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 – T H A T the Regional Internal Audit Service Charter for 2026-27 as
attached at Appendix A to the report be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
Vale of Glamorgan, Governance and Audit Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of the Decision Tracking record appended to the report
be noted.
(2) T H A T in regard to the South East Wale Corporate Joint Committee, for their
Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer to be invited to provide an update overview
to the Governance and Audit Committee in relation to progress with the production of
their Annual Statement of Accounts.
(3) T H A T a formal request be made to the South East Wales Corporate Joint
Committee to provide to the Governance and Audit Committee an unredacted
version of the review report produced following the litigation case to the award of the
tender for the former Aberthaw Power Station site.
(4) T H A T the Chair of the Governance and Audit Committee write to the Auditor
General for Wales on behalf of the Committee, expressing concern regarding the
£6.5 million payout following the judicial review and ask what actions Audit Wales
would be taking to provide reassurance around the public funding that had been lost.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
(2) To provide an update on the progress in relation to the production of the
Annual Statement of Accounts for the South East Wales Corporate Joint Committee.
(3) To allow the Governance and Audit Committee to consider the findings of the
said report, as the case had financial implications for the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
(4) To express concern for the impact following the judicial review and to clarify
actions to be taken by Audit Wales to provide reassurance to the public.
Vale of Glamorgan, Governance and Audit Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Audit Wales Plan 2026 be noted.
(2) T H A T the report be referred to Cabinet for their oversight.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
(2) To enable Cabinet’s oversight of the external audit programme.
Vale of Glamorgan, Governance and Audit Committee,
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter for a journey within the Cardiff boundary and overcharged a passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that when the complainant had approached his taxi and asked to go to St Mellons, he told her it would likely cost more than usual as it was an event day. She said she normally paid around £20 to get to that area. Throughout the journey she was very quiet and eventually asked to be dropped off by the roundabout by Tesco, but he felt it wasn’t safe there. She paid £20 in total but no more.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver estimated that the meter had read £25 or £26 when she got out. He was used to customers trying not to pay, especially when drunk, so he occasionally asked for a deposit, and his card machine wasn’t working at the time. He knew he had to provide that option but it had stopped working just before the journey.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that when she got in and asked to go to St Mellons, she told the driver she had £20 cash or could pay by card. He said it would be £30, and then immediately asked for the £20 cash. His meter wasn’t running, which he claimed was due to the event that day but she knew that wasn’t how it worked.
She added that the driver then insisted she pay another £5 by bank transfer. She tried to do this but her banking app wasn’t working, so he said he’d drive her to a cash machine to get the money. She didn’t feel safe doing that so she asked to get out. The driver asked for her name and address as she left, which she did not provide. She emphasised that whether or not she had been drinking was irrelevant.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver suggested that he had asked for the extra money because the meter had gone above £25. The witness suggested that the meter had not been on at any time during the journey.
The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, clarified that all journeys within the Cardiff boundary should be on the meter. He calculated the journey taken as being worth approximately £19.65, at most a couple of pounds more depending on stops and traffic lights. The £30 requested was significantly more than that in any case.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for 28 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 he had been stopped by a Licensing Enforcement Officer carrying passengers within the Cardiff boundary failing to use the meter.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been waiting at the rank for a while as it was a quiet night. The customers had approached him and asked to go to Llanishen, which he said would cost £17-18 on the meter. They were happy with this so he didn’t turn the meter on, despite knowing it was a requirement.
The witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, added that the vehicle had been pulled over during a licensing operation which found that the meter was either not on or not working. He spoke to the passengers, who confirmed that they were advised at the outset of the journey that it would be a cash fare of £17, and he cautioned the driver for failing to use the meter. He asked him to reset the meter afterwards, which he reluctantly accepted.
Members asked the driver if he had used the meter on his previous journeys that day, and heard that this was his first fare of the day. Members asked why the vehicle had been stopped in the first place, and heard that this was due to a defective numberplate light.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(4)
Application 4
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter and charged a fare in excess of the legal tariff.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t remember the exact trip or the fare he charged, but if a customer felt they had been overcharged then he understood it was a serious issue. He knew he had to use the meter correctly and charge the approved fare, and he had reflected carefully since he learned of the complaint. He suggested that personal and financial pressure may had affected his judgement, and he took full responsibility and was willing to refund the customer if needed.
Members asked why the payment receipt had showed a different name to the driver, and heard that he had been temporarily using his daughter’s card reader because his was damaged. He understood that using someone else’s account was not allowed, but wanted to be able to continue working while his was broken.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he had been visiting Cardiff from Glasgow last summer. He had arrived at the central railway station with a lot of bags and sought a taxi from the rank there to the Premier Inn on Pentwyn Road. He didn’t have any cash so asked the driver if he had a card reader before getting in. It had been a pleasant journey where he and the driver chatted a lot, but he was shocked when the driver told him the price was £34.50. He couldn’t see any meter to prove this was a fair price but didn’t feel he could walk away without paying, so he did so by card.
The witness added that he spoke to an Uber driver the next day who was appalled when he mentioned the cost. The other driver suggested that he make a complaint as it reflected very poorly on the city for visitors to be ripped off. The witness used several more taxis during his time in Cardiff and none of the fares were anywhere close to £34.50.
The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, explained that he had investigated the complaint and initially found it difficult to identify the driver due to the different card reader and bank account. He had calculated the fare as having been worth approximately £19.30, and then interviewed the driver for potentially overcharging and failing to use a meter.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver reiterated that he didn’t recall the journey in question but had learned a lesson from the complaint. The witness suggested that it was unlikely he didn’t remember it, as he had a distinctive Glaswegian accent and they had spoken in detail about the city and both of their family links there. He did not want to be refunded for the journey, only to ensure it didn’t happen to anyone else.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(6)
Application 6
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(7)
Application 7
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 and a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was enthusiastic about driving and wanted it to be his livelihood. He had made mistakes in the past which had led to being disqualified, but felt he was a different person now and was fit and proper to drive taxis in Cardiff.
Members asked about his convictions and disqualification, which the applicant clarified had been for six months in 2022. He didn’t feel that his convictions had been correct decisions but he had accepted them. He had been accused of attempting to drive with a drug level above the specified limit, but emphasised that he had just been sitting in his car and not trying to drive it.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he wanted to contribute positively to the city. He had several convictions from 2024 but hoped he would be considered a fit and proper person. He wanted to work to support his family rather than being on benefits, and hoped he would be allowed to drive taxis as he liked driving and had a clean licence.
Members asked for more details about his convictions, which the applicant explained had been for threatening or disorderly behaviour, resisting arrest and criminal damage to a police vehicle. He accepted he had done something wrong and emphasised that he would not do it again, and had undertaken an unpaid work requirement and paid the fines. He felt that the offences had been based on a misunderstanding as he had been very new in the country at the time.
Members asked why he had not declared his convictions on his application, and heard that he had misunderstood the question as being about his driving licence rather than his personal life.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(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 motoring convictions and a previous criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he his first conviction had been in 2018 for possession of cannabis, and he had plead guilty in court and took full responsibility for his actions. He had since been sent back to court four times for not completing a community order, but felt this was partly due to an administrative error and provided evidence that he had completed the necessary requirements.
He clarified that the other offence had involved driving a family member’s car while he didn’t have a licence. He had refused to provide a specimen following this, not realising at the time that this was a crime.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(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 motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that she had been disqualified from driving for six months in 2023 after totting up points on her licence. She hadn’t been in a good place and had been going through a difficult family time, but had overcome that now and felt she’d grown up, and the points had expired. She drove coaches for a living and was seeking a taxi licence to expand her options.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the changes proposed by the Standards Committee Procedures
Working Group, as set out in Appendices 2 – 4 of the report be noted subject to the
following additional point being added to Appendix 3(a), paragraph 30:
- “If either party decides to have legal representation at the Hearing, the Monitoring
26-03-26 Minutes and DN (AR)
Officer is to be notified not less than five clear working days in advance of the
Hearing in order to inform the other party to ensure that the opportunity is available
to seek legal representation.”
(2) T H A T the point raised by Working Group Members (Appendix 2 – Agenda
Item 5b – Row 9), in relation to the suggestion that a trained mediator be instructed
to conduct the Stage 2 – Mediation part of the procedure, who is independent of the
Vale of Glamorgan Council and whether a service level agreement could be
established with other neighbouring Local Authorities, be taken forward for
consultation with Political Group Leaders.
(3) T H A T all proposed changes and recommendations of the Standards
Committee be shared with Political Group Leaders for comment, with any feedback
to be reported back to the Monitoring Officer as appropriate.
(4) T H A T, subject to the outcome of Resolution (3) above, the Monitoring
Officer be authorised to present the report and proposed amendments to the
Constitution to Full Council for approval.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To ensure that the Standards Committee was fully informed of the work
undertaken by the Procedures Working Group, and the rationale for the proposed
amendments arising from its review, including the addition to Appendix 3(a),
paragraph 30, to provide clarity to all parties and avoid any unnecessary delays to
hearings being arranged.
(2) To further explore the requirements set out in paragraph 19 of Appendix 3(a)
that currently stated that mediation meetings would be chaired by the Vale of
Glamorgan Chief Executive, or a nominated Director as determined by the Chief
Executive, however the Working Group were concerned that the mediation stage put
the Monitoring Officer and/or any other Vale of Glamorgan Officer involved in a
difficult position, as they were required to collaborate with the Elected Members
involved once the matter had concluded.
(3) To enable Group Leaders to provide comments on the proposed changes
ahead of formal consideration by Full Council, ensuring transparency and
cross-party engagement in the review process.
(4) To allow the Monitoring Officer to take forward the necessary constitutional
amendments for approval by Full Council, subject to feedback received, in
accordance with the statutory requirements for updating the Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the reports and the feedback received in respect of observation visits
undertaken by Independent Members of the Standards Committee be noted.
(2) T H A T where matters following observation visits are highlighted by
Independent Members, as issues requiring further attention or further visits and / or
requests are made by the Monitoring Officer / Head of Legal and Democratic
Services for visits to be undertaken, these be arranged as and when required.
(3) T H A T the proposal for observations to be held within the 2026 – 27
Municipal Year, as presented within Appendix 1 of the report, be agreed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the observations undertaken and the role of the Standards
Committee.
(2) To maintain a watching brief having regard to the role of the Standards
Committee and the Monitoring Officer.
(3) To complete the two-year observation cycle, as previously agreed by the
Committee, having regard to the outcomes of the 2025 Boundary Commission for
Wales Community Review.
26-03-26 Minutes and DN (AR)
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the applications for dispensation submitted by Community
Councillors, as listed in Appendix 1 to the report, be noted.
(2) T H A T the Standards Committee agrees that when applications for
dispensation are required to be considered as a matter of urgency, the Monitoring
Officer in consultation with the Chair of the Standards Committee be provided with
the authority to consider and grant interim approval of such applications until the next
scheduled meeting of the Standards Committee, whereby the applications will be
presented to the entire Standards Committee for final ratification.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To comply with the regulations and obligations for the grant of dispensations
to speak and vote at meetings.
(2) To process applications received under this delegated authority in a timely
manner, to the benefit of the applicant, and to meet the Standards Committee’s role
of granting dispensations to Councillors, Co-Opted Members and Church and Parent
Governor representatives from requirements relating to interests set out in the
Members' Code of Conduct.
26-03-26 Minutes and DN (AR)
RESOLVED – T H A T the Forward Work Programme, as attached at Appendix 1 to
the report, be agreed.
Reason for decision
To discuss and agree a Forward Work Programme for the Municipal year ahead that
would thereon be managed by the Chair of the Committee in consultation with the
Council’s Monitoring Officer.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To approve the revised Cardiff Code of Corporate Governance as set out in Appendix A, and request the Monitoring Officer to update the Constitution, Part 5, accordingly;
2.
Delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Section 151 Officer and the Chair of the Governance and Audit Committee, to make any minor amendments to the Code of Corporate Governance which may be required from time to time to reflect any changes in law or best practice.
RESOLVED – That:
(1) the Internal Audit Strategy 2026/27 be noted
(2) the Internal Audit Charter 2026/27 (including the Governance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference 2026/27) be approved;
(3) the updated Governance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference be recommended to full Council for approval;
(4) the Internal Audit Methodologies be noted and the Criteria for determining and reporting the significance of error and omissions in final audit engagement communications and the Process for Communicating Risk Acceptance above Appetite or Tolerance be approved;
(5) the Internal Audit Plan 2026/27 be approved.