Transport
Appeal Reference: FT/D/2025/0234
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLAN
TRIBUNAL MEMBER DAVID RAWSTHORN
TRIBUNAL MEMBER RICHARD FRY
Heard by way of remote hearing using Cloud Video Platform
Between
MARK BENNETT
Appellant
and
REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Decision: The appeal is DISMISSED
DECISION AND REASONS
Mode of Hearing
The proceedings were held using the Cloud Video Platform. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing this way.
The hearing was conducted by a Judge and two Tribunal Members in Chambers.
In his Notice of Appeal, the Appellant ticked a box to indicate that he wanted his appeal to be decided without a hearing.
The appeal was listed for remote oral hearing at 11.00. At that time there was no appearance by the Appellant by logging into the Cloud Video Platform System. The clerk telephoned the Appellant’s number twice at 11.02 and there was no reply. Following discussions, and given the Appellant’s stated wishes in his Notice of Appeal, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to proceed in his absence and did so at 11.04. The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors was represented by Mr Russell. Mr Heard from the Registrar’s office participated in the hearing as an observer.
General Background
The appeal is against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (ADIs) that the Appellant could not satisfy the statutory requirement to be a “fit and proper person”, with the result that the name of the Appellant was removed from the Register under s. 128(2)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 [“the Act”]. The burden of proving that an Appellant is not a fit and proper person is on the Registrar.
Conditions for entry or retention on the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant be a fit and proper person. As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including convictions, cautions and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate.
Given that many pupils are just 17 years of age and the scheme as a whole relies upon the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs, it is clear that substantial trust will be placed in ADIs by pupils, parents, other ADIs and road users, the public and the Agency. It is the Registrar’s function to ensure that the persons whose names appear in the Register are worthy of that trust and are fit and proper persons to have their names entered therein.
In cases involving motoring offences it is expected that anyone who is to be an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. 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.
Additionally, in cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the Register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence undermined, if it were known that a person’s name had been permitted onto, or allowed to remain on, the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours, or been convicted or cautioned in relation to offences, substantially material to the question of fitness. Indeed, it would be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.
In the Registrar’s statement of case, he points out that registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is ‘Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor’, [“ADI”]. 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, he expressed concern that the good name of the Register would be tarnished, and the public’s confidence undermined if it was generally known that he had allowed the Appellant’s name to be retained on the Register when he had been the subject of complaints. He added that it would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law to ignore the Appellant’s conduct. The Registrar’s approach was approved by the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (2010 EWCA Civ 808), in which Richards LJ said:-
“….. 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. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.”
Applicants to become driving instructors are notified that the DVSA is entitled to ask for information about spent convictions and as a result they lose the protection provided by s.4(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This arises in consequence of paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 as amended which states that “none of the provisions of s.4(2) of the Act shall apply in relation to … any question asked … in order to assess the suitability … of the person to whom the question relates for any office or employment specified in Part II of the said Schedule 1 … where the person questioned is informed at the time the question is asked that, by virtue of this Order, spent convictions are to be disclosed”. Paragraph 14 of Part II of Schedule 1 states that “offices, employment and work” include “any work which is work in a regulated position” and by Part IV of Schedule 1 “regulated position” is “a position which is a regulated position for the purposes of Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000”. Paragraph 36(c) of Part II of the latter Act provides that “the regulated positions for the purposes of this Part are … a position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children”; and by paragraph 42 of Part II “child” means a person under the age of 18. Since driving instructors may teach pupils aged 17 (or 16 if disabled) it follows that the DVSA is entitled to take spent convictions into account.
Factual background
The background to this appeal is that the Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in July 2017 and in the normal course of events his certificate expired on the last day of July 2025.
In his Statement of Case the Registrar has stated that on 18 April 2024, DVSA received a complaint from the partner of a pupil taught by the Appellant, alleging that the Appellant had not provided the driving lessons that had been paid for. The complaint included numerous attachments evidencing screenshots of messages between the complainant and the appellant.
The Registrar noted:
‘As the Regulator of Approved Driving Instructors, my primary role is to ensure that instruction provided by ADIs meets the required standard and that all ADIs have met, andcontinue to meet, the fit and proper criteria to have their names entered and retained in the register. I also expect ADIs to adhere to professional standards and business ethics when dealing with their customers. The driver training industry has a code of practice, which I fully endorse. However, this is a voluntary code and I have no legislative power to compel ADIs to sign up to the code, nor can I always take action if they do so then choose to flout the framework of the code.’
The Registrar states that an email dated 17 May 2024 was sent to the Appellant, presenting the complaint and providing him with the opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Appellant did not respond. A further email dated 24 June 2024 was sent to the Appellant asking for him to respond to the allegations made against him but again he did not respond. The emphasis here is our own.
The Registrar then noted that on 13 August 2024, DVSA received a second complaint from the parent of a different pupil of the Appellant. This was a complaint of a similar nature with driving lessons that had already been paid for still outstanding and the Appellant not responding to attempts to book these lessons in.
The Registrar states that following this, two emails dated 18 September 2024 and 21 October 2024 were sent to the Appellant presenting the complaint to him and providing him with the opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him. Again, the Appellant failed to respond. Once again, the emphasis here is our own.
Finally, on 15 October 2024, DVSA received a third complaint from the parent of a third pupil of the Appellant. This complaint alleged that the Appellant had not responded to numerous messages and attempts to book in driving lessons that had been previously paid for. This equated to £310 and had not been refunded.
In light of the three separate complaints and the fact that the Appellant had failed to provide any response to emails requesting a response to the allegations made against him, the Registrar considered that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register
By way of email correspondence dated 16 December 2024, the Registrar gave the Appellant notice that he, the Registrar, was considering removing his name from the Register on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in it. The Registrar invited the Appellant to make representations to the Registrar within 28 days which the Registrar submitted would be taken into consideration by him before reaching a decision.
No representations were received from the Appellant in the specified time. The Registrar states thata member of his team also tried calling the Appellant on the 14 & 15 January 2025. There was no answer and voicemail messages were left asking the Appellant to return the call. Again, there was no response.
In the Statement of Case, the Registrar has stated that he could only base his decision on the basis of the complaints made against the Appellant and that he came to the view that the Appellant’s name should be removed from the Register. Accordingly, he made a decision that the Appellant could not satisfy the condition set out in section 128(2)(e) of the Act in that he, the Appellant had ceased, apart from fulfilment of any of the preceding conditions to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the register.
The Appellant was notified of the Registrar's decision on 20 January 2025.
A notice of appeal against the decision of the Registrar dated 20 January 2025, was subsequently received in the office of the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) of the First-tier Tribunal.
The submissions of the parties
The Registrar
At the remote oral hearing, Mr Russell appeared on behalf of the Registrar. He outlined the Registrar’s case, summarising the background to the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. That background was set out in more detail in paragraphs 1 to 10 of the Statement of Case. Mr Russell also summarised the reasons for the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. These were:
While I accept that the appellant has not been convicted of any offence, he has pursued a course of conduct that is wholly unacceptable to the role of a professional driving instructor. I have received three separate complaints from different pupils all complaining that the appellant had not provided the driving lessons to which they had paid for. The appellant failed to respond directly to the complainants, failed to respond to our enquiries and also failed to provide any representations in this matter. The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability 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 conducted himself in such a manner to have his name retained 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 was generally known that I had allowed the appellant's name to be retained in the register.
It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, for me to ignore this conduct.’
The Appellant
The grounds of appeal, as set out in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal,
‘My reason for appealing is the first time I was made aware of the complaints against me was receiving a recorded letter from the DVSA.
It states in the letter that they have emailed me, which I have checked and had to delve through the junk folder of over 300+ emails.
It also stated that they had called me twice and left voice mails. I haven’t got any voice mails and the only missed calls I have that week where mobile number with “Suspected scam”.
If they had called me I would have thought it would be a landline number.
I have a number of paid pupils that I have on my booking app with tests and lessons booked. Booking as far as 5-6 months in advance.
I have been running my business for over 7 years and haven’t had any complaints made against me.’
Analysis
We agree with the Registrar that the Appellant’s conduct, in booking lessons for the provision of driving instruction, accepting payment for those lessons and then failing to deliver those lessons, is wholly unprofessional. There is a copy of the driver training industry’s Code of Practice in the bundle of papers which is before us. It contains an important section headed ‘Business dealings’ which sets out the appropriate standards for driver trainers. There is a further section headed ‘Conciliation’ which addresses the proper approach to dealing with complaints. The Appellant’s behaviour represents a failure to adhere to the expected professional standards and business ethics and an overt breach of the Code of Practice.
We cannot ignore that the evidence presented to the Registrar by three separate complaints is indicative of a pattern of behaviour over a period of time. It is clear that these were not isolated incidents.
We are of the view that the Appellant has shown a complete indifference to the consequences of his actions. He was given the opportunity by the Registrar to comment on the first two complaints. He failed to respond.
Following the receipt of the third complaint, and the conclusion by the Registrar that there was evidence of a pattern of unprofessional conduct warranting consideration of the removal of the Appellant’s name from the Register, the Appellant was given further opportunities, by way of email correspondence and additional telephone calls to him, to make representations to the Registrar, the Appellant, once again, failed to respond.
The only submissions which we have had from the Appellant are those which he has set out in his grounds of appeal. He states that the first notification to him of the complaints were when he received recorded correspondence from the DVSA. That has to be wholly incorrect. The evidence presented by two of the complainants in support of their grievances, includes exchanges of detailed text messages with the Appellant. The Appellant did not have to wait for official notification from the DVSA. He was aware of the nature and degree of the complaints when they were made and failed to act on them to the extent that the complainants had to escalate their grievances to the Registrar.
We have also observed that the Appellant states that he did not receive email correspondence and telephone calls from the office of the Registrar. We are satisfied that the emails were sent and that the relevant telephone calls were made. The Appellant asserts that he had to ‘delve through’ over 300 emails in the ‘junk’ folder of his email account, implying that this was an inconvenience to him, and that there were no missed calls on his telephone. Most email accounts now have a search function which will quickly locate emails from a particular source. In our view, the Appellant is creating excuses for his obvious unprofessional conduct when there is no justification for it.
We are also in agreement with the Registrar when he submits that he (the Registrar) would be failing in his public duty if he allowed a person who had conducted himself in this manner to have his name retained in the Register and, in particular, that it would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in adhering to professional standards of conduct, for him to ignore this conduct.
We are satisfied that the Registrar has satisfied the burden of proof and that his decision should be upheld.
Disposal
For the reasons which are set out above, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Kenneth Mullan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
23 September 2025