[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) >> Hughes v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 492 (GRC) (02 May 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/492.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 492 (GRC)

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

First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport

		Heard by Cloud Video Platform Heard on: 13 January 2025
		Decision Given On: 2 May 2025

Decision: The appeal is Allowed.

It is ordered that: the Registrar must:

(a) consider the Appellant's application for the retention of her name on the register received by the Registrar on 24 October 2024 in line with his usual processes, and

(b) not refuse that application by reason of the Appellant not being a fit and proper person by reference solely to her conviction for failing to give information relating to the identity of a driver which was the subject of a notice of fine sent to her dated 2 November 2023.

Paragraphs 1 to 48 of this Decision have previous been sent to the parties, being the reasons for directions dated 24 March 2025. Paragraphs 49 onwards have been revised to take account of submissions received following those directions.

REASONS
1. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Registrar dated 12 December 2023 to remove the Appellant's name from the register of approved driving instructors.
2. The Tribunal received and considered documents provided by the parties. No bundle was available to the Panel, despite the Registrar indicating in his Response to the Appeal that one would be provided.
3. The Appellant and the Respondent's representative, Mr Russell, attended a hearing by Cloud Video Platform.
4. The Registrar had been barred from taking part in the proceedings. Mr Russell made an oral application at the hearing for that bar to be lifted, and his application was refused. This is described below.
5. The Tribunal is satisfied that this was a fair and just way to decide the Appeal.

The Registrar's application to take part in the hearing

6. It is necessary to set out the following procedural matter in some detail.
7. By directions dated 14 August 2024 the Registrar had been barred from taking part in the proceedings in this Appeal. This was on the basis that the Registrar had failed to comply with earlier case management directions.
8. The Registrar's representative, Mr Russell, joined the hearing and made an oral application for the bar to be lifted and for the Registrar to be permitted to take part in the hearing.
9. Mr Russell said that he understood that the Registrar had applied for the bar to be lifted, but did not have to hand a copy of any such application; the Panel was not aware of any such application having been received; and the bar had not in any event been lifted.
10. The Appellant indicated that she was content for the Registrar's representative to take part in the hearing.
11. Case management decisions at a hearing are taken by the lead Judge. I considered the representations made by Mr Russell and the Appellant's views and decided that the bar should not be lifted and that the Registrar should accordingly not be permitted to take part in the hearing. I did not give full reasons in the hearing, and this Decision sets out those reasons.
12. I note that:

a. by directions dated 30 July 2024 the Tribunal:

i. directed the Registrar to make, by 7 August 2024, a retrospective application for an extension of time in relation to the service of his Response to the Appeal, which had been served 84 days late and without any application for permission to serve late; and

ii. warned that failure to comply with this direction could result in the Registrar being barred from the proceedings in this Appeal;

b. the Tribunal received such an application dated 6 August 2024;

c. by directions dated 14 August 2024 the Tribunal barred the Registrar from these proceedings for failure to comply with the 30 July 2024 directions, without reference to the application dated 6 August 2024;

d. I have not seen further correspondence on this matter from the Registrar between 14 August 2024 and the date of the hearing, including any application to lift the bar.

13. By rule 5(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 ("the Rules") the Tribunal may give a direction in relation to the conduct or disposal of proceedings at any time, including a direction amending, suspending or setting aside an earlier direction.
14. By rule 2 of the Rules the Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective, that of enabling the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly, when it exercises any power under the Rules.
15. By rule 4(3) of the Rules, the Registrar was entitled to apply within 14 days of the directions dated 14 August 2024 to have that decision reconsidered by a Judge, and was notified of this in those directions.
16. The public interest in compliance with the Rules goes beyond prejudice to the parties in this Appeal. Sanctions for non-compliance with the Rules also have the purpose of enforcing compliance more generally.
17. It appears that the directions dated 14 August 2024 were made following a misapprehension on the part of the Tribunal in that an application had in fact been made before 7 August 2024, and that the Tribunal's Registrar (a Tribunal role, unrelated to the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors) was not aware of this application when making the directions.
18. Referring to the application for the extension of time itself: reviewing the papers before the hearing I decided that, although no direction had been given to permit an extension of time, the Response was short and concisely stated the arguments on behalf of the Registrar, and it would be in the interests of the overriding objective for the Response to be admitted. Accordingly, I decided that the Tribunal should consider the Response. It was not practical in the time available before the hearing to issue written directions to this effect.
19. Due to the complication in the procedural background, the Panel was concerned that the Appellant may not have received a copy of the Response. The Panel put the Registrar's arguments in the Response to the Appellant during the hearing.
20. Returning to the bar on the Registrar participating in the proceedings, and in particular the oral hearing: the bar followed an apprehended failure by the Registrar which, it appears, did not in fact occur. This risks substantial unfairness to the Registrar.
21. I am not aware of the Registrar having made an application for the directions dated 14 August 2024 to be reconsidered, nor for bar to be lifted, on the grounds of fairness or any other grounds, between 14 August 2024 when the bar was imposed, and 13 January 2025 when the hearing took place. Mr Russell indicated that his understanding was that an application had been made for the bar to be lifted, but no evidence of this was available at the hearing. I note that interrogation of the Tribunal file following the hearing has revealed no such application having been made.
22. I also considered the nature of the issues in the case. The documents revealed a limited set of issues, which are discussed below. The Registrar's arguments as disclosed in the Response were concise and clear, and the Response did not identify any dispute between the parties on any matter of fact or law which appeared likely to be determinative of the Appeal.
23. The Appellant had not filed further substantive arguments in the Appeal since her Grounds of Appeal. Had the Appellant done so, the opportunity for the Registrar to respond to those would have been a factor in favour of lifting the bar at the hearing, but that did not arise.
24. Finally, I considered whether it would be appropriate in general for a Respondent who had been barred from proceedings to participate in a hearing notwithstanding the bar and make an oral application for permission without the Judge having considered this in advance. Clearly this situation should be avoided wherever possible, in the interests of Judges being able to give detailed consideration to arguments in favour of or against granting relief, and therefore dealing with cases fairly and justly.
25. I considered that, notwithstanding the apparent misapprehension which led to the Registrar having been barred from proceedings, and the lack of any objection on the part of the Appellant to the Registrar participating, the prejudice to the fairness of the proceedings and the public interest in compliance with the Rules more generally outweighed these factors, in particular on the basis that the Tribunal could fairly decide the Appeal on the basis of the evidence presented to it prior to the hearing.
26. Having considered these factors, I decided not to lift the bar on the Registrar taking part in the proceedings, and Mr Russell did not take further part in the hearing.

Relevant law

27. The Registrar maintains the register of approved driving instructors, pursuant to s125 Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act").
28. When a person applies to be registered as an approved driving instructor, the Registrar must enter that person's name in the register if she fulfils certain conditions, including, in s125(3)(e), that the applicant is a fit and proper person to have her name entered in the register of approved driving instructors. The Act does not specify what this standard requires. Under s126 of the Act, registration is for a period of, broadly speaking, four years, and is renewable.
29. Section 128 of the Act provides that the Registrar may remove a person's name from the register if one or more of a number of conditions is fulfilled. One of these conditions is that the person has ceased to be a fit and proper person to be registered (s128(2)(e)).
30. A decision to remove a name from the register takes effect 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, or if an appeal is brought and is withdrawn or dismissed, when that appeal is withdrawn or dismissed (s128(6)), unless the Registrar makes a direction otherwise under s128(7). That sub-section says that:

the Registrar may, when giving notice of his decision to remove the name from the register, direct that the decision shall instead take effect—

(a) where no appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act is brought against the decision within the time limited for the appeal, on the expiration of that time,

(b) where such an appeal is brought and is withdrawn or struck out for want of prosecution, on the withdrawal or striking out of the appeal,

(c) where such an appeal is brought and not withdrawn or struck out for want of prosecution, if and when the appeal is dismissed, and not otherwise.

31. In Harris v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808, Richards LJ said that, when applying this standard:

"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".

32. The powers of this Tribunal in relation to appeals against decisions of this nature are set out in s131 of the Act. When making a decision on any such appeal, 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.

Background

33. The Appellant's name has been entered in the register on three occasions; firstly in 2012, expiring in 2016; secondly in 2016, expiring in 2020; and thirdly in 2020, which registration would have expired in the ordinary course of events on 31 October 2024.
34. The Appellant was issued with a fine, victim surcharge and costs order in the total amount of £1,014, for the offence of failing to give information relating to the identification of a driver when required. The Appellant says that this was in relation to a speeding offence committed by the Appellant's partner in a car registered in the Appellant's name. Her licence has been endorsed with six penalty points.
35. The Registrar says that he advised the Appellant by letter sent by email and dated 10 November 2023 that he was considering removing her name from the register on the grounds that she had ceased to be a fit and proper person to remain on the register, due to the offence of failing to provide information. The Appellant says that she has no record of receiving this letter.
36. The Registrar received no representations from the Appellant, and wrote to the Appellant again on 12 December 2023, confirming that he had decided to remove her name from the register.
37. The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

The Appeal

38. The Appellant submitted that:

a. at the time of the offence, her relationship with her long-term partner was extremely troubled and in the course of breaking down; the Appellant provided evidence that her relationship with her partner was abusive;

b. since that time, she had separated from her partner and was in the process of turning her life around; she described the period as a "blip";

c. she was not aware of having received any correspondence about the offence until receiving a notice of fine and collection order dated 2 November 2023, although she acknowledged that, due to the very challenging circumstances of her life at the time, she may have overlooked earlier correspondence;

d. she was not aware of having received the Registrar's letter of 10 November 2023 and the Registrar had not shown that it was sent (the Registrar does not claim to have evidence of the letter having been received);

e. she was at the time of the Tribunal hearing in the process of appealing her conviction; she had taken legal advice, had made a statutory declaration which she understood would suspend the effect of her conviction, and was awaiting an appeal hearing in relation to the matter.

39. The Registrar submitted that:

a. anyone who is an approved driving instructor is expected to have higher standards of driving and behaviour than the average motorist;

b. teaching people to drive is a responsible and demanding task and should be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety;

c. in committing the offence, the Appellant had not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that the Registrar would expect of a professional approved driving instructor;

d. the Registrar cannot condone motoring offences of this nature; and

e. to ignore this conviction would be offensive to other approved driving instructors and persons trying to qualify.

Discussion

40. The Appellant's offence was that of failing to provide information regarding the identity of a driver. This is a serious offence, meriting both six penalty points and a fine. That being said, a conviction for such an offence does not mean that a person is necessarily not a fit and proper person to remain on the register, and the Tribunal must consider all of the circumstances of the case, as the Upper Tribunal confirmed in Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors v C [2019] UKUT 230 (AAC).
41. The Appellant is in the process of appealing her conviction. The Tribunal's role is not to consider whether the Appellant's conviction should stand, and in any event the Tribunal does not have enough evidence to form a decision about the underlying circumstances of the offence. The Tribunal proceeds, as the Registrar did, on the basis that the Appellant's conviction stands.
42. It is not suggested that the Appellant is guilty of any offence committed while driving. The Tribunal accepts that the offence of failing to provide information occurred in relation to a speeding offence not committed by the Appellant.
43. The evidence available to the Tribunal does not make entirely clear that the six penalty points endorsed on the Appellant's licence are the result of the offence of failing to provide information, but that offence is the basis of the Registrar's decision.
44. There is a dispute about whether the Registrar's letter of 10 November 2023 was sent, but the Tribunal does not consider that this is material to whether the Registrar's decision was correct in this case. The Tribunal's task is not to review the process of the Registrar making the decision, but to consider the Registrar's decision afresh.
45. The Tribunal accepts that the Appellant's life circumstances, and in particular her relationship with her partner, at the time of the offence were extremely difficult. It is reasonable to infer that this would have affected all aspects of her life and work, including her ability to deal with correspondence from the Registrar or other authorities. It is also reasonable to consider that any failure by the Appellant to provide information in relation to the identity of a driver where that driver was her partner may have been influenced by the difficult nature of their relationship at the time.
46. The Tribunal notes that, whether or not the Appellant received the Registrar's letter of 10 November 2023, the Appellant did not make any representations before the Registrar's decision to remove her from the register. Accordingly, the circumstances of the offence and surrounding evidence provided by the Appellant in this Appeal were not available to the Registrar at the time.
47. The Tribunal accepts that the Appellant has made and continues to make a significant effort to leave behind the problems which affected her at the time of the offence and to move on with her life and work.

Conclusion and decision

48. Having considered the evidence and submissions of the parties, the Tribunal finds that the Registrar's decision that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person was wrong. Accordingly, the Appeal should be allowed.

What order to make

49. On an appeal against a decision of the Registrar to remove a name from the register, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.
50. The Registrar's decision letter gives a direction under s128(7) of the Act suspending the effect of the decision. That section gives the Registrar power to direct that, where an appeal is brought and not withdrawn or struck out, his decision will take effect if and when the appeal is dismissed, and not otherwise. As none of these events has occurred, a decision of the Tribunal to allow the Appeal will mean that the Registrar's decision to remove the Appellant's name from the Register has not taken effect, and will not do so.
51. However, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant's ordinary period of registration was due to expire in October 2024. By s126(1) of the Act an approved driving instructor's name will be removed from the register approximately four years after it was most recently entered. By s126(2), if an application is made to retain the person's name in the register before the four-year period expires, their name is not removed unless the Registrar refuses the application under s127.
52. It would have been unfair to the Appellant to dispose of this Appeal in a way which would risk her name being removed from the register, which is the outcome which she is specifically seeking to avoid. The Tribunal was also conscious that any decision which has an effect on the Appellant's registration status has an impact on the Registrar's functions, and having been barred from these proceedings the Registrar had not had the opportunity to comment on any proposed order which the Tribunal might make.
53. By directions dated 24 March 2025, among other things, I set out the terms of an order which the Tribunal proposed to make in this Appeal, in particular to deal with this issue by requiring the Registrar to deem the Appellant to have made an application for retention in time, and sought submissions from the parties on the proposed order.
54. By email dated 31 March 2025 the Registrar confirmed that he would comply with the terms of the proposed order, and indicated that he had received from the Appellant an application for the retention of her name on the register, on 24 October 2024. By email dated 14 April 2025 the Appellant confirmed that she had no further submissions to make on the terms of the proposed order.
55. No provision is needed to allow for circumstance in which the Appellant did not apply in time for retention of her name on the register.
56. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the order set out at the heading of this Decision.

Signed:

Tribunal Judge Maton

Date: 28 April 2025