Oliver King v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 24 June 2024 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Register”) on the grounds that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) predominantly by virtue of the amount of complaints made against the Appellant (12 at the time the appeal was lodged).

The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 21 July 2024 relies on the grounds that:

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 12 February 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar maintains that the number of complaints against the Appellant cannot be ignored and that the Appellant’s course of conduct is not what is expected from a professional instructor.

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 can remove a person’s name from the Register if they have ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name on the Register (section 125(2)(e) of the Act). The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. 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.

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).

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).

I have considered a bundle of evidence containing 70 pages. This includes evidence of the original submissions provided to the Registrar by the Appellant. I heard further submissions from Mr Russell for the Respondent.

The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in November 2019. In the normal course, his certificate would expire on 31 December 2027.

On 3 April 2024 and 19 April 2024, the Registrar received complaints that the Appellant had taken payment for driving lessons but failed to provide the service. The Appellant had previously been the subject of complaints and was issued with warnings regarding his conduct and professionalism on 20 October 2023 and 27 February 2024.

On 20 May 2024 and 22 May 2024, the Registrar gave the Appellant written notice that he was considering removing his name from the Register on the basis that he was no longer considered to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. The Appellant was invited to make representations within 28 days.

The Appellant responded by way of email dated 28 May 2024 and made representations. He stated that refunds had been issued to pupils who were unable to continue lessons due to his ill health, hospital appointments, and personal circumstances including the birth of his son. He explained that communication issues, language barriers, and logistical challenges had contributed to misunderstandings with some pupils. The Appellant asserted that he always aimed to act professionally, had refunded lessons where appropriate, and had since moved to a pay-as-you-go model to avoid similar issues.

On 24 June 2024, the Registrar confirmed that the Appellant’s name should be removed from the Register as he had ceased to be a fit and proper person. The decision was made pursuant to Section 127(7) of the Act, and the Registrar concluded that the Appellant could not satisfy the requirement under Section 128(2)(e) of the Act. The letter says that the Registrar came to this conclusion because of complaints received from Medi-Remi Hashim and Dao Van Nam – details which were included in our email of 22^nd May 2024 and you having a total of 12 complaints against you in the last 2 years.

In submissions, Mr Russell for the Respondent maintained his position as set out in his statement of case that the Appellant’s name should be removed from the Register. Mr Russell confirmed that since making the decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the register in June 2024, the Registrar has received 21 further complaints, from separate complainants, all of a similar nature against the Appellant. However, since the decision had already been made by the Registrar to remove the Appellant’s name from the register, those further complaints have not yet been dealt with, pending the outcome of this appeal.

ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs will act professionally, reliably, and with integrity. The Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) Code of Practice provides that “Driver trainers will be professional, comply with the law, keep clients safe and treat them with respect.” While the Code is voluntary, it reflects the expectations placed upon those in the profession. The Appellant’s conduct, including taking payment for lessons not delivered and failing to maintain clear and professional communication with pupils, falls short of these expectations.

Teaching people to drive safely and competently is a professional vocation requiring a high degree of responsibility and trust. This role should only be held by individuals who demonstrate consistently high personal and professional standards. The Registrar has a duty to ensure that only those of appropriate standing remain on the Register, and that those who are on it understand and uphold their responsibilities.

I find that this duty would be undermined if the Appellant were allowed to remain on the Register. While the Appellant has offered explanations and expressed regret and I am sympathetic towards the Appellant’s circumstances, I do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances which would justify allowing him to remain on the Register in light of the number of complaints, prior warnings and the additional number of complaints made since the Registrar’s decision was made.

I therefore find 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 remove the Appellant’s name from the Register was correct. I dismiss this appeal.

The Tribunal received an email from the Appellant’s wife after this hearing had taken place to confirm that the Appellant had been taken to hospital following a significant mental health crisis. The Appellant’s wife provided documentary evidence in support of this hospital admission and requested that the hearing be re-listed. Unfortunately, at the time of the receipt of the email, the hearing had already been conducted, and this Decision arises from that hearing.