First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 505 (GRC)

 Case Reference: FT/D/2024/1025

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Transport

Heard by Cloud Video Platform

Heard on: 11^th April 2025

Decision given on: 7 May 2025

Before

 

JUDGE DWYER

 

Between

 

MOHAMMED BUSTAN

Appellant

and

 

REGISTRAR FOR APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS

Respondent

Representation:

 

Appellant: MOHAMMED BUSTAN

 

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed.

 

REASONS

 

1.      This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Registrar") made on 09/10/2024, to remove the Appellant's name from the register.

2.      The Appellant is a driving instructor whose name was first entered in the register in February 2018 and in the normal course, their current period of registration will expire on the last day of February 2026.  The Appellant underwent a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction of motor cars on 4 occasions and on each occasion failed.  The final test was undertaken on 19/06/2024 and on 09/10/2024, the Registrar decided to remove their name from the register under section 128 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the "Act"), as they could no longer be satisfied that their ability to give driving instruction was of a satisfactory standard.  The Appellant now appeals the Registrar's decision.

3.      The appeal was listed for an oral CVP hearing.  The Appellant attended the hearing and gave oral evidence.  A representative for the Registrar did not attend. I considered that it is not unusual for the Respondent to rely upon their written submissions and not attend in person and they were notified of the hearing.  The Tribunal had the benefit of the Respondent's response and I did not consider that further information was required from the Respondent, in order to make an informed decision. I am therefore satisfied that no adjournment was necessary and that I could properly decide the appeal in the absence of the Respondent.

The Law

4.      Section 123(1) of the Act prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment, unless the instructor's name is in the register of Approved Driving Instructors ("ADI"), or they are the holder of a current licence issued under Section 129(1) of the Act.

5.      Section 126(1) of the Act states that the normal duration of registration is 4 years, upon which a person may apply for the retention of their name in the Register for a further period of 4 years under Section 127 of the Act.

6.      Section 125(5) of the Act requires that a person whose name is held in the register shall undergo a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction in the driving of motor cars, when required to do so by the Registrar. Although the Act requires only one test, it is the Registrar's normal practice to allow ADIs three attempts to attain the required standard.

7.      Section 128(1) of the Act allows the Registrar to remove a name from the Register before the expiry of 4 years, if they have failed to pass the test required under Section 125(5).

8.      Section 131 of The Act specifies the types of appeal that can be made to this Tribunal.  Section 131(1)(c) specifies that a decision of the Registrar to remove a name from the register may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.  However, this is limited by Section 133(3) of the Act, in that no appeal shall lie under Section 131 of this Act in respect of which an application may be made to a magistrates' court or sheriff under 133(1).   Section 133(1) provides that on application of a person who has undergone a relevant examination, a magistrates' court or sheriff may determine whether the examination was properly conducted.

The Evidence

 

9.      I have considered a bundle of evidence containing 34 numbered pages. Whilst reference is not made to each individual piece of evidence considered in this decision notice, I have carefully considered all of the evidence in the hearing bundle and the Appellant's oral evidence.

10.  The Respondent submits that the reasons for the decision to remove the Appellant's name from the register are:

a)      On 4 occasions, the Appellant undertook tests of continued ability and fitness to give instruction but failed each time to reach the required standard.

 

b)     Following each of the first 3 tests, the Appellant was advised of their shortcomings so as to give them the opportunity to consider these and to improve their standard of instruction.  However, they still failed to reach the required standard on the 4th test.

 

c)      Therefore, the Registrar considered that the Appellant had been given adequate opportunity to pass the test but he had failed to do so. In the interests of road safety and consumer protection, the Registrar felt obliged to remove their name because he had been unable to satisfy them that their ability to give driving instruction was of a satisfactory standard.

 

11.  The Appellant submits:

a)      There is inconsistency and unfairness in the evaluation process, having scored lower in the latest test despite extensive training and preparation.

 

b)     There was racial discrimination by the DVSA officer assigned to their standard checks as they consistently fail them and their students.

 

c)      Contrary to the negative outcomes of the standards checks, their overall performance metrics and statistics have shown significant improvement compared to previous years.

 

d)     The current standards check process is not fit for purpose and does not accurately reflect an instructor's ability to teach and guide students effectively.

 

e)      On the most recent attempt to demonstrate their instructional ability, a student unfortunately performed poorly on the day.

 

12.  I do not need to consider the merits of the submissions made by the Appellant as they all relate to whether the examination was properly conducted.  Whilst there is a valid appeal right to this Tribunal regarding removal from the register under Section 131(1)(c) and therefore the appeal cannot be struck out, the appeal right is one which is limited.  The Act states that whether the examination was properly conducted may be determined by the magistrate's court or Sheriff under Section 133(1).  Therefore, this Tribunal is prevented from considering or making any determination on whether the examination was properly conducted, as in accordance with Section 133(3) of the Act, no appeal shall lie under Section 131 of this Act in respect of which an application may be made to a magistrates' court or sheriff under 133(1).

13.  The Appellant was made aware in the decision letter from the respondent at page 33 of bundle that they may appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal, however, in the paragraph above was also informed that the Tribunal has no power to alter the test result or order a new test and if they are aggrieved by the result of the test, they must appeal to their local magistrates court.   The appellant told the Tribunal at the hearing that they had not noticed this paragraph and confirmed that they had no other basis for appealing the removal of their name, other than those outlined above, relating to the conduct of the test.

14.  Therefore, I must dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the Registrar as the appellant had not provided any reasons for appealing the removal of their name from the register, that I can consider under the Act.

15.  The appeal is therefore dismissed and the Respondent's decision of 09/10/2024 is upheld.

 

Signed                Judge Dwyer                                                                 Date: 01/05/2025