Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0127
Transport
Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Before
JUDGE HEALD
MEMBER BOOTH
MEMBER ROANTREE
Between
ADRIAN JOHN TILLEY
Appellant
and
THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: in person
For the Respondent: the Registrar did not attend and was not represented.
Decision: The Appeal is Dismissed.
REASONS
This Appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(1)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act"). It relates to a Decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 20 December 2024 ("the Decision") to refuse the Appellant's application for (re)registration as an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI") on the basis of the Registrar's conclusion that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person ("FPP") to have his name on the register of ADIs ("the Register").
What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference by us to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered.
In this Decision page numbers indicated by their inclusion in brackets refer to pages of the Bundle.
Law
By section 123(1) of the Act a person may only provide paid driving instruction if that person's name is on the Register or he holds a Licence by section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.
Section 125(3)(e) of the Act provides as follows:-
Where a person duly applies for the entry of his name in the register, the Registrar must, on payment of such fee, if any, as may be prescribed by regulations, enter his name in the register if he satisfies the Registrar that the following conditions are fulfilled in his case—(e) apart from fulfilment of the preceding conditions, he is a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the register."
In Harris -v- Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 Richards LJ held at para 30:-
".....I do not accept that the scope of the "fit and proper person" condition is as narrow as Mr Leviseur contended. Of course, 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".
The Guidance and the Code
The Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency ("DVSA") has issued Guidance ("the Guidance") which an ADI is required to declare they have read when applying to become an ADI. It states for example:-
Responsibilities
When you’re giving driving lessons, you’re responsible for your own safety, that of your pupil and other road users.
You have to show a:...
professional approach to your customers
responsible attitude to your pupils and profession
Being a ‘fit and proper’ person
You must be a ‘fit and proper’ person to be an ADI.
ADIs are in a position of considerable trust. The ADI Registrar protects the image of the register and maintains the public’s confidence in the ADI industry.
What ‘fit and proper’ means
The law says you must be a ‘fit and proper’ person, but does not define what it means.
The ADI Registrar interprets it as the personal and professional standards, conduct or behaviour that could be unacceptable in the eyes of the public and other ADIs.
"It’s not possible to be definitive about what’s classed as ‘fit and proper’. There has to be some discretion to take into account the circumstances of each case.
The ADI Registrar makes an assessment of the risk you’re likely to pose to the public."
Personal conduct
"When deciding if you’re a ‘fit and proper’ person, DVSA will check if you have:...had any substantiated complaints of inappropriate behaviour or misconduct"
Additionally a code of practice for ADI ("the Code") has been agreed between the DVSA and the National Associations Strategic Partnership a steering group for approved driving instructor associations. Whilst it is voluntary the Guidance states that "It is a framework within which all instructors should operate."This includes:-
"Driver trainers will be professional, comply with the law, keep clients safe and treat them with respect.
The instructor agrees to:
at all times behave in a professional manner towards clients in line with the standards in the national standard for driver and rider training
avoid inappropriate physical contact with clients
avoid the use of inappropriate language to clients
not initiate inappropriate discussions about their own personal relationships and take care to avoid becoming involved in a client’s personal affairs or discussions about a client’s personal relationships, unless safeguarding concerns are raised
avoid circumstances and situations which are or could be perceived to be of an inappropriate nature
respect client confidentiality whilst understanding the actions to take if a client reveals concerns about their private lives
treat clients with respect and consideration and support them to achieve the learning outcomes."
Role of the Tribunal
Section 131(1) of the Act provides that:-
"A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar... (a)to to refuse an application for the entry of his name in the register.. may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal."
Section 131(3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:-
"(a)for the grant or refusal of the application
or,
(b)for the removal or the retention of the name in the register, or the revocation or continuation of the licence,
(as the case may be) as it thinks fit."
Section 131(4A) of the Act enables the matter to be remitted back to the Registrar for reconsideration
"If the...Tribunal considersthat any evidence adduced on an appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before he gave the decision to which the appeal relates."
In considering the Appeal the Tribunal must also give appropriate weight to the Registrar's view. The Court of Appeal in Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011) held that the answer to " How much weight was the district judge entitled to give to the decision of the licensing authority?" was:-
"45...the proper conclusion....can only be stated in very general terms. It is right in all cases that the magistrates' court should pay careful attention to the reasons given by the licensing authority for arriving at the decision under appeal, bearing in mind that Parliament has chosen to place responsibility for making such decisions on local authorities. The weight which the magistrates should ultimately attach to those reasons must be a matter for their judgment in all the circumstances, taking into account the fullness and clarity of the reasons, the nature of the issues and the evidence given on the appeal."
Therefore when making its Decision, 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 the relevant legislation with making such decisions. It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision-making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances.
Our decision is reached on the balance of probabilities.
Evidence and matters considered
We had a Bundle of 48 pdf pages. At the Appeal we heard from the Appellant but there was no attendance by or for the Registrar.
Background
The background to the Decision was that a complaint ("the Complaint") had been made to the Police about the Appellant's alleged conduct towards a pupil ("the Pupil"). The Complaint, in summary, was that whilst working as a driving instructor he had engaged in "a sexual conversation via text message with a 17 year old pupil" and for example had asked the Pupil to allow him to massage the pupil "in return for free driving lessons". Additionally the Police say that the Appellant thereafter asked the Pupil to delete the conversation.
The Appellant was arrested and later charged with an offence the particulars of which being (1):-
"cause / incite the sexual exploitation of a child aged 13 - 17 - SOA 2003 with the particulars of the offence being between 01/06/2022 and 11/06/2022 at <township> intentionally caused or incited the sexual exploitation of a child aged 17 and whom you did not reasonably believe was aged 18 or over in any part of the world by offering free driving lessons in exchange for sexual activity."
That charge was dismissed by a Judge prior to trial and this Appeal takes place without the Complaint or its denial being tested by cross-examination and in the absence of the Pupil. Our role does not extend to seeking to make findings of fact about the Complaint (or any counter allegations) save where there are admissions or evidence about which we are able to reach our own conclusions. We are not in a position to look behind the Judge's decision to dismiss the charges.
While the message or messages referred to were not in evidence we do note that the Appellant referred to them in letter of 13 November 2024 and in his representations. He said for example:-
"The incident that shows on my disclosure was of course a two sided story and not quite as black and white as it may look..."(35)
"I am extremely remorseful and apologetic for the lapse of professionalism that has brought us to this position and to any distress I may have caused my pupil"(24)
"...I do recognise that my actions at the time were inappropriate..."(24)
" my lapse of professionalism" (26)
"I take full responsibility for the inappropriate text"(26)
"This breakdown had clouded my general demeanor, lapse of professional character and allowed for the inappropriate texts."(35)
Chronology
In outline the chronology leading to this Appeal is as follows:-
in June 2022 the Complaint was made to the Police (28-29).
on 29 June 2022 the Appellant was arrested and interviewed (28).
the Appellant first had his name added to the Register in July 2022 (18)
on 17 November 2023 the process to remove the Appellant's name from the Register was commenced against which the Appellant appealed (case ref FT/D/2024/0062). During this process the Registrar allowed his decision to be suspended pending the outcome of the Appeal by section 128(7) of the Act.
on 1 February 2024 (29) the Appellant was charged with "cause/incite the sexual exploitation of a child aged 13-17" contrary to The Sexual Offences Act 2003.
on or about 25 March 2024 the Appellant withdrew Appeal ref FT/D/2024/0062 (23) and his name was then removed from the Register (17).
in June 2024 the criminal case against him was dismissed by a Judge.
on 13 November 2024 (24) the Appellant wrote and asked for his name to be added (back) onto the Register and provided his enhanced DBS certificate dated 7 November 2024 (28).
on 20 November 2024 the Registrar indicated (33) that there was information about the Appellant that was causing the Registrar to consider refusing the application on the basis that he was not a FPP. Although not obliged to do so he invited the Appellant to write to the Registrar with an explanation as to why he felt his application should not be refused.
on 22 November 2024 the Appellant wrote with his representations (34).
on 20 December 2024 the Registrar notified the Appellant of the Decision (45 and 1):-
"..to refuse your application on the grounds that you do not meet the condition in Section 125(3)(e), that is, you cannot be considered a “fit and proper” person to become an Approved Driving Instructor"
The Appeal
On 20 January 2025 the Appellant commenced this Appeal (3-15). The Registrar provided a Response (16-22) dated 15 June 2025.
The Registrar's position
The Registrar does not consider the Appellant to be a FPP. His position is set out in the Decision and the Response to the Appeal. In the Decision (45) the Registrar said that he reached the FPP conclusion because:-
"On 1 February 2023 [this should have said 2024] you were charged by the Police with cause / incite the sexual exploitation of a child aged 13 – 17 – SOA 2003 with the particulars of the offence being between 01/06/2022 and 11/06/2022 at <township> intentionally caused or incited the sexual exploitation of a child aged 17 and whom you did not reasonably believe was aged 18 or over in any part of the world by offering free driving lessons in exchange for sexual activity.
Although the Registrar understands that your case was dismissed before reaching Crown Court, due to an issue with the wording of the offence, you do admit in your representations to a lapse of professionalism and that you take full responsibility for the inappropriate text but state the conversation was initiated by the pupil concerned.
The Registrar feels that he cannot allow you to be a driving instructor given the risk of similar incidents occurring."
In summary the Registrar's view in his Response based in particular on the information supplied by the Police and the Appellant was that:-
Whilst I accept that the appellant has not been convicted of any offence he has admitted to unprofessional conduct following a police investigation that led to him being charged with cause/incite the sexual exploitation of a child aged 13-17 SOA 2003 (01/06/2022-11/06/2022). The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standards. I would therefore be failing in my public duty if I allowed a person who had sent inappropriate text messages to his pupil to have his name re- entered in the register.
Registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is "Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor". Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person's character, behaviour and standard of conduct. In view of this, I am concerned that the good name of the register would be tarnished and the public's confidence undermined if it were generally known that I had allowed the appellant's name to be re- entered in the register.
It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in their professional conduct, for me to ignore the inappropriate and unprofessional conduct displayed by the appellant."
The Appellant's case
The Appellant did not dispute the facts set out by the Registrar but he did dispute the basis of the criminal charges because, as he said in his Reasons for Appeal (10), he believed the Pupil to be over 18, at no stage did he incite him to carry out sexual activity and it was the Pupil who initiated conversations about the Pupil's partner. He also pointed out that the charges had been dismissed. Other than that he had no argument with the facts set out by the Registrar and he agreed when questioned that whether the Pupil was 17 or over 18 at the relevant time made little if any difference to the FPP concerns raised by the Registrar.
The Appellant's position was set out in his letter of 13 November 2024 (24-27), his representations with supporting documents (34-44), Reasons for Appeal (3-15) and at the Appeal itself. From these sources his case in summary was as follows:-
he says that (24):-
"...the last few years have been, without doubt the most challenging and life changing of my 63 years. The toll on my emotional, mental and physical health, financial and marital stability is profound, but I have worked through the challenges and pleased to say health wise and maritally i'm making good progress. My wife and I love each other very much and with the right opportunities look forward to our twilight years together."
he explained how he had worked for over 42 years holding senior management roles and the impact on him of being made redundant, finding a job but being made redundant again after 10 months service. This he said was very impactful on his "self belief, confidence and pride"(25). He said that (34):-
"Throughout my entire 46 years of working I have been known and rewarded for my exceptional professionalism and have never in my life ever broken the law or been in any trouble with the police."
he gave us an insight into certain tragic events for example the early death of his father, the death of his Father-in-law and the death of his Uncle. He said that because he had to be strong for everyone from an early age he did not process this trauma.
he told us of his Doctor's advice that:-
"I had been trying to deal with too much “trauma” and as a consequence I had experienced a character blip and a breakdown"(26) and
"My Dr was excellent and described that what I had gone through from 2020 was regarded as "trauma" and through my desire to protect everyone around me had in fact failed myself and had experienced a breakdown. This breakdown had clouded my general demeanor, lapse of professional character and allowed for the inappropriate texts."
he explained his route to becoming an ADI. He says (25); that
"I was allowed to carry on instructing and over the next 18 months was successful in getting my pupils through to passing their tests, receiving many, many fantastic testimonials. (a few attached). I had realised that my initial trepidation about this career was completely wrong as it was a job that I not only loved but many said they felt it was "my calling" as I was a total natural at it. My pass rate became 20% higher than the national average and 23% higher than the Cambridge average."
he set out for us the things he had done since the Complaint was made. These were:-
"I voluntarily completed a safeguarding course for instructors plus 2 further ones since.
I attended a full first aid course.
I enrolled as a volunteer for the RVS (Royal Voluntary Service) as a NHS Covid vaccine steward working from [redacted]Bowls club helping all ages when attending their appts.
My other work which I have been doing for 15 years at [redacted] Cathedral as a blue badge tower tour guide I continued to give the generous fee paid for each tour back to the Cathedral to ensure that every little towards the upkeep will benefit future generations to enjoy.
After my ADI licence was revoked last November I have worked for a large national conservation charity 30hrs a week in a visitor centre meeting, greeting all the elderly, families, and adults."
we noted in the evidence (43) a certificate of completion of a course in February 2023 from the Church of England National Safeguarding Team and a "Safeguarding for Training Providers " certificate in his name (42)
he told us of his relationship and his child being at university for which an income is needed to help fund the studies.
he also provided testimonials which we read. These (which appeared to have an insight into the issues) said for example:-
"I can confirm that he is man of great integrity and is dedicated to his Driving School and Pupils. I entrusted Adrian with my then 17 year old daughter [redcated] providing her with many driving lessons. Adrian demonstrated nothing but professionalism, courtesy, care and compassion...My daughter never once complained about Adrian and only had good things to always say about him, she always spoke well of him. We would highly recommend him to all her friends and anyone wanting to learn how to drive. " (41)
"Adrian always remained professional, and made me feel comfortable when I was around him, I was devastated when I wasn’t able to have him for my test, he had became a secure person I was able to trust and I was very worried about having my last lesson and test with someone else...Over all I thinks he’s great, he’s kind, respectful, and most importantly professional at all times" (39).
"I have been asked by Adrian Tilley to provide a testimonial regarding his professionalism, behaviours etc.. I still to this day struggle to believe that I am having to do this for him...We were absolutely gutted and in utter disbelief when out of the blue we got a message saying that with immediate effect he would not be instructing anymore. Some people are made for certain professions and it is clear that Adrian had a passion and a gift for teaching people to drive...I can only keep fingers, and everything else crossed, that justice and common sense prevail wins in this case, as if it does and Adrian is allowed to instruct again I will have no hesitation in calling him to get my daughter booked in for lessons" (37).
and in his Representations he said for example:-
" I know anyone that knows me from family, friends, colleagues, customers and most importantly the many parents and pupils who I have taught to learn to drive would categorically endorse that I am fit and proper to carry on doing the job I love and am told regularly was excellent at."
He spoke of his and his family's hopes for the future. He said that he is now back "to my old self, of pre 2020 and more professional and in control than ever." He said that getting his ADI status back was "The last piece of this jigsaw journey..." which would (36):-
"...1 to allow me to work again in the job I love, 2 to allow me to keep my [redacted] at university as it is extremely expensive, 3 to be able to try to save again for my pension and 4 to coach and guide the pupils of Cambridge to successfully passing their test and finally to prove to the DVSA that the disclosure and perception is not me and the real me will become evident if given the opportunity to prove it"
I cannot stress enough that you will NEVER receive a complaint of this nature about me again as I hope you can see that I have paid the highest price possible, in my health, both physical and mental, my financial and marital stability and the loss of my beloved job, After 46 years of working I will never ever jeopardise these crucial life elements again.
So going back to the beginning how do I prove that i'm a "fit and proper person", by understanding that my lifetime history of being a professional, trustworthy, caring fit and proper person in anything I have ever done and only by giving me the opportunity to show you, can I prove to you in any way required that I exceed that statement."
He said he was a FPP and (11) that what he wanted from the Appeal was:-
"I just want to do the job I love, the job everyone tells me I am excellent at and as many say the role of an ADI is my calling. To have my ADI licence reinstated is my sought outcome".
He was asked at the Appeal about the Complaint and his approach to his relationship with pupils generally. He said that he sought to have a good relationship and that this was important as so much time was spent with a pupil (sometimes say 40 hours). He said that he tried to ensure pupils were relaxed as this produced a better learning environment. He said that pupils did sometimes mention things that were bothering them such as relationships and rather than shut such conversations down he might engage with a pupil to ensure they were calm for example, by sharing his own experiences. He said to us that:-
"The personal side of things is very important and I believe it is important. Boys talk about how many conquests they have had and want to hear about your experiences and girls talk about how much prosecco they have drunk".
He told us that he accepted that he should have shut such conversations down and not engage in them and (25):-
".... had I completed my safeguarding course before starting I would have known to have shut down the conversation that was initiated by the pupil (redacted)..."
He described to us the connection with a pupil as "a strong friendship of trust."
This approach can be seen in what we read in the Appeal and about his relationship with the Pupil. In his Reasons for Appeal he says (10):-
"As with all Driving Instructors a strong and open relationship develops throughout the average 40 hours spent on a 121 basis and conversations occur primarily driven by the pupil".
He told us that he had "fallen into a trap and didn't incite anything." He said it was a two way conversation and he thought the Pupil was over 18.
In his letter of 13 November 2024 he says for example (24):-
"When I secured my badge as a grade “A” ADI after many months of costly training and tests I remember one specific area of the training in particular, which was to ensure safe driving it was important for the pupil to be calm and in the zone….. and that the word “head space” was used during my training.
During my time as a PDI this manifested itself on a couple of occasions where the demeanor of the pupil on a specific lesson was obviously different from previous lessons and not correct from the outset. Despite my “Hi, how are you today, have you had a good week” etc… it was met with a very out of character downbeat tone. Despite the pupil confirming they were ok to proceed with the lesson within a matter of minutes it became clear to me that the pupil was troubled by something and the driving was chaotic, and became dangerous.
At this point I requested that the pupil pull into the next side street and come to a stop. I asked again what was wrong and at this point the pupil went into great detail about their personal life and girlfriend issues and it was obvious he needed to offload his troubles. After a further 10 minutes we continued the lesson with calm, professional driving leading the pupil to go on to pass first time.
I realised at this point that the role of the driving instructor is many things and as we are probably one of the very few people they spend 2 hours a week within a closed 121 environment we are often the person they wish to divulge and offload their concerns and issues with and i'm confident that all driving instructors would agree.
It was therefore important for me to ensure that all my pupils knew that I did not want anything to affect their driving and to highlight to them how personal issues, family problems etc when brought into the driving seat can be dangerous. It was therefore always my first job on any lesson to ensure and make them feel calm and that their “head space” was ok to ensure I and they were happy that they were in the right mode for driving. Over time this led to a complete sense of trust and openess between the pupil and myself."
Our review
We considered all the circumstances presented to us noting (although he did not attend) the Registrar's view as the person who has the statutory role to maintain the Register. We also noted that despite the FPP decision the Registrar, by section 128(7) of the Act had concluded that it was appropriate to allow the Appellant to continue as an ADI until the appeal in that case was withdrawn.
The Appellant was arrested and charged but we accept that the criminal charges were dismissed and that the allegations made by the Pupil have never been tested in cross-examination.
The text that led to the Complaint was not in evidence and we did not discover exactly what it had said. However the Appellant:-
did not deny that it involved the suggestion by him of a massage for the Pupil
did say on several occasions that what had occurred amounted to a lapse of professionalism and that his actions and text were inappropriate for which he takes "full responsibility" and is:-
"...extremely remorseful and apologetic for the lapse of professionalism that has brought us to this position and to any distress I may have caused my pupil"(24)
It was an issue for us that the Appellant, prior to the events in question, appeared unaware of the part of the Code which says that an ADI should:-
"not initiate inappropriate discussions about their own personal relationships and take care to avoid becoming involved in a client’s personal affairs or discussions about a client’s personal relationships, unless safeguarding concerns are raised"
and should
"avoid circumstances and situations which are or could be perceived to be of an inappropriate nature"
We were also not completely satisfied that, even after the events, the Appellant had fully taken this on board when referring to the way in which he might seek to ensure a calm and relaxed learning environment.
It was also an issue for us that as part of his answer the Appellant focused on his belief that the Pupil was over 18 had been caused by the Pupil and that he had fallen into a trap before conceding that for the FPP consideration the age of the Pupil had little if any impact.
We noted the references from people who appeared to know the issues facing the Appellant which indicated he is a good instructor and we noted all he had done since the removal of his registration as an ADI. We noted the many things the Appellant had done such as taking relevant courses and working for a charity.
We considered the more personal family issues but while having sympathy for him we did not consider these matters to be a particularly relevant consideration because the need to maintain the integrity of and public trust in the Register is likely to be greater than the needs of any individual appellant.
Decision
There were many positive things said about the Appellant and he took responsibility and gave an apology for what had occurred. It appears he is good at giving instruction to pupils but the public need to have confidence that those whose names are on the Register are FPP in a holistic Harris sense.
The Appellant's admitted lapse of professionalism, his lack of understanding of the Code at that time and having being arrested and charged with offences (even though later dismissed) and what was apparently said in the relevant text together understandably gave the Registrar concern about the FPP status of the Appellant.
The Appellant has not persuaded all members of the Tribunal that the Registrar's Decision was wrong. A majority of the Tribunal have concluded that the Appeal should be dismissed.
Signed: Judge Heald Date: 2 September 2025