First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKFTT 342 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0443

           

First-tier Tribunal

General Regulatory Chamber

Transport

 

Heard by way of remote hearing using Cloud Video Platform  

 

Heard on: 12 March 2025

Decision given on: 19 March 2025

 

Before

 

TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLAN

 

Between

 

SHAHEEN JAMIL

 

Appellant

 

and

 

REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS

Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

Representation:

For the Appellant:                In person

For the Respondent:            The Respondent is barred from taking any further part in the proceedings (see paragraph 3 below)

 

Decision: The appeal is ALLOWED

 

 

 

 

 

REASONS

 

Mode of Hearing

 

1. The proceedings were held using CVP. The Appellant joined remotely. The tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing this way.

 

2. The hearing was conducted by a Judge, sitting alone. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was appropriate to conduct the hearing in this way.

 

3. By way of a Case Management Direction (CMD) dated 7 January 2025, the Respondent was barred from taking further part in the proceedings because of a failure to comply with the terms of an earlier CMD, itself dated 9 September 2024. The latter CMD had informed the Respondent was warned that any failure to comply with its terms could lead to being barred from taking further part in the proceedings.

 

                                                                                   

BACKGROUND

 

4. The appeal is against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (ADIs) that the Appellant could not satisfy the statutory requirement to be a “fit and proper person”, with the result that the name of the Appellant was removed from the Register under s. 128(2)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 [“the Act”]. The burden of proving that an Appellant is not a fit and proper person is on the Registrar.

 

5. Conditions for entry or retention on the register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant be a fit and proper person.  As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including convictions, cautions and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate.

 

6. Given that many pupils are just 17 years of age and the scheme as a whole relies upon the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs, it is clear that substantial trust will be placed in ADIs by pupils, parents, other ADIs and road users, the public and the Agency. It is the Registrar’s function to ensure that the persons whose names appear in the register are worthy of that trust and are fit and proper persons to have their names entered therein.

 

7. In cases involving motoring offences it is expected that anyone who is to be an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist.  Teaching people of all ages to drive safely, carefully and competently is a professional vocation requiring a significant degree of responsibility. Such a demanding task should only be entrusted to those with high personal and professional standards and who themselves have demonstrated a keen regard for road safety and compliance with the law.

 

8. Additionally, in cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence undermined, if it were known that a person’s name had been permitted onto, or allowed to remain on, the register when they had demonstrated behaviours, or been convicted or cautioned in relation to offences, substantially material to the question of fitness. Indeed, it would be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.

 

9. Registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is ‘Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor’, [“ADI”].  Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct.  The good name of the Register would be tarnished and the public’s confidence undermined if it was generally known that the Registrar had allowed the names of ADIs to be entered on or retained in the Register when they had been convicted of offences.  It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law to ignore these offences. The Registrar’s approach to this jurisdiction was approved by the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (2010 EWCA Civ 808), in which Richards LJ said:-

           “….. 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 ADI.  That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.”

10.  Applicants to become driving instructors are notified that the DVSA is entitled to ask for information about spent convictions and as a result they lose the protection provided by s.4(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This arises in consequence of paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 as amended which states that “none of the provisions of s.4(2) of the Act shall apply in relation to … any question asked … in order to assess the suitability … of the person to whom the question relates for any office or employment specified in Part II of the said Schedule 1 … where the person questioned is informed at the time the question is asked that, by virtue of this Order, spent convictions are to be disclosed”. Paragraph 14 of Part II of Schedule 1 states that “offices, employment and work” include “any work which is work in a regulated position” and by Part IV of Schedule 1 “regulated position” is “a position which is a regulated position for the purposes of Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000”.  Paragraph 36(c) of Part II of the latter Act provides that “the regulated positions for the purposes of this Part are … a position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children”; and by paragraph 42 of Part II “child” means a person under the age of 18.  Since driving instructors may teach pupils aged 17 (or 16 if disabled) it follows that the DVSA is entitled to take spent convictions into account.

 

11. Because the Respondent was barred from taking further part in the proceedings, I do not have the usual bundle of documents prepared by him, and which is known in this jurisdiction as the Statement of Case.

 

The Registrar’s decision

 

12. I do have a copy of the Registrar’s decision. It is in the following terms

 

‘In our email of 21st March 2024 we advised you that the Registrar was considering the removal of your name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructor subject to any representations you made within 28 days.

 

No representations were received within the specified time and the Registrar has now decided that your name should be removed on the grounds that under Section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 you have ceased to be a fit and proper person to have your name entered in the Register. In accordance with Section 128(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I now give you formal notice of the Registrar's decision. He came to this conclusion because of the following:

 

• Fixed penalty notice dated 13 August 2023 for using a vehicle uninsured against third

party risks (IN10) resulting in 6 penalty points.

 

13. I do not have a copy of the Registrar’s email of 21 March 2024.

 

The Appellant’s notice of appeal

 

14. I have a copy of the Appellant’s notice of appeal. It is lengthy and detailed and the Appellant has clearly taken time to consider its contents. In summary, the main grounds of appeal are:

 

·        She had not replied to the Registrar’s notification that he was considering the removal of her name from the Register as she had been in Pakistan at the time, and she had responded as soon as she could on her return and was remorseful that she had not been able to respond in the first instance.

·        She thought that it was unfair that the full merits of her case had not been considered at the initial decision-making stage.

·        Her driving record was unblemished for a period of 35 years and for the three years she had been a driving instructor.

·        She recognized that high professional standards were expected from driving instructors and she had always endeavoured to uphold these.

·        She apologized for what had happened, was remorseful and stated that she had leant ‘the lesson the hard way.’

·        She had a passion for driving instruction and ‘… was an active and supportive member of the community of local driving instructors, offering advice and support and sharing recommendations. I am dedicated to continued professional development and have taken many courses over the years. I have enjoyed training instructors and am keen to develop skills to become an ORDIT trainer’.

·        She had an excellent pass rate with her pupils many of were nervous of had learning difficulties. She had received very favourable comments from her pupils.

·        She had no difficulty with the ‘facts’ but argued that there were mitigating factors.

·        She made reference to several other cases where ADIs were permitted to remain on the Register despite have a conviction for having no insurance.

·        She had health issues which had been ongoing at the time of the lapse of the insurance. Her health issues included stress. The Appellant attached hospital letters and medical reports relating to her health. 

·        She was having marital problems at the same time and had relied on her husband in the past to ensure that car insurance was renewed.

·        As soon as the incident took place, she made arrangements for temporary insurance.

·        She had made changes to her diary management systems involving ‘…logging all key dates for car insurance, tax and MOT.’ Her son had installed an app on her phone so that she would have reminders about these key dates. All of this meant that had control and did not have to reply on anyone else.

·        She has participated in professional development courses to improve her standards.

·        Removal from the Register would have a significant financial impact on her and her family.

·        She attached links to reviews and character references.

·        She made comparisons with other ADIs whose names remain on the Register despite having committed offences.      

 

The remote oral hearing

 

15. As noted above, the Appellant participated in the remote oral hearing. She gave evidence and made submissions which were parallel to those which were set out in her grounds of appeal. Her husband was present and although he did not give evidence, he did not raise objections when the Appellant stated, in the clearest of terms, that he was at fault for the failure to renew the certificate of insurance.

 

 

 

 

REASONS

 

16. I have a degree of concern about the Appellant’s observation that removal of her name from the Register would have a major financial impact on her and her family. While this is a factor which can and must be considered, it cannot be definitive where it is outweighed by others, including character, behaviour and standards of conduct. I have also heard the Appellant’s other evidence which was that there is a substantial family business which has been built up over the years. In light of that, I am not sure that the financial impact of the removal of her name from the Register is as significant as submitted.

 

17. Further, it seems to me that while all ADIs must pay attention to matters such as insurance cover, where there is more than one vehicle and one ADI involved in a business, then one would expect that greater attention would be paid to the effective management of that business.

 

18. I am also somewhat concerned that as part of her submissions, when the Appellant described the incident when the absence of effective insurance cover was revealed, she downplayed, to a degree, the seriousness of that fact by stating that the police officer concerned did not attach significant weight to it.

 

19. The Appellant has placed weight on decisions involving other ADIs and has submitted that their names have been retained on the Register despite having committed serious motoring offences, including not having insurance cover. The Appellant should note that each case is based on its individual facts and circumstances which cannot readily be read across to other cases no matter how parallel they might seem.

 

20. Having heard from and seen the Appellant, I found her to be honest and credible. I accept her evidence that the failure to renew the insurance cover on the vehicle was an oversight on the part of her husband. At the time of the failure, she was having marital and health problems. Her health problems are continuing. She did not respond to the Registrar as she was not in the United Kingdom at that time but did attempt to respond on her return. She is remorseful and contrite. She has changed her diary management systems so that she now has control over them. She recognizes the requirement for high professional standards and is committed to raising her own. She is dedicated to the profession and has been successful in it, evidenced by her reviews and character references. She has no other motoring and no no-motoring convictions and has not been the subject of investigation or regulatory action by the Registrar.

 

21. Having weighed up all the relevant factors, I accept, therefore, that, on balance, the appeal should be allowed.

 

22. We would ask the Appellant to note the following. Driving any motor vehicle with adequate insurance cover is a serious motoring offence which should and does carry significant consequences. The Appellant has come very close to losing her professional career and employment, a profession in which she has made a strong investment. It should be self-evident that there are significant learning outcomes from this process and that any future legal or professional transgressions are likely to have considerable adverse consequences.    

 

 

Kenneth Mullan

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

19 March 2025