[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) >> Hussain v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 435 (GRC) (29 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/435.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 435 (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: 29 April 2025

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. The Registrar's decision of 2 August 2024 is upheld.

REASONS
1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Registrar") made on 2 August 2024 to remove the Appellant's name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the "Register") on the grounds that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI"). This was due to a complaint made about the Appellant by a pupil.
2. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). All parties joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

The Appeal

3. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal relies on the grounds that the pupil's complaints are incorrect.
4. The Registrar's Statement of Case dated 10 January 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that, although the Appellant had not been convicted of any offence, he had pursued a course of conduct that is not appropriate to the professional relationship between instructor and pupil.
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").
7. The Registrar can remove a person's name from the Register if they have ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name on the Register (section 125(2)(e) of the Act). The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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." (paragraph 30).

The evidence

10. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 167 numbered pages.
11. This includes evidence of the complaint made by the pupil (which includes text messages and a photograph of the Appellant), and DVSA investigation reports of interviews with the pupil and the Appellant. The Appellant provided evidence including text messages with the pupil and character references. We have read and considered all of the written evidence.
12. We heard submissions from the Appellant and the Registrar.

The relevant facts

13. The Appellant began working as a driving instructor in March 2019. He taught the pupil who made a complaint about him when she was 17 and 18 years old. On 26 December 2023 she made a complaint about the Appellant to the DVSA, which alleged they began a sexual relationship after her 18^th birthday. She provided some copies of text messages between her and the Appellant.
14. A DVSA investigator took a statement from the pupil on 12 February 2024. The same investigator interviewed the Appellant and put the allegations to him. The Appellant denied any sexual relationship with the pupil.
15. On 2 July 2024 the Registrar gave the Appellant written notice that he was considering removing the Appellant's name from the Register as he was not a fit and proper person. This letter set out the pupil's statement in full and asked for a reply within 28 days. The Appellant did not reply, and so the decision to remove his name from the Register was confirmed on 2 August 2024.
16. At the hearing, the Registrar maintained that the Appellant's relationship with the pupil was not professional. He claims to have felt awkward, but he had admitted to kissing her on the cheek, buying her a present and taking her some cake. His admission relating to a kiss on the cheek suggests he did this several times. The Appellant did not provide any representations in response to the written notice. The Registrar maintains that he is not a fit and proper person to be on the Register.
17. We have read and considered the Appellant's detailed written account of events, as well as the copy text messages he provided. He denies any inappropriate conduct with the pupil, and says she has fabricated the allegations against him. He says that she started a social media campaign against him, as well as writing a letter to his wife. He was so concerned that he obtained advice from the police. He now denies any physical contact with the pupil at all.
18. The complainant gave a detailed statement during the DVSA investigation. We are not in a position to be able to decide whether the complainant's version of events is accurate. We have focussed on the written evidence, and asked the Appellant questions at the hearing about this evidence.
19. The most important written evidence is the set of text messages provided by the complainant with her complaint. Some of the key exchanges are as follows:

a. "We are both a bit worried you were grooming me, but we think probably not" – reply from Appellant, "We both don't know how it happened so how I led you on? I was not grooming you I liked you, sat next to you for a year I think that's enough to develop feelings for someone".

b. From Appellant – "I don't think it be a good idea for me to speak to him coz he doesn't know how friendship led to more, people never understand situations and just because an older than you then it's automatically my fault".

c. From the Appellant – "If you're dad is worried then tell him we never gonna see each other again just be friends over the messages coz wherever we see each other we argue, as for grooming or whatever that is and reporting me then remember everytime we kissed cos you wanted it, everytime we see each other coz you wanted to see me".

d. "Just promise me you won't ever get involved with someone who's not your wife again. I'm not being bitchy, but they will get hurt" – reply from Appellant, "That's what I don't like about you you're blaming me everything like I was incharge of everything…I never have before you".

e. There is also a photograph of the Appellant in his car pouting at the camera.

20. These messages indicate that there was some kind of sexual relationship between the Appellant and his pupil, involving at least kissing. The Appellant says that all of the above exchanges are fabricated and did not happen, and he did not send the photograph. The text messages from the complainant included various messages about payment arrangements, and the Appellant says that he did sent these messages.
21. We have seen a set of text messages provided by the Appellant. He says that these are a complete set of messages between him and the complainant. These include some of the messages about payment arrangements, but not the messages set out above.
22. The Appellant was shown the text messages provided by the pupil at the DVSA investigation interview. He now says that he was only shown them briefly and could not see them properly, and he should have leaned forward to see them better. He was asked at the interview about the text message "everytime we kissed coz you wanted it", and his answers were recorded as, "He claims that was just a friendly kiss on the cheek at the end of lessons and that [name of pupil] initiated it. He denied that they ever kissed on the mouth or that it was anything more than a peck on the cheek". This is different from the version of events he has given at the Tribunal hearing, where he denied any physical contact. He was also asked about the message saying "he doesn't know how friendship led to more", and his explanation was that they had a friendship that wasn't just professional, but he denied anything sexual happened. He did not suggest during the interview that these messages were fabricated.
23. The Appellant did not provide a response to the written notice from the Registrar. In his appeal, he says that this is because he opened it and saw the same fabricated story from the complainant, he did not want to read it again, and he did not see that the Registrar had asked for an explanation at the end. At the hearing, the Appellant said that he did not see this email at all because the sender "PADI" is very similar to the group "PDI" that he is a member of.
24. We find that the Appellant has given inconsistent versions of events. His explanations at the hearing differ from the explanations given to the DVSA investigator, particularly in relation to the text messages provided by the complainant. He has also given different explanations for why he did not respond to the Registrar. We have considered the Appellant's explanation that the complainant's text messages were fabricated, and find this to be implausible. He confirmed that the text messages show his telephone number, and that some of the text messages about payment were sent by him. On the balance of probabilities, we find that the Appellant did send the messages set out in paragraph 19 above, and that he did have an inappropriate relationship with an 18 year old pupil which went beyond either a professional instructor-pupil relationship or a friendship.

Conclusions

25. If an ADI's name is allowed to remain 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 and other matters of responsibility, trustworthiness, inappropriate personal conduct or commission of criminal offences.
26. We have assessed the facts on the basis that it is imperative that the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs is maintained, given the substantial level of trust that is placed on ADIs by pupils, parents and other ADIs as well as road users, the public and the DVSA.
27. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, that those who are on it understand their responsibilities, and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. This would all be undermined if the Appellant was allowed to remain on the Register. The public are entitled to know that the Registrar will ensure that often young and impressionable pupils are being instructed by those that behave properly. We have found on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant did have an inappropriate relationship with an 18 year old pupil that involved at least kissing, and that he has not been truthful about this at the Tribunal hearing.
28. 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 remove the Appellant's name from 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