First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 317 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0725

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER

(TRANSPORT)

 

Heard by Cloud Video Platform

On: 24 February 2024

 

Decision given on: 13 March 2025

Before

 

JUDGE DAMIEN MCMAHON

TRIBUNAL MEMBER DAVID RAWSTHORN

TRBUNAL MEMBER MARTIN SMITH

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between

 

DANIEL ZELALEM TEMESEGEN

Appellant

-and-

 

REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS

Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Representation:

For the Appellant: The Appellant appeared on his own behalf.

For the Respondent: Mr. D. Russell.

 

 

Decision:                        The appeal is Dismissed. The Decision of the Respondent made    on 23 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 23 August 2024  to refuse the Appellant's application for entry, by way of an application for re-registration or reinstatement of his name onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ('the Register'), pursuant to section 125(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 [presumably, more particularly, section 125(3)(e)] ('the Act')], having taken account of representations made by the Appellant, on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to have his name reinstated onto the Register due to him having been convicted of a motoring offence (speeding) on 27 March 2023, that occurred on 31 October 2021, in respect of which he received 3 penalty points and a fine of £220.00, and having been convicted  of failure to give information as to the identity of the driver of his vehicle on 24 December 2021, in respect of which he received 6 penalty points and a fine of £660.00, and again, for the same offence on 5 January 2022, in respect of which the same penalty was imposed, resulting, on a totting-up basis of the Appellant exceeding 12 penalty points within a three year period, resulting in him being disqualified from driving for 6 months (expiring on 18 January 2024).

 

3.    The Appellant submitted an appeal on 23 August 2024, against the Respondent's said decision on the following grounds, in terms:

 

-     that speeding offences [plural] had occurred between October 2021 and January 2022 on the same road while driving back from his friend's house;

 

-       that this period was a difficult period for him and his family due to a bereavement (a funeral having taken place in November 2021), that he admitted did not justify commission of the offences, but that this was not due to him being a novice driver nor due to negligence on his part but, rather, because he had a lot on his mind;

 

-       that he had not had convictions for motoring offences before or since then;

 

-       that he was always a safe driver and did not take alcohol or use drugs;

 

-       that he had served a 6 month disqualification period that expired in February 2024 but was still paying £2,000.00 of fines;

 

-       that he had accepted the convictions and penalties;

 

-       that he posed no threat to anyone.

 

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 denied, in some detail, allegedly having made a false declaration for which he received a caution and absolute discharge in November 2020 [a matter that was not part of the Decision under appeal and had not been mentioned in the Appellant's Notice of Appeal in respect of an incident that occurred on 14 November 2019], but received an enhanced DBS check on 17 September 2019. The Appellant's representations in respect of speeding offences [plural] were as he stated in his Notice of Appeal. He made no representations in respect of the motoring offences concerning his failure to identify the driver of his vehicle on 23 December 2021 and 5 January 2022.

 

6.    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.

7.    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.

 

8.    In oral evidence and submissions, the Appellant, following oral evidence and submissions made by the Respondent's representative, stated that he had personal issues at the relevant time in question; that he had no convictions for motoring offences before or since then, nor any penalty points and wanted a second chance to have his name be reinstated onto the Register. He confirmed that he had been convicted of three speeding offences, detected by a speed camera, on the same stretch of road in respect of offences in 2021, returning from a friend's house at around11.00pm. He confirmed that the dates of his convictions were some time after the offences due both to his personal issues at the time and delays in the court system. He confirmed he had not notified the Respondent of his convictions, these coming to the attention of the Respondent through DVLA records, the Appellant stating that he was not aware he had to notify the Respondent.

 

9.    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.

 

10. The Respondent, in its Response document, confirmed that the Appellant's name  had been entered onto the Register in May 2022 but removed in June 2024 as it was not satisfied that the Appellant was a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the Register due to having several convictions for motoring offences and being disqualified from driving for 6 months, a decision of the Respondent that the Appellant unsuccessfully appealed to a previous Tribunal that made its Decision on 18 June 2024.

 

11. This Decision was one of the documents before the instant Tribunal. It was clear that the same issue was before that Tribunal and the Grounds of Appeal were the same as in the instant appeal. Nevertheless, the instant Tribunal made its own Decision, acting collectively, and considering the instant appeal afresh. The instant Tribunal was not bound by the Decision of the previous Tribunal.

 

12. The Respondent, in its Response, confirmed that the Appellant had made application on 14 August 2024 to have his name re-instated onto the Register. While the Respondent acknowledged that the Appellant was no longer disqualified from driving, it stated that it could not ignore the fact that the Appellant had been disqualified from driving on 27 March 2023 for 6 months following three separate convictions for motoring offences in October 2021, December2021 and January 2022, while holding a trainee licence and trying to qualify as an ADI. 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 increase 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 (albeit they could not be described as 'recent' motoring offences).

 

13. In his oral evidence and submissions, the Respondent's representative, stated that although the Appellant had completed his 6 months' disqualification period, the Respondent was still not satisfied that the Appellant was a fit and proper person to have his name re-instated onto the Register and emphasised that an ADI must be held to a higher standard than that of an ordinary motorist. He confirmed that no new grounds of appeal had been advanced from those advanced by the Appellant in his previous unsuccessful appeal. He agreed that the penalty points received by the Appellant no longer counted but stayed on his driving record.

 

14. The Appellant had no questions for the Respondent's representative.

 

15. 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.

 

16. 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 R egistered Approved Driving Instructor. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements."

17. 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.

 

18. 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.

 

19. The Tribunal particularly considered the question of whether it was proportionate to dismiss this appeal. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal concluded that, in view of the number of motoring offences and the fact that the penalty points  had just expired; the fact that the Appellant had not informed the Respondent of his convictions and penalties and that the offences had occurred in, essentially, the same location, taking things 'in the round', dictated that refusal to reinstate the Appellant's name onto the Register was entirely proportionate in all the circumstances at this time. It may be that, after the lapse of a further period, a different view might well be appropriately taken.

 

20. 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.

 

21. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.                                                                         

 

Signed: Damien McMahon,

              Tribunal Judge                                                     Date: 11 March 2025