jumped in at the same time as the customers, and he didn’t realise it was an assistance animal so he said ‘no dog’. He was caught off guard and got out of his cab, at which point the customers started recording him. Once he got out of the cab he was able to calm down and spoke to the customers, and he agreed with them about the requirement to take the dog. He put the meter on and took them home as requested, and was sorry about the inconvenience.
The complainant noted that he was not required to inform the taxi driver in advance that he had a guide dog, and asked whether the job would have been accepted if he had known. The driver responded that he would have accepted it, he had been driving for 15 years and had no problem with taking animals but just preferred to know in advance.
The complainant appreciated the driver’s apology but suggested that he should not have needed to explain the situation for so long before being taken home. It was a constant battle with taxi drivers in Cardiff and an everyday occurrence which the council could do a lot more to tackle.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver clarified that he hadn’t realised it was a guide dog at first. He had panicked because of the way the dog entered the car and the customers’ tone.
The complainants suggested that they did not feel the driver should lose his licence, but that he needed some training. The Chair noted that the driver had already received disability and equality training as part of his BTEC qualification, and the video showed that he understood the legal requirements.
The driver’s representative added that the driver’s usually high standards had briefly slipped, and that he had apologised for any offence caused and assured them it would not happen again. The driver had been taken aback at first by the dog but knew his responsibilities and carried out the journey as requested. He added that the driver had not worked for Dragon Taxis since then.
RESOLVED – written warning
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED – That
(1) the report be noted
(2) the proposed in-year amendment, to add an assurance audit engagement of ‘building repairs and maintenance’ to the Audit Plan be approved.
RESOLVED:
a.
To note the contents of the report and the Statutory and Non Statutory Guidance for Principal Councils in Wales attached at Appendix A.
b.
To note the inclusion of the following topics on the Democratic Services Committee’s forward work programme:
-
The development of a Research Support and Services for Councillors Protocol
-
Consideration and development of the Annual Review process.
c.
To note that the development of the criteria for the Councillor Calls for Action will be considered by the Constitution Committee.
d.
To note the intention to undertake a self-assessment of the Scrutiny function with support from the Scrutiny Chairs and the Scrutiny Committee Members to ensure that the requirements of the statutory guidance are being met.
RESOLVED:
a.
To note the information set out in the report.
b.
To identify any additional media and social media training content that would benefit their use of media and social media when engaging with their communities.
c.
To approve that the following recommendations be submitted to Council for approval:
i.
The existing Elected Member Learning and Development Strategy 2019-22 be amended as shown at Appendix A with immediate effect.
ii.
a review of the Elected Member Learning and Development Strategy be undertaken by the Democratic Services Committee and submitted to Council for approval in 2024.
d.
That any outstanding mandatory training identified as part of the Member Induction be completed within 6 months of 25 June 2023 when Council approved the amendment of the Members’ Code of Conduct.
RESOLVED:
To note:
a.
the consultation and evaluations that have been undertaken to improve the MES.
b.
the implementation of the Member Enquiries element of the corporate Complaints, Compliments and Enquiries Management system.
c.
the plans to deliver further improvements to the Members Enquiries Service.
d.
the current performance data from the MES.
e.
that a further update on the implementation of the new system will be provided at a subsequent meeting of the Committee.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that alleged a driver refused to take him and his disabled wife from Heath Hospital to Llandaff North, and also told them he would not take a fare for less than £10. It was further alleged that the driver had used abusive language towards another driver who challenged him about not taking them.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee, stating that he had not refused the fare and had instead sought to give it to the next driver in the rank because he was aware that that driver was soon leaving the rank to attend to a school run. He did not recall using any abusive language and suggested that the other driver involved had a personal problem with him.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, reiterating the sequence of events outlined in his witness statement. The driver had refused to take him and his wife to Llandaff North, saying that he was waiting for somebody and then saying he did not take fares less than £10.
The complainant approached the second taxi on the rank. He explained what had occurred to the driver but was still within earshot of the first driver. The second driver asked his colleague why he had refused the fare. The first driver told him to ‘fuck off and mind your own business’, followed by ‘fuck off’ again. The complainant stated that it was at this point the first driver accepted another fare and left the rank.
The complainant stated that the driver of the second vehicle was unhappy and he himself was upset. He asked the driver for information on how to lodge a complaint and was provided with the relevant details.
The Sub Committee discussed the two versions of events and agreed that the witness provided more credible evidence. Members asked why the driver now had a full recollection of the incident, in contrast to the written statement he provided where he indicated he could not recall any details of the incident.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 28 days for refusal of a fare and unacceptable conduct.
(2)
Case 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from Dragon Taxis regarding an incident that had been recorded on video by a member of the public and subsequently provided to them. The Licensing Manager stated that they had also received a video of the incident by a friend of the driver.
Members viewed three video clips of the incident, and were advised that the videos showed an altercation involving the driver of a licence vehicle displaying Dragon Taxis livery and a number of other individuals. However, the vehicle was not a Dragon taxi and the driver was not employed by them. The Committee clarified the identities of those involved.
The Sub Committee asked how the incident had started. The driver stated that a car was blocking a junction causing traffic to back up. He asked the driver of the vehicle to move. The other driver got out of his car, approached him and used abusive language. The driver stated that he felt threatened, so he pretended to get a weapon from the boot of his vehicle in order to scare his assailant off, but it was actually a hat in his hand.
Members discussed the incident and agreed that the driver may well have been frustrated by the road being blocked, but had lost his temper and escalated the situation.
The Committee was not convinced by the driver’s suggestion that he had only been holding a hat, as the video appeared to show a sharp object in his hand. The witness also described the driver as ‘holding a sharp object threatening to stab somebody’ during the commentary on the video. Members felt that he had clearly made a threatening gesture, regardless of what the object was.
Members also noted that the driver had a Dragon Taxis logo on his car despite not working for them, which could be considered fraudulent or misrepresentation.
The driver left the hearing and the hearing proceeded in his absence.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire licence be revoked.
(3)
Case 3
The Sub Committee were asked to determine whether a taxi driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that a motoring conviction for IN10 (using an uninsured vehicle) was returned on his DVLA check as part of his licence renewal.
The driver stated that his conviction had nothing to do with his role as a taxi driver. He had purchased a private vehicle and was driving that at the time of the offence. Members were advised that the vehicle was purchased with a number of mechanical faults. He took the vehicle to a garage using temporary insurance cover for 1 hour. He had not realised that the cover had expired when the mechanic recommended that he drive the car further than was necessary on his homeward journey in order to ensure the car was in good working order. He was stopped by the police who found the car was uninsured. However, his was unable to use his phone to demonstrate that the car had been insured earlier that day. He had received 6 points on his licence and a fine.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had first applied for a taxi licence in 2020, and the incident had happened in January 2023. He had no points on his licence other than the six he had received for this offence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence. Members were advised that that the applicant had been convicted of the offence of battery in 2017.
The driver’s representative stated that the driver had not intended to deceive anyone by not declaring his conviction. There was some confusion because the website used to complete the application contained out of date or misleading information.
The driver’s representative stated that the conviction was the result of a domestic incident in October 2017. The applicant was extremely remorseful. The applicant and his wife were still together and happily married after 35 years. They had run a shop together for many years, during which time he obtained a personal licence to sell alcohol, demonstrating that he was a responsible individual.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that in 2017 he and his wife had a heated argument that involved extended family in India on a mobile phone. The wife took the phone and asked to speak with them. When attempting to retrieve the phone from his wife, this this caused her to hit her head on a wall. The police were called. His wife was present and stated to the Sub Committee that nothing had occurred since this incident. The family worked together very well. The driver added that he was confident he could handle the stresses of the job in the future.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved.
(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 Members were advised that the applicant had a relevant conviction on his DBS relating to an offence from 1994.
The driver stated that he was reapplying for a licence, having previously held one until 2008. Since then he had worked full time as a coach driver for National Express and Cardiff Bus. He was experienced in working with the general public, including vulnerable adults and children, and had never once had a problem in all that time. The conviction was from about 30 years ago when he was young and foolish, and he accepted that he had made a mistake which he had been punished for.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved.
(6)
Case 6
The Sub Committee was asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that that the driver attempted to charge £6 to take an assistance dog and had discriminated against the complainant.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident which had been submitted by the complainant.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not notified on the booking that there would be a dog. He arrived at the pickup location and the dog was a few metres away and not wearing any high-vis, so he explained to the passengers that he would have to start the meter at £6.
The passenger asked whether the driver understood what the high-vis harness the dog was wearing was. The driver responded that he did. He had no problem with dogs, only that it wasn’t mentioned on the booking.
The complainants stated that they called the office to clarify that there should be no charge for an assistant dog. By then they felt uncomfortable, so they left the taxi and got into another one. The complainant described the incident as an unnecessary and embarrassing experience.
Members sought to clarify whether the driver was aware of the operators policies on assistance dogs and pets. The driver stated that for a pet dog the meter will start at £6. For assistance dogs there is no additional charge. Members asked why it would matter whether there was notification that a dog was mentioned at the time of the booking. The driver stated that he didn’t see the assistance dog it at first because of the poor visibility he was therefore surprised.
Members asked why the driver had insisted on a £6 fee after being told it was a guide dog. The driver stated that he was unaware and his English language skills are not the best. The video highlighted that there was a language barrier.
The complainants reminded Members that that the driver initially claimed to be allergic to dogs but he could not provide an exemption certificate when asked.
The complainant stated that in his experience incidents like this are a regular occurrence with taxi drivers in Cardiff. The complainant considered that the matter should be before Magistrates. The language barrier was not considered to be a major factor in the incident as the driver kept saying that he understood. Blind people should not be left out in the street.
Committee in agreement that the video clearly showed that it was not just a misunderstanding, and the driver was trying to charge and additional fee. It was confirmed that all drivers have assistance dog training as part of their SQA qualification. The Sub Committee acknowledged that the driver had no history of offences, but refusing a fare to someone because of a protected characteristic was unacceptable.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for refusal of a fare and attempting to overcharge.
(7)
Case 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine whether a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License after a complaint was received stating that he refused to take an assistance dog and claimed he had a medical condition.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that as he picked the complainants up from their house they were recording him on a mobile phone, which had confused him. He was sneezing and dizzy at the time, but he took them to their destination.
Members asked whether the driver had an allergy and an exemption certificate. The driver confirmed that he did not have an exemption certificate and had not seen a doctor about getting one since the incident. He was not allergic to dogs.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, emphasising the driver would have known he was visually impaired because his guide dog’s harness was clearly labelled. He and his partner had to spend 10 minutes explaining to the driver why he had to take them and the dog, which they shouldn’t have had to do. They had missed a train because of the delay which affected their work.
The complainant’s partner added that he had started filming because he saw the driver looking at them while they approached the car and suspected he would refuse to let the dog in.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for unacceptable conduct.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to:
1.
Approve the audited Statement of Accounts 2022/23 – The Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund (Appendix 1).
2.
Note the Audit of Accounts Reports (ISA 260) from Audit Wales on the Statement of Accounts of Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund for the year ending 31 March 2023 (Appendix 2).
3.
Note the final Letter of Representation for the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund included within Appendix 2.
4.
Note that the following documents will be signed following the conclusion of the meeting:
- Statement of Accounts for Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pensions Fund – Lord Mayor and Corporate Director Resources
- Audit Certificate for the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pensions Fund – Appointed Auditor, Audit Wales
- Letter of Representation for the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Pension Fund – Lord Mayor and Chief Executive