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).
Decided: Council noted the determinations of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru (DBCC) for 2026/27. It approved the draft Members' Schedule of Remuneration for 2026-27. It gave the Monitoring Officer authority to finalise the schedule to reflect the appointments made at this meeting, to update the Constitution, and to make changes during the year if membership changes or the DBCC issues supplementary reports.
Decided: Council approved the revised Members' Code of Conduct. It instructed the Monitoring Officer to issue the required public notice, make the administrative arrangements and update the Constitution.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging he gave a fixed charge for a journey within the Cardiff boundary, refused to use the meter and became angry when questioned.
The Sub Committee received representations from witnesses who were passengers in the vehicle. Members were advised that the fare was for six passengers with three stops in Radyr, Morganstown and Pentyrch. The driver requested £30 for the journey but the fare was usually in the region of £20. The witness requested the driver to use the meter and he refused to do so.
The driver accepted that there was a dispute regarding the fare but felt that the passengers were becoming aggressive so he asked them to leave his vehicle. The marshal at the taxi rank spoke with the customers and they were advised to get into another vehicle.
The Sub Committee viewed CCTV evidence of the incident and questioned all parties in order to clarify the sequence of events.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for refusing a fare.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 6 points on his driving licence.
The driver accepted that he had been using a mobile phone whilst driving. He was unable to recall whether he had passengers in the vehicle at the time and accepted that he should have notified the Licencing Office.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence. Members were advised that all the offences were reported to the Licensing Office at the time they occurred.
RESOLVED – that the driver receives a written warning for driving offences.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
The driver did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driver received 3 penalty points for speeding and 6 points for permitting the use of his vehicle whilst uninsured.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had failed to declare that he had been disqualified from driving for six months.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence for speeding.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License. Members were advised that Veezu had disengaged the driver from their platform following multiple complaints from customers.
The driver was not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 8 weeks.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver was not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
The driver explained the circumstances resulting in him receiving 9 penalty points on his driver’s licence for speeding.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(11)
Application 11
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Members were advised that the applicant had was convicted of money laundering in 2023 for an offence that had occurred in 2019. The applicant advised that he gave a friend a lift, and the car was surrounded by plain-clothes police officers who arrested them. His friend was selling drugs and had a large amount of cash on him.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
RESOLVED:
I. To note the outturn position for the financial year ended 31March 2026.
II. To approve the Annual Return and authorised the Chair to sign the Annual Return on behalf of the Joint Committee, and approved its subsequent submission to Audit Wales to commence the 2025/26 audit.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he pushed in at the Heath hospital rank, and in a separate incident on the same date, said he would beat another driver and pushed them.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been a taxi driver for ten years with a clean record. He believed that the complaint was part of a targeted campaign of harassment against him. He recalled that as he had attempted to leave the rank, another driver had blocked his car and he had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting him. He felt the other driver had been aggressive and unprofessional, while he had remained inside his car to protect his passenger and prevent the situation escalating.
The driver also disputed the complainant’s suggestion that he had followed him afterwards. He just wanted to work without being harassed, but felt he was being bullied by other drivers because he followed the official rules rather than an unofficial system. The driver’s representative added that there was no official rank in place at the Heath hospital, where the incident had taken place.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he saw the driver pick up an old lady by the hospital and drive away. When he returned, the witness went over and asked why he was pinching fares from the back of the rank. The driver then threatened him, saying he was going to smash his face and that he couldn’t fight back because he was old. He also used abusive language which the witness found very offensive.
The witness added that he believed he had been followed by the driver on more than one occasion, and that other drivers had an issue with how he didn’t follow the queuing system. He emphasised that he was not an aggressive person and had not received any complaints himself. He was less concerned about the driver pinching fares than his conduct towards other drivers, and the language he used towards him.
Members asked how much time had passed between the initial pickup and the confrontation when the driver returned. The witness estimated that it was 30-45 minutes later. Members asked whether there was anyone else present, and heard that three other taxis were parked there in addition to the driver and the witness.
The driver’s representative emphasised that it was not an official rank, and the driver was entitled to pick up the fare from where he was. He did not feel that the witness’ description of the incident fit with the video Members had viewed. He considered it to be a he-said-she-said situation that was not deserving of sanction.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken, with the driver receiving an advice letter about their professional conduct towards other drivers.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been receiving alleging that he did not have a card reader and did not display his vehicle or driver’s ID badges.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not have anything to add to his written statement. The driver’s representative suggested that his badges had been visible in the window.
Members asked whether the driver was aware that he was not allowed to ply for trade without a card machine, so continuing to work after leaving it at home was a breach of his licence. The driver confirmed that he was aware of this, and added that he only realised he had forgotten it when the customer asked to pay by card. It was his first fare of the night, at around 1am, having started working at 12:30am. He didn’t charge passenger for the journey and then went home.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that the driver did not attempt to look for the card reader at any point, and just asked for cash immediately. He added that the badge holders on the windscreen appeared to be empty. The driver’s representative disputed this, suggesting that the photo provided was not clear, and it may have been a transfer rather than the physical badge.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had not charged for the fare upon realising his mistake, and then finished his shift and went home. He had made a mistake but would learn from it and always have a card machine available in the future.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging he charged more than the legal fare by applying a £1 charge for payment by card.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t recall the incident but did not normally charge for card payments. His representative added that there had been a long gap between the incident and his interview about it, which wasn’t the driver’s fault.
Members asked whether the driver was aware that he wasn’t allowed to charge additional fees for card payments. The driver confirmed that he was, and that he only charged the meter price within the city boundary. The driver’s representative suggested that it may have been an honest mistake as he didn’t recall it.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled getting into a taxi at the train station to go to the Hilton as she had a suitcase. Upon arrival she took out her card to pay the fare and saw that the driver had added an additional £1. She challenged this as she thought it wasn’t legal, but the driver said he was allowed to add a charge. The witness wasn’t sure if the law was different in Wales so she paid the extra pound, but took a picture of his plate just in case.
She added that the driver’s demeanour had changed when she took a photo, and he had hurried her away. She had made the complaint because she was concerned that vulnerable passengers who were unaware of the rules might be taken advantage of.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he was rude and dismissive about a passenger’s mobility issues.
The driver was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had booked a taxi and then requested a different route. The driver became rude and said that she shouldn’t give him orders. When they arrived at the drop-off point, he refused to go any closer than 30 metres away because there was a van there, even though he had plenty of space to go around. He raised his voice and was intimidating and disrespectful towards her, and asked repeatedly if she was going to leave his taxi.
She added that she had felt unsafe and intimidated by the experience. She had mobility problems, but even if she didn’t, the driver should have stopped at the agreed spot.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had failed to provide a DBS certificate since renewal of his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had had an issue with the renewal process, and provided his previous DBS certificate to the committee. He had not yet received his new DBS but would provide it as soon as possible.
Members noted that the previous DBS showed a conviction in 2020 for possession of a knife, blade or sharp pointed article in a public place, and for threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour with the intention of causing fear or violence. The driver explained that this had been the result of a confrontation with a bailiff who clamped his car and then called the police on him. The driver added that he had learned his lesson and had had no problems since, and worked to support his children. He had declared the conviction to the licensing authority when it happened.
Members noted that he had been asked to provide a DBS in August, several months into the renewal process. The driver apologised for not producing it yet and said that he would follow up as soon as possible.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days for failure to provide a DBS certificate in a timely manner.
(7)
Application 7
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had been issued with a Simple Caution by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council in respect of a plying for hire offence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had taken a fare from Cardiff to Pontypridd, and having dropped them off, was flagged down and stopped by an Rhondda Cynon Taf licensing enforcement officer. He accepted that he wasn’t licensed to pick up fares in Pontypridd, and accepted a caution from RCT council.
The driver added that he genuinely didn’t realise he had to report the caution to Cardiff as well. He had declared it upon renewal as it was a question on the application.
The driver’s representative added that the driver been licensed since 2017 without incident and was clearly a fit and proper person. He had pulled over when hailed and been caught out by a licensing enforcement operation, and had been cautioned rather than prosecuted. He also felt it was understandable that the driver had not realised he had to report it to a different authority immediately.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that several years ago he had unwittingly laundered money for a friend who used him to transfer money between accounts. He only became aware of the full details when the case went to trial for fraud. It was several years ago and he had not been involved in anything illegal before or since. Members asked about the timeline and heard that the offences had taken place in 2022 and gone to court in 2024.
He added that in the last few years he had been training as an apprentice carpenter and would soon be fully qualified. He had tried to turn his life around and expected it to be difficult to be self-employed as a carpenter, so he hoped to become a taxi driver to support himself further.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been convicted of two domestic common assault offences in 2022, which he understood shouldn’t have happened. His record was otherwise clean, and he had driven taxis in Cardiff for 18 years before his licence had been revoked in 2024. He felt that he had changed his life since the offences and was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.
A friend of the applicant added that after he was found guilty, he received a 14 week sentence and a community work requirement. It was a minor assault and an isolated incident, and there was no serious likelihood of him reoffending. He had also completed a six month program on building better relationships.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application, subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police.
The Sub Committee noted the concerns raised regarding antisocial behaviour, drug supply, and the general character of the area. However, no evidence had been presented to demonstrate that these issues could be directly attributed to this premises.
Members further noted that the premises had been operating for approximately eight months and that no evidence had been presented of breaches, enforcement action or complaints during that time. While the applicant had limited experience of running a licensed premises, they placed weight on the absence of any issues during the period the premises has been trading.
Members also noted that the premises was not located within a Cumulative Impact Area, and therefore negative cumulative impact was not a matter they could take into account when determining the application, and the commercial demand for a premises was not a consideration for the Sub Committee.
Having considered all the evidence and representations, they were satisfied that the grant of the premises licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. Members noted that the Licensing Act allowed for any person to apply to review a licence in future should evidence arise that the operation of the premises was undermining any of the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED:
1.
Committee noted the provisions of the Local Government (Standards Committees and Member Conduct)(Miscellaneous Amendments)(Wales) Regulations 2025 (Appendix A);
2.
Committee recommended the amended Members’ Code of Conduct (Appendix B) to full Council for approval.