[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) >> Kassaye v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 384 (GRC) (01 April 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/384.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 384 (GRC)

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

First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Transport

		Heard by Cloud Video Platform 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 25 September 2024 ("the Decision") not to grant the Appellant a (trainee) Licence to give instruction because he had 6 penalty points from two speeding offences which had accrued 3 points each 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 provided he is 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"

8. 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.
9. 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".

10. 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"

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...: excessive speeding"

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 Mr Russell for the Registrar. We also had a bundle of papers consisting of 20 pdf pages. During the Appeal hearing the Registrar provided further material that had not been in the Bundle.

Chronology

18. An outline of the relevant chronology follows:-

(a) 3 penalty points were issued on 29 November 2022.

(b) on 12 October 2023 the Appellant was accepted as a potential driving instructor.

(c) 3 penalty points were issued on 17 October 2023.

(d) on 6 November 2023 the Appellant passed part 1.

(e) on 16 November 2023 the Appellant notified the Registrar that he was about to get 3 penalty points

(f) the Registrar replied on 5 December 2023.

(g) the Appellant passed Part 2 on 26 July 2024.

(h) on 3 September 2024 the Appellant applied for a Licence (15).

(i) on 10 September 2024 the Registrar gave the Appellant notice that he was considering refusing the Appellant's application and invited him to make representations although this step was not a requirement of the Act (17).

(j) the Appellant made representations on 10 September 2024 (18).

(k) the Decision (namely to refuse the application for a Licence) was made and reported to the Appellant by letter of the 25 September 2024 (1 &19).

The Appeal

19. This Appeal, dated 28 September 2024, is from the Decision (2-11). The Registrar provided a Response (12-14) dated 7 March 2025.

The Registrar's position

20. The Registrar's position was set out in the Decision (1), the Response to the Appeal (12-14) and at the Appeal hearing. His concern related to the Appellant's speeding offences and the two sets of 3 penalty points. The Decision said:-

"The Registrar has now taken into consideration the representations made by you in your email of 10th 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:

Fixed penalty received on the 29th November 2022 for SP30 – exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road for which you received 3 penalty points.

Fixed penalty received on the 17th October 2023 for SP30 – exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road for which you received 3 penalty points."

21. In Response to the Appeal the Registrar stated that the reasons for the Decision were (14):-

a) The Appellants driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having accepted 2 fixed penalties for exceeding speed limit on a statutory road. His explanation shows his own driving was impacted by another leading to one of the offences. He was aware there was no fixed camara suggesting he was aware of his speed. 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"

The Appellant's case

22. The Appellant's position was set out in his representations on 10 September 2024 (18), in his Grounds of Appeal (2-11) and at the Appeal.
23. In his letter of 10 September 2024 (18) he said:-

"What happened in the day of my offence I was followed aggressively by driver the more I try to keep up to the speed limit the more aggressive and angry he becomes and I felt frustrated and pressed by him when I look through the centre mirror I can see the traffic is building up that make me fill I am the cause and I have to speed up to keep the traffic moving and to calm the situation and at the time I felt I made the right decision but I realised when I received my offence letter through the post normally there is no speed camera on that road unfortunately I got caught by police they use speed gun.for my wrong decision I make by frustration I pay the price. Now since I started PDI training I learned a lot no matter what happened on the road I should follow the law and regulation of the road. I will take this opportunity to teach my people the quensquenes of breaking the law. how it affects me and my family my dreams and every thing. Also other road users. And I came all the way up to this stage spending more time learning the road procegeder the law and regulation investing my time and money to achieve my dream job. I wish I have this knowledge before I make this offence. But this is a great lesson for mei will not make the same mistake again. this is my dream job and I made a big mistake to make my dream dark.i ask you considering all this I ask you to give a chance pls.i am a family man with two children. Thank you very much for all your help"

24. In his Grounds he added to the above by saying that:-

(a) he has, since the offences, passed his part 1 and part 2.

(b) he has spent "a lot of money..." in seeking to qualify as an ADI.

(c) he is a responsible person.

(d) he apologises for his mistake and asks the Tribunal to give him one more chance.

25. He also indicated in the Appeal that the Registrar should have become involved before he started his lessons because "I have notified them that I have 6 points on my licence and I feel they make last minute decision..."(8).
26. At the Appeal the Appellant also told us that:-

(a) both sets of points were for speeding the first while overtaking a slow moving car.

(b) he did not refer to the first 3 points in his representations because he was only focused on the second 3 which had got him to 6 points in all.

(c) he had been a bus driver for about 10 years and these points were obtained while driving for Uber.

(d) he was not able to go on a speed awareness course for the first 3 points because he was ineligible having been on that course in about 2021.

(e) he was aware of his mistake and regretted it.

(f) to became an ADI has cost him a lot of money and taken effort and he asked the Tribunal to exercise discretion in his favour.

Review

27. The Appellant does not dispute the outline facts in this Appeal.
28. We reviewed all the circumstances while 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 in particular noting the harm caused by excessive speed.
29. 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 two sets of 3 points for speeding offences potentially being on the Register.
30. 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...: excessive speeding"

31. The Appellant said that he had warned the Registrar of his points but they had allowed him to continue on to Part 2 incurring costs only to be told he would not be granted a Licence. From the papers provided at the Appeal we saw that:-

(a) on 16 November 2023 the Appellant said to the Registrar

"I have passed my theory test on the 6th of November 2023 and in addition to this I would like to notify you that 3 penalty points is going to be added on my licence and I would like to know if this would affect my application or not. If it does not then will I be able to book my practical test can you please let me know. Any question please email me at....."

(b) on 5 December 20923 the Registrar replied and said:-

"Thank you for your email which was forwarded to us to reply.

I have checked your DVLA records which show the following:

Fixed penalty received on the 29th November 2022 for SP30 – exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road for which you received 3 penalty points. A warning was sent to you on the 17th October 2023 when we allowed you to start the qualification process.

Fixed penalty received on the 17th October 2023 for SP30 – exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road for which you received 3 penalty points

Although we cannot stop you from continuing with the qualification process however as you have 6 penalty points which are counted towards the totting up process, this would mean that any application you may wish to make for a trainee licence or for registration as an ADI is unlikely to be successful before the 29th November 2025 (after the 29th November 2025 your 2022 penalty points are no longer counted). However, I should point out that the Registrar cannot make a definite decision until he has formally considered any application you may wish to make."

32. We do not know what was said on 17 October 2023 but in our view that was a fair warning of the likely outcome of any application for a License prior to November 2025.
33. We were concerned to hear from the Appellant that as well as the two incidents of speeding that concerned this Appeal he had, in 2021, also gone on a speed awareness course. That indicated a pattern of speeding and that the course had not assisted. We also noted that the Appellant had been a professional bus driver and the speeding in question had been committed while working professionally as an Uber driver.
34. In our view it did not assist the Appellant when he said, in his letter of 10 September 2024, that he thought the road had no fixed camera and was caught only because of a mobile speed camera. This gave us the impression that he felt the need to know where the cameras were to avoid detection and that the points were in a sense the result of bad luck. He also referred to the second 3 points as having been obtained due to "frustration" in a similar way to the previous offence which he says was caused by overtaking a slow moving vehicle.
35. We considered the timings in this case. The first 3 points will no longer count after 29 November 2025 but his successful Part 1 outcome will expire on 6 November 2025. If his Appeal is dismissed that would mean that unless he took and passed part 3 without a trainee Licence in time his Part 1 will expire before the Points reduce down from 6 to 3. This would mean having to restart the qualification process from the beginning. While we had a degree of sympathy with the Appellant we did not consider this timing issue had much weight when considering the FPP question.
36. We also took into account the other matters raised by the Appellant such as those set out above in para 24. However we do not consider these to be a particularly relevant consideration. 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 and we gave these other points little weight.

Decision

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

Signed Tribunal Judge Heald

Date: 31 March 2025