[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) >> Baqer v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 433 (GRC) (23 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/433.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 433 (GRC)

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

First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Transport

		Heard by: Cloud Video Platform Heard on: 14 April 2025
		Decision Given On: 23 April 2025

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. The Registrar's decision of 3 September 2024 is upheld.

REASONS
1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Registrar") made on 3 September 2024 to refuse the Appellant's application to be entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the "Register") on the grounds that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to become an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI"). This is because he had a fixed penalty for breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle, mobile telephones and so on, resulting in 6 penalty points.
2. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The Appellant joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The Registrar did not attend the hearing, and it appears that his representative was engaged in another hearing at the same time. The Tribunal decided that, in all the circumstances, it was appropriate and in accordance with the overriding objective to proceed with the hearing in the Registrar's absence.

The Appeal

3. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 11 September 2024 relies on the grounds that it was the only time he got points on his licence, he informed DVSA straight away, he made one mistake, he is a good instructor with a good reputation, and he strongly advises his students not to use the phone while driving and won't do it again.
4. The Registrar's Statement of Case dated 25 March 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant's driving licence is endorsed with 6 penalty points, and he was speaking to his wife before entering the vehicle so should have finished the call before starting to drive. The Registrar does not believe that the Appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that he would expect to see from a potential ADI.
5. The Appellant did not provide a Reply.

The law

6. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to be and continue to be a "fit and proper person" to have his name on the Register – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the "Act"). The Registrar has the burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
7. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). 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 Parliament with making such decisions (in accordance with R. (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31).
8. In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808, the Court of Appeal described the "fit and proper person" condition as follows: "..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…It seems to me that 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. This is why there are stringent disclosure requirements." (paragraph 30).

The evidence

9. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 27 numbered pages. We heard submissions from the Appellant at the hearing.

The relevant facts

10. The Appellant was going through the qualification process to become an ADI. In an email dated 3 May 2024 the Appellant declared he had received 6 points on his licence but would still like to complete the qualification tests. On 3 May 2024 the Registrar confirmed that as he had already been accepted to start the qualification process he would not be prevented from taking the qualification tests, but if he was to apply to have his name added to the register or a trainee licence it was likely that this application would be refused.
11. On 6 August 2024, the Registrar received an application for admission to the Register from the Appellant. A routine check of the DVLA Swansea database confirmed that he had received a fixed penalty notice for breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle, mobile telephones and so on, on 27 February 2024, resulting in 6 penalty points.
12. On 6 August 2024 the Registrar sent the Appellant an email giving written notice that he was considering refusing his application on the grounds that he could not be satisfied that he fulfilled the condition of being a" fit and proper person". The Appellant was given 28 days to make representations.
13. The Appellant replied on 7 August. He said that he had received an emergency call from his partner while shopping. She was having a panic attack, and he got into the car while talking to her on the phone to try to calm her down. The Bluetooth didn't connect in his car so he went to the settings to turn it on. The police stopped him and he was given a fine and six points for using his phone. He said that he had learned from his mistakes, he can't afford to lose his only source of income, these are the only points ever registered on his licence, and he always follows the rules.
14. The Registrar gave notice on 3 September 2024 that he had decided to refuse the Appellant's application for registration as an approved ADI.
15. The Appellant explained the circumstances of the offence further at the hearing. His wife was having a serious panic attack, so he was on the phone to her as he got into his car. He connected the phone through a wire connection which usually takes a short while to connect. As he was driving, he realised that the phone had not connected properly, and so he held it up while he was still driving in order to connect it through Bluetooth. This was seen by a police officer and he was stopped. He acknowledges that he should have ended the call, but says he was panicking as well due to the situation. He confirmed that he teaches his pupils to find a suitable place to stop and ensure that is safe before taking a call, even if it an emergency. He said that his emotions had taken over and he had not followed his own teaching technique.
16. The Appellant said at the hearing that actions have consequences and he had done the wrong thing, but he didn't think the punishment was fair for using his phone in circumstances where he has already paid considerable fees to a driving school franchise. He feels he has been punished enough and has learned his lesson.

Conclusions

17. If an ADI's name is allowed to be put on the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public's confidence in the Register. This includes behaviour relating to driving.
18. ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of motoring, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. 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.
19. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. What the Appellant did may not seem to be a serious offence, but the law treats it very seriously. It is essential that ADIs follow the law that they are supposed to be teaching to often young and impressionable pupils. We are aware that the Registrar consistently views six points on a driving licence as a serious matter which means someone is not a fit and proper person.
20. We do have sympathy for the Appellant's position. He has made one serious driving mistake which has affected his ability to pursue a career as an ADI while he has six points on his licence. We accept that he was dealing with a difficult situation at the time of the offence. But, he was fully aware of the right thing to do, and instead chose to continue driving while holding and using his phone. We have considered all of the arguments made by the Appellant. However, we do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances which would justify allowing the Appellant to remain on the Register after committing an offence of this nature.
21. We find on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar's decision to refuse the Appellant's application to be entered on the Register as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.

Signed: Judge Hazel Oliver

Date: 18 April 2025