First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 514 (GRC)

 Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0975

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Transport

 

Heard by Cloud Video Platform

Heard on: 6^th May 2025

Decision given on: 9^th May 2025

Before

 

JUDGE KIAI

TRIBUNAL MEMBER FRY

TRIBUNAL MEMBER BOOTH

 

Between

 

AYESHA ALI

Appellant

and

 

REGISTRAR OF APPROVED

DRIVING INSTRUCTORS

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: In person (by telephone)

For the Respondent: Mr Russell

 

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed

 

 

REASONS

 

1.      This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Registrar") made on 22 October 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 she 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.      On 20 October 2022, the Appellant wrote to the DVSA to tell them about her penalty points. She asked if she could still apply for her trainee licence as she had completed her 40 hours of training.

3.      The DVSA wrote back on the same date, indication that the application was "highly likely" to be refused, until the penalty points are no longer counted towards the totting up process. "In your case this will be 21 September 2025".

4.      The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The Appellant and the representative for the Respondent both joined by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

The Appeal

5.      The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 11 September 2024 relies on the grounds that she was only 21 years of age at the time. She was at university (evidence has been provided) and decided that becoming a driving instructor would help her pay her university fees and support road safety. She explains that this was the only time she received points on her licence, she informed DVSA straight away (even before she had received the points), she made one mistake and has learnt her lesson. At the time of the offence she applied for a licence which was refused - she felt she had to bear the consequences of her actions. It has now been 2 years and she has learnt from her mistake. She reiterates throughout that she feels remorse and regret in relation to the offence. She sets out her personal circumstances relating to her grandmother's ill-health (medical evidence has been provided). On the date in question she answered the phone on speakerphone as she was concerned about her grandmother. She did not realise at the time that it was illegal - she should have known better. She explains at length that has learnt her lesson, she has purchased blue-tooth and her phone is set to automatically reply to any calls or text messages (in driving mode) to stop this happening again. She has advised her grandmother that if she does not answer, she should contact other family members. She submits various character references. She has voluntarily signed up and agreed to the voluntary code of practice on professional standards, business practices as a driving instructor. 

6.      The Registrar's Statement of Case dated 3 April 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant's driving licence is endorsed with 6 penalty points. As she had already started the ADI qualification process she should have been fully aware of the rules for mobile phone use, "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" (§7(a)). The Registrar maintains that he cannot condone motoring offences of this nature. To do so would be to sanction the behaviour, if those who transgress were allowed entry onto an official Register that allows them to teach others. It would be an offence to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify an ADI's who had been scrupulous in observing the law, for him to ignore these motoring convictions.

7.      The Registrar ends with the following statement "Although legislation does not provide that I can refuse an applicant from undertaking the qualification examinations, my team undertake an assessment to determine whether or not such applicants are 'a fit and proper person to have their names included in the registrar'. This check is to avoid applicants from undergoing costly training when they are unlikely to meet that criterion. In my email of 20 October 2022, I made it clear that any application would be unlikely to be accepted while the penalty points remained on the appellant's licence'.

8.      The Appellant did not provide a Reply.

9.      The Appellant attended the hearing and made submissions - in particular she emphasised that she it had cost her £6000 to get to this stage (on training, pedals and a car). She had got into a lot of debt and it would cost her another £3000 if she was forced to re-apply in 4 months time. She re-iterated that she had made a power-point presentation for her mother's driving school, detailing the policy about phone procedures.  She had done this so that others didn't make the same mistake as her.

10.  The Appellant's father also attended and made submissions on her behalf. He himself was a driving examiner and had worked with the Registrar in the past. He explained that he had been tougher on her than anyone. She was very sorry and had learnt her lesson. She had been just 21 at the time of the incident, she is now almost 24 years old.

The law

11.  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.

12.  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).

13.  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

14.  We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 33 numbered pages. We heard submissions from the Appellant and her father at the hearing. We also heard representations on behalf of the Respondent.

The relevant facts

15.  The Appellant was going through the qualification process to become an ADI when she received a fixed penalty notice for breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle, mobile telephones and so on, on 2 September 2022 resulting in 6 penalty points. In an email dated 20 October 2022 the Appellant declared she had received 6 points on her licence and asked if she would still be able to apply for a trainee licence. On the same date, the Registrar responded that it was likely the application would be refused but she would have the opportunity to explain the details.

16.  The Appellant did apply for a trainee licence on 22 October 2022 which was refused on 8^th November 2022. The Appellant did not appeal this decision and continued to complete the qualification process.

17.  Almost, 2 years later, on 20 September 2024, the Appellant applied for admission to the Register. The registrar gave her notice that he was considering refusing her application and she was invited to make representations which she did. In those representations she explained that she was a student at university and had applied to become a driving instructor to help pay her fees. She did not dispute the facts of the case. She explained that she answered the phone on speaker phone as she was worried there was an issue with her unwell grandmother.

18.  The application was refused by the Registrar on 22 October 2024.

19.  The Appellant explained the circumstances of the offence further at the hearing (as set out above).

Conclusions

20.  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.

21.  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.

22.  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.

23.  In the Appellant's Representations, she refers to several cases and asserts "I feel I should stay on the register as well as I am listing some case where people are still on the register for 6 points...". We note that the cases referred to are all First Tier Tribunal decision, as such they are not binding upon us and we are not required to follow them. Each case must necessarily turn on its own facts, even where they may appear superficially analogous.

24.  We do have sympathy for the Appellant's position. She has made one serious driving mistake which has affected her ability to pursue a career as an ADI while she has six points on her licence. She reported it immediately. We accept that she was dealing with a difficult situation at the time of the offence (she was concerned about her grandmother's ill-health). We note that she has taken important steps to ensure that she never makes this mistake again.

25.  We are concerned however, that the Appellant states that she did not know at the time of the incident that it was illegal to answer the phone on speakerphone - she had already commenced ADI qualification process at the time she received the penalty points and therefore should have been fully aware that her actions were illegal. We note and were impressed by the fact that since that time she had prepared a power-point presentation (for her mother's driving school) on telephone procedures in order to stop others finding themselves in the same position as the Appellant.

26.  We attach significant weight to the fact that in 4 months time, the penalty points will 'expire' (21^st September 2025). We have taken into account the Appellant's submission that it will cost her a lot of money to reapply once her penalty points expire. We have noted that she has spent significant sums qualifying and is now in debt. We do take into account, however, that the Registrar did advise her in his email of 20 October 2022 that any application would be unlikely to be accepted whilst the penalty points remain on the Appellant's licence.  She had clearly undertaken training before this date, however she has also undertaken training after this point.

27.  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. We note again, that in 4 months time her points will expire. We very much hope that any future application following this date will be granted. We found her to be a credible witness and have no doubt that she was exceptionally remorseful for the mistake she made - now nearly 3 years ago (21^st September 2022) - when she was only 21 years old.

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 refuse the Appellant's application to be entered on the Register as she was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.

 

 

 

Signed                                                                                  Date:

Judge Kiai                                                                             8^th May 2025