[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Pham v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 316 (GRC) (13 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/316.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 316 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER
(TRANSPORT)

		Heard by Cloud Video Platform On: 24 February 2024
		Decision Given On: 13 March 2025

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. The Decision of the Respondent made on 2 August 2024 is confirmed.

REASONS

1. This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 24 February 2025 as directed by the GRC Registrar. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. Oral evidence and submissions were made on behalf of the Respondent by its representative.
2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 2 August 2024 to refuse the Appellant's application for entry of his name onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ('the Register'), pursuant to section 125(8) and section 125(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ('the Act'), having taken account of representations made by the Appellant by email on 14 July 2024, on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to have his name entered onto the Register due to him having been convicted of two motoring offences (both speeding offences), by way of Fixed Penalty Notices on 30 January 2023 and 7 March 2024, respectively, the Appellant having received 3 penalty points in respect of each office, making a total of 6 penalty points.
3. The Appellant submitted an appeal on 6 August 2024 against the Respondent's said decision on the following grounds, in terms:

- that he had just passed his Part 3 test on 24 June 2024;

• that he had misunderstood that he had to notify the Respondent within 7 days of the commission of the offences;

• that he had been familiar with the location of the offences;

• that, in respect of the first offence, he had 'been caught' by a change in the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph; traffic was light and he did not see the sign [although, as he stated, he was familiar with the location – although, in his oral evidence, the Appellant stated, inconsistently, that he 'was not really familiar with the locations'], but accepted this was no excuse;

• that, in respect of the second offence, while he understood the importance of maintaining a safe speed and was committed to road safety and regretted his error, had been faced with a domestic emergency, and had taken steps to ensure there would be no repetition;

• that he had ongoing issues with a shoulder injury, requiring ongoing physiotherapy and, if he needed further surgery, he would be unable to work for three months, not being able to lift anything heavy, that was a threat to the financial security of his family; [the Appellant providing a number of pieces of medical evidence in that regard].

4. While all of this evidence, and every other piece of evidence and submissions, both written and oral from, and on behalf of the parties, it did not alter the Tribunal's decision to dismiss this appeal as the written and oral evidence and submissions that were before the Tribunal were not of sufficient persuasive value to do otherwise.
5. In his said representations to the Respondent before it made the decision under appeal, the Appellant stated what he had asserted in his grounds of appeal. In addition, he stated that he understood the importance of setting good example; that he was committed to instilling safe driving habits in his pupils and would never encourage speeding. In contradiction of his statement in his Grounds of Appeal, the Appellant, in his oral evidence, stated he 'was not really familiar with the locations'.
6. The Appellant, following oral evidence and submissions made by the Respondent's representative, asked the Tribunal to 'look at the whole circumstances'; that he could not sleep due to his injury and worry; that he may need surgery and would, therefore, have no income. He again expressed his apologies for his speeding convictions; that he recognised this and would not repeat this behaviour. He reiterated that he had taken steps to ensure no repetition and that he was a skilful driver. He reiterated that he was 'not really familiar with the locations of the offences'. This was contrary to his submissions in his Notice of Appeal and in his said written representations to the Respondent.
7. In response to questions from the Tribunal, the Appellant confirmed he was driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone, in respect of the first offence, but that he did not know at what speed he was driving in respect of the second offence. He confirmed he had undertaken a Speed Awareness Course in the past but had not been offered this on either of these occasions. He confirmed that, due to his shoulder injury, he could not reach high but could drive. In respect of the second offence, the Appellant stated that he was rushing to collect his son from school, that he could only afford a certain time to do so as he had to be back by a certain time to open the shop where he worked as a chef. He confirmed he could no longer work there due to his shoulder injury.
8. In a closing submission, the Appellant spoke of his service, as a driving instructor, to the Vietnamese community. He accepted that higher standards were expected of an ADI over those expected of an ordinary motorist.
9. The Respondent's representative had no questions for the Appellant and had no further submissions to make.
10. The basis of the Respondent's decision was that the Appellant did not fulfil the
    criteria to be a 'fit and proper person', as required by s.125(3)(e) of the Act by reason of his said convictions for motoring offences.
    
11. Conditions require that an applicant for entry onto the Register (the Appellant in this case) to be a 'fit and proper person'. This requires account to be taken of an applicant's character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including convictions, and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate.
12. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent's decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent's reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Respondent's decision-making process.
13. The Respondent, in its Response document, confirmed that the Appellant had applied on 28 June 2024 to have his name entered onto the Register and, in his application, had declared his convictions and penalty points. The Respondent refused the application by reason of those convictions and penalties finding that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name entered onto the Register. The Respondent submitted that conditions for entry onto the Register extended beyond instructional ability and required an applicant to be a fit and proper person, taking account of his character, behaviour and standard of conduct, an ADI being expected to have higher standards of driving and character than those of an ordinary motorist; that driving instruction was a responsible and demanding task that should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety, something not displayed by the Appellant; that government had increased the penalties for motoring offences as they contribute to a significant number of casualties; that the Respondent could not condone motoring offences of this nature as, to do so, would, effectively, sanction such behaviour that would be offensive to other ADIs and aspiring ADIs who had been scrupulous in observing the law to ignore these motoring offences.
14. In his oral evidence and submissions, the Respondent's representative, confirmed the contents of the Respondent's Response document. He pointed out that the Appellant had accepted his convictions and penalties but offered no mitigation or excuse that persuaded the Respondent to act differently. He also pointed out that the second motoring offence for speeding had been committed while the Appellant was going through the ADI qualification process. He stated that the Respondent was still not satisfied that the Appellant was a fit and proper person to have his name entered onto the Register. He confirmed that the Respondent had no information as to how the Appellant's shoulder injury might impact the refusal of the Appellant's application to have his name entered not the Register.
15. The Tribunal had no questions for the Respondent's representative.
16. In response to a question from the Appellant as to why he was allowed to continue training, the Respondent's representative stated that, at 26 January 2024, there was only one conviction, with 3 penalty points being imposed, but an issue arose when the second offence had been committed with 6 penalty points in total now being imposed on him. Further, the had only notified the DVLA and not the Respondent and the Respondent was not linked to the DVLA.
17. As a matter of law, the standing of the Respondent could be substantially diminished, and the public's confidence undermined, if it were known that a person whose name was included in the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours or been convicted in relation to an offence, substantially material to the question of fitness. This can be in respect of behaviour pertaining to motoring matters and other matters of responsibility, trustworthiness and prudence; indeed, it would, indeed, be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.
18. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving
    Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 confirmed that -
    

"..... the condition is not simply that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor; it is that he is a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the Register. Registration carries with it an official seal of approval ..... the maintenance of public confidence in the Register is important. For that purpose, the Registrar must be in a position to carry out his function of scrutiny effectively, including consideration of the implications of any convictions of an applicant or a Registered Approved Driving Instructor. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements."

19. In reaching the Decision, the Tribunal took into account all of the evidence and submissions received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.
20. The Tribunal must bear in mind the significant importance which attaches to the integrity of the Register. For the public to have trust in it, the Respondent must act in a way that encourages belief that those on it have high standards. Allowing those who do not meet those standards would undermine the trust placed in it with serious consequences for those who do maintain the necessary high standards. These are matters of wider, and public interest, which attract significant weight even where, as in this case, being refused entry onto the Register, potentially may have significant consequences for the Appellant.
21. The Tribunal had no hesitation in dismissing this appeal and found it proportionate to do so.
22. Taking all these factors into account and, noting that the Tribunal needs to maintain public trust in the Register and to prioritise consumer protection over the interests of the Appellant as an individual driving instructor, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant, at the time of this appeal, was not a fit and proper person to have his name entered onto the Register.
23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Signed: Damien McMahon,

Tribunal Judge

Date: 11 March 2025