[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Chaudhry v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 383 (GRC) (01 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/383.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 383 (GRC)

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

First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport

		Heard by Cloud Video Platform Adjourned on: 11 February 2025 Heard on: 25 March 2025
		Decision Given On: 1 April 2025

Decision: The Appeal is Dismissed

REASONS
1. This Appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(2)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act"). It relates to a Decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 13 September 2024 ("the Decision") not to grant the Appellant a (trainee) Licence to give instruction because he had accepted a fixed penalty notice resulting in 6 penalty points and would therefore not be a fit and proper person ("FPP").
2. What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference by us to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered.
3. In this Decision page numbers indicated by their inclusion in brackets refer to pages of the Bundle.

Relevant Law

4. The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and he is therefore prohibited from giving paid driving instructions by section 123(1) of the Act unless he holds a Licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.
5. To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI") an applicant is required to pass a Qualifying Examination. This is in 3 parts namely part 1 being a written examination, the driving ability and fitness test in part 2 and the instructional ability and fitness test in part 3. Three attempts are allowed at each part. The whole examination (parts 1-3 inclusive) must be completed within two years of passing part 1. If this is not done then the whole examination has to be retaken. A Section 129(1) Licence may be granted by the Registrar once an applicant has passed part 2.
6. Section 129(1) of the Act says that:-

"(1) A Licence under this section is granted for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct"

7. To obtain a Licence an applicant applies to the Registrar (section 129(1A). By section 129(2) of the Act where a person applies for a Licence the Registrar must grant it if satisfied that among other things "(b)...the conditions set out in section 125(3)(b), (c), (d) and (e) are fulfilled in the applicant's case." Section 125(3)(e) of the Act refers to the need for the applicant to satisfy the Registrar that he is "... a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the register.
8. In Harris -v- Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 Richards LJ Held at para 30:-

".....I do not accept that the scope of the "fit and proper person" condition is as narrow as Mr Leviseur contended. Of course, a central question is an applicant's fitness to be a driving instructor – that he has the requisite instructional ability and driving ability and that he does not pose a risk in any respect to his pupils or other users of the road. The "fit and proper person" condition has obvious relevance to that issue, though the more technical aspects are covered by other, more specific conditions relating to tests, driving licence and the like. But 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: those registered are known as "Driving Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructors".

9. Section 129(4) of the Act provides that:-

"The Registrar must, on making a decision on an application under subsection (2) above, give notice in writing of the decision to the applicant which, in the case of a decision to refuse the application, must state the grounds of the refusal"

10. By section 172(2)-(4) of the Act:-

"(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a)the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police ...and

(b)any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

(3)Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.

(4)A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was."

11. The Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency ("DVSA") has issued guidance ("the Guidance") which an ADI is required to declare they have read when applying to become an ADI. It states under the heading "Motoring Offences":-

"It's also unlikely that you'll be classed as a 'fit and proper' person if you've been found guilty of...: failing to give information as to the identity of the driver"

Role of the Tribunal

12. Section 131(2) of the Act provides that:-

" A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar—

(a)to refuse an application for the grant of a Licence under this Part of this Act, or

(b)to revoke such a Licence,

may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal."

13. Section 131 (3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:-

"(a)for the grant or refusal of the application

or,

(b)for the removal or the retention of the name in the register, or the revocation or continuation of the Licence,

(as the case may be) as it thinks fit."

14. Section 131(4A) of the Act enables the matter to be remitted back to the Registrar for reconsideration "If the...Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on an appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before he gave the decision to which the appeal relates"
15. In considering the Appeal the Tribunal must also give appropriate weight to the Registrar's view. The Court of Appeal in Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011) held that the answer to "How much weight was the district judge entitled to give to the decision of the licensing authority?" was:-

"45...the proper conclusion....can only be stated in very general terms. It is right in all cases that the magistrates' court should pay careful attention to the reasons given by the licensing authority for arriving at the decision under appeal, bearing in mind that Parliament has chosen to place responsibility for making such decisions on local authorities. The weight which the magistrates should ultimately attach to those reasons must be a matter for their judgment in all the circumstances, taking into account the fullness and clarity of the reasons, the nature of the issues and the evidence given on the appeal."

16. When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar's decision as the person tasked by the relevant legislation with making such decisions. It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances.

Evidence and matters considered

17. At the Appeal we heard from the Appellant and the Registrar and we had a bundle of papers provided by the Registrar consisting of 24 pdf pages.

Chronology

18. An outline of the relevant chronology follows::-

(a) on 30 November 2023 one of the Appellant's relatives, while driving the Appellant's car (with permission), is alleged to have committed a speeding offence.

(b) on 11 December 2023 the Appellant was accepted as a potential driving instructor.

(c) the Appellant passed Part 1 on 11 April 2024

(d) on 21 May 2024 the Appellant was convicted of failing to identify the driver (20) who had committed the speeding offence.

(e) on 5 June 2024 (18) the Appellant told the Registrar that he had received 6 penalty points.

(f) on 6 June 2024 the Registrar wrote to the Appellant and warned him that while he would not be prevented from taking the qualifying examinations (17):-

"It is highly possible that the Registrar will refuse an application for a trainee licence or to have your name entered onto the Register, when you have passed the instructional ability test (ADI part 3), with 6 penalty points on your licence"

(g) the Appellant passed his ADI part 2 on 1 July 2024 (18).

(h) on 22 August 2024 the Appellant applied for a Licence (19).

(i) on 29 August 2024 the Registrar gave the Appellant notice that he was considering refusing the Appellant's application and invited him to make representation although this step was not a requirement of the Act (21).

(j) the Appellant made representations on 2 September 2024 (22).

(k) the Decision (namely to refuse the application for a Licence) was made and reported to the Appellant by letter of the 13 September 2024 (1 & 23).

The Appeal

19. This Appeal, dated 27 September 2024, is from the Decision (2-11). The Registrar has provided a Response (12-- 16) dated 21 February 2025. The original Appeal date of 11 February 2025 was adjourned for the Reasons set out in the Case Management Directions of 11 February 2025.

The Registrar's position

20. The Registrar's position was set out in his letters of the 6 June 2024 (17) and 29 August 2024 (21), the Decision of the 13 September 2024 (1), the Response to the Appeal (12-16) and at the Appeal hearing.
21. His concern related to the Appellant's conviction on 21 May 2024 "of failure to give information as to identity of driver etc" for which he received 6 penalty points and a £415.00 fine,
22. On the 6 June 2024 (17) the Registrar warned the Appellant that:-

"However, an applicant with penalty points on their licence must satisfy the Registrar that they are a 'fit and proper' person to be an Approved Driving Instructor. It is highly possible that the Registrar will refuse an application for a trainee licence or to have your name entered onto the Register, when you have passed the instructional ability test (ADI part 3), with 6 penalty points on your licence."

23. The Decision (1) said:-

"The Registrar has now taken into consideration the representations made by you in your email of 2nd September 2024 but, in accordance with section 129(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended), I now give you notice that the Registrar has decided to refuse your application on the grounds that you do not meet the condition in Section125 (3)(e), that is, you cannot be considered a 'fit and proper' person to become an Approved Driving Instructor. He came to this conclusion because of the following: Conviction received on the 21st May 2024 (date of offence 30th November 2023) for MS90 -failure to give information as to identity of driver etc for which you received 6 penalty points and a £415.00 fine."

24. In Response to the Appeal (12-16) the Registrar stated that the reasons for the Decision were:-

a) The Appellants driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having been convicted for failure to give information as to identity of driver etc (MS90). The conditions for entry onto the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. As such, account is taken of a person's character, behaviour and standard of conduct. Anyone who is an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. In committing these offences, I do not believe that the appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that I would expect to see from a potential ADI.

b) The Government increased the payment levels for serious road safety offences such as speeding, the requirement to control a vehicle (including mobile phone use), passing red traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and wearing a seatbelt. These offences contribute to a significant number of casualties. For example, in 2018 excessive speed contributed to 177 deaths, 1,251 serious injuries and 3,224 minor accidents, using a mobile phone contributed to 25 deaths, 92 serious injuries and 306 minor accidents; and careless driving, reckless, or in a hurry contributed to 252 deaths, 3,208 serious injuries and 9,466 minor accidents.

c) As an officer of the Secretary of State charged with compiling and maintaining the Register on her behalf, I do not consider that I can condone motoring offences of this nature. To do so would effectively sanction such behaviour, if those who transgress were allowed entry onto an official Register that allows them to teach others.

d) It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, for me to ignore these motoring convictions.

25. At the Appeal Mr Russell accepted that para (b) above was "generic" and had little relevance to this Appeal.

The Appellant's case

26. The Appellant's position was set out when he made the notification of the points on 5 June 2024 (18), his representations (22), in his Notice of Appeal (2-11) and at the Appeal.
27. In his letter of 5 June 2024 (18) he said:-

"The points were assigned due to a violation that occurred involving a family relative who was driving my vehicle. At the time of the incident, my relative had borrowed my car with my permission. A notice of the violation was sent to him directly, as he was the driver at the time. However, despite my numerous attempts to contact him and encourage him to respond to the notice and take responsibility for the violation, he failed to do so. This lack of response from him resulted in the points being unjustly added to my driving record. I have always prioritized safe and responsible driving, which is reflected in my clean driving license over the past 15 years. This incident was an unfortunate and isolated event that does not represent my driving behaviour or standards. I am committed to upholding the highest standards of road safety, both in my personal driving and in my potential role as a driving instructor."

28. He added:-

"My motivation for pursuing this new career path is driven by my desire to better support my family and provide a more flexible and rewarding future for my children. I am confident that my background, skills, and dedication align with the qualities needed to be an exceptional driving instructor. I have already passed my first part of ADI and second part is booked on 1 july 2024."

29. When making representations on 2 September 2024 he said (22):-

"The points were assigned to my driving record due to a violation that occurred while a family member was driving my car. At the time, my relative had borrowed my vehicle with my permission, and I was not present in the vehicle when the violation took place. A notice of the violation was sent to me as the registered owner of the vehicle. Upon receiving the notice, I immediately took action by reaching out to my relative, who was the actual driver at the time of the incident, to provide his information to the authorities as required. I made numerous attempts to contact my relative, involving me going to his house to inform him, to ensure he submitted his details to resolve the matter correctly. Despite my best efforts and repeated requests, my relative failed to respond or provide the necessary information to take responsibility for the violation. This lack of cooperation and accountability on his part led to the violation being attributed to me simply because I am the vehicle's owner. It is important to emphasize that I was not the driver at the time of the violation, and I had no control over my relative's actions while he was operating my vehicle. I took all reasonable steps within my capacity to rectify the situation by trying to redirect the violation to the actual driver. Unfortunately, his failure to act in a timely manner resulted in the points being wrongly applied to my driving record. The violation and subsequent points are not a reflection of my driving behavior or actions, but rather the consequence of another individual's failure to fulfill their responsibilities as the driver."

30. In his Grounds of Appeal (8) he said that "The points on my license were due to an unfortunate circumstance outside my control." His Grounds also refer, for example, to:-

(a) his passion for becoming an ADI and that "this career is a crucial opportunity for me to provide my children with a better standard of living and ensure our family's financial stability"

(b) how being an ADI would help his financial and family life and in practical terms for example by being able to spend more time with his children due to the flexibility the role offers.

(c) his performance as a manager at Currys and his commitment to helping others.

(d) his confidence about becoming a capable and responsible ADI.

(e) how refusal of a Licence would "significantly hinder my ability to move forward in this new career path"

31. At the Appeal he added that:-

(a) he knew the identity of the driver but did not feel able to reveal that persons name because it was a family member who had done a lot for him in the past.

(b) he did what he could through his family and directly to get the driver to deal with the issue but they failed to do so.

(c) he thinks that had the driver come forward only 3 points would have been given for the speeding offence in question as opposed to the 6 given to him.

(d) he is a responsible person and works as a store manager for Curry's with over 50 people reporting to him.

Review

32. The Appellant does not dispute the outline facts in this Appeal.
33. We reviewed all the circumstances and our starting point was to consider first and give due regard to the view of and the Decision made by the Registrar. We accept the Registrar's position as set out in this Appeal save that we found para 7(b) of the Response to be generic with little if any relevance to the issues.
34. ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary drivers. The public expects the Registrar to work to ensure that ADI are FPP in the wider Harris sense and has the right to expect ADIs to adhere to the highest standards of motoring. It is right for the Registrar to be concerned about a person with 6 points potentially being on the Register.
35. We also note that the Guidance specifically says:-

"It's also unlikely that you'll be classed as a 'fit and proper' person if you've been found guilty of...: failing to give information as to the identity of the driver"

36. We understood, but did not accept, the explanation give to us by the Appellant. His conviction was for failing to give information as to the identity of a driver. Doing so is a requirement of the Act whatever the family relationships may be. It is not correct for the Appellant to say that the points were due to "...an unfortunate circumstance outside my control."
37. We have taken into account the other matters raised by the Appellant such as the likely financial impact on him and his family and on the progress of his career if his Appeal is dismissed. However we do not consider these to be a particularly relevant consideration because the need to maintain the integrity of and public trust in the Register is likely to be greater than the needs of an individual appellant.

Decision

38. For the reasons set out above the Appellant has not persuaded us that the Registrar's decision was wrong and accordingly the Appeal is dismissed.

Signed Tribunal Judge Heald

Date: 31 March 2025.