Uday Shanker Singh v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 3^rd February 2025 to remove his name from the Register, as he was no longer fit and proper to be on the same.

The Registrar’s reasons for refusal, in summary, were that the Appellant had accrued 6 points for using/allowing a car to be used without insurance on 7^th June 2024. The Registrar took the view the offending was serious and allowing his to remain on the Register would undermine confidence in it, so determined the Appellant must be removed. The fact that the Appellant had failed to notify of the conviction was of note.

The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 1^st March 2025, indicates that he allowed a student to use his car after looking at a resident permit card, not a provisional licence. The student was not licensed and accordingly insurance was not valid. The Appellant regrets the mistake, but indicates the pupil had been persistent, and indicates he had other things on his mind. He accepts it was an error of judgement on his part. He indicates a lack of registration will have serious consequences for him and his family.

The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the offence was serious, it is a central requirement to have insurance and to ensure that all are appropriately covered under a relevant policy. Here allowing a pupil to drive without insurance, even if unintentional was serious. The Registrar determined that the Appellant had shown himself not to be fit and proper, having failed to carry out basic checks to ensure a pupil was allowed to drive. Removal was therefore required.

The case was listed for oral hearing, and heard via the CVP system.

The Appellant attended and was unrepresented. He was assisted by Rashpal Plahe.

The Respondent was represented by Andrew Heard of the DVSA Appeals team.

The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 31 pages.

Mr Heard said the Respondent’s position was as per the Response.

The Appellant said the student misled him by indicating that she had a provisional licence. She said that she would bring the right document the next day. He described how normally he would tell a prospective pupil to bring their licence and materials with them. He kept photographic copies of such licences in his records. On this occasion he said she indicated that she had a licence, and he trusted her as she was from the same Nepalese community as him. He said he completely trusted her, and that was his mistake; he simply didn’t believe she would lie to him. He said that her mother had also been pressurising him to give her daughter lessons. He stressed he had no reason not to believe them.

He said she indicated that she had failed a test before and this confirmed in his mind that she was licensed.

The Tribunal asked the Appellant if the police stopped him and asked for his documents and he said that he had them but not with him, would they accept that? He acknowledged they would not and that was his error.

He indicated that the “pupil” had driven for 3-4 miles and was on their way home car was involved in an accident on the relevant day. During all of that time she was uninsured. Under further questioning he explained that there were 3 other occasions when she had driven his car whilst uninsured. He said he kept asking for the licence but she said she had forgotten it and would bring it next time.

He accepted that he missed the requirement to notify the Registrar and he was sorry for that. He said he didn’t reply to the Registrar’s first letter as he didn’t see the email.

He said since passing his test he has not committed any offences. He said he simply wanted to help people and that was his philosophy in life.

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 of Approved Driving Instructors – see s. 125 (3) and s. 127 (3) (e) Road Traffic Act 1988 (Footnote: ¹).

The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. The burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory criteria rests with the Registrar.

In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 (Footnote: ²), the Court of Appeal described the “fit and proper person” condition thus:

“..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…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”.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Registrar’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing i.e. the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and take a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as is considered appropriate to the Registrar’s reasons (Footnote: ³) as the Registrar is the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process.

The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.

Here the Appellant failed to carry out basic checks to ensure that an individual was allowed to drive. Accepting the word of another was a significant failing. The consequences of the same were that driving lessons took place where a “pupil” was not insured. ADIs are expected to uphold the highest standards of road safety and here the Appellant fell seriously into error.

Whilst it is noted that the Appellant had issues going on in his personal life, those have to be put to one side when teaching. It is not mitigation to say my mind was elsewhere. Public safety must always be paramount.

The negligence or utter naivety of the Appellant in trusting the “pupil” was extremely worrying for the Tribunal. Such behaviour is not befitting of an approved driving instructor. The fact that he allowed her to drive on potentially 4 occasions whilst uninsured, without checking her documents the Tribunal found staggering. Further the Tribunal were somewhat perplexed that an ADI who had been on the Register since 2016 could have failed to carry out basic checks.

The Tribunal comes to the view that the Registrar had no option but to remove the Appellant. The Registrar must ensure that the public has faith in the Register and the only way to do so is to ensure that only those suitable to instruct are on it. To allow the Appellant to appear on the Register would be to condone the offending. Looking at the circumstances here the Tribunal comes to the view that the Appellant is no longer fit and proper.

The Tribunal gave careful consideration to the effect of removal, but when balanced against the offending came to the clear view that removal was still appropriate.

The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. The Registrar’s decision was entirely correct.