Banani Sarker v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 1 April 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a licence to give instruction in driving motor cars on the grounds that the Appellant does not meet the condition in Section 125(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to be considered a ‘fit and proper’ person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) as the Appellant has received a Fixed Penalty of 6 points endorsed on her driving licence for using a mobile phone whilst being in control of a vehicle.

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

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 4 April 2025 relies on the grounds that:

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 14 August 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar maintains that the Appellant’s driving licence being endorse with 6 penalty points cannot be ignored and that the Appellant cannot be issued with a licence.

Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor’s name is in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, or she is the holder of a current licence issued under s 129(1) of the Act.

Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to be and continue to be a “fit and proper person” to have her name on the Register – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”).

Pursuant to section 129(2) of the Act, the Registrar may refuse to issue a licence to a person if they are satisfied that the applicant is not a fit and proper person pursuant to section 125(3)(e).

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 27 pages. This includes evidence of the original submissions provided to the Registrar by the Appellant. I heard submissions from the Appellant at the hearing.

The Appellant’s name is not now and has never been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

On 7 March 2025, the Appellant submitted an online application for a licence to give paid instruction in the driving of motor cars (a trainee licence). At this point, the Appellant did not disclose that there were any endorsements on her driving licence. After completing a standard search of the DVLA database, the Registrar was made aware of an undisclosed fixed penalty notice offence committed on 24 January 2024 for the use of a mobile phone whilst in control of a vehicle, resulting in 6 penalty points being endorse on the Appellant’s licence.

On 11 March 2025 the Registrar gave the Appellant 14 days to make representations before a decision was made about the refusal to grant her application for a trainee licence. The Appellant did not make any representations within the permitted timeframe, and the Registrar made the decision to refuse the application on 1 April 2025.

The Appellant maintains that she did not receive the letter of 11 March 2025.

In submissions, the Appellant told the Tribunal that she is aware that her conduct in using the mobile phone whilst in control of her vehicle was an offence. She stated that she used the phone in an emergency situation since she had found herself in standstill traffic due to a road accident ahead and was due to be late to collect her daughter from school. The Appellant confirmed that her daughter is in Year 10 in secondary school and that she usually collects her daughter at the end of the day.

The Appellant went on to say that, in her view, the emergency was such that she made calls to her daughter several times, she attempted to telephone the school and also the parents of her daughter’s friends. She has attempted to obtain telephone records to support this without success.

The Appellant confirmed that she does have hands free facilities within her vehicle and also that there was no opportunity for her to pull over and stop the vehicle to allow her to make the calls since there was no hard shoulder on the road.

If a person is granted a trainee ADI licence when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of, and undermine the public’s confidence in the registration system.

ADIs and trainee 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 not commit motoring offences of this nature.

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.

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. I find that this would be undermined if the Appellant was permitted to have a trainee licence with a view to being on the Register. The actions of the Appellant may not seem to some to be an overly serious offence particularly since her vehicle was in stationary traffic, however, the law, the Registrar and this Tribunal treat offences of this nature very seriously. It is essential that ADIs follow the law given they are teaching to follow the same laws of the road.

I have considered all the arguments made by the Appellant. However, the fact that the Appellant did not disclose the offence to the Registrar at the outset, coupled with her admission of using the phone on several occasions to telephone multiple parties, leads me to find that allowing a trainee licence in these circumstances would be sanctioning the Appellant’s conduct in using a mobile telephone whilst in control of a vehicle. I do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances which would justify allowing the Appellant to hold a trainee licence.

I therefore find that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, I conclude that the Registrar’s decision not to grant the Appellant a trainee licence was correct. The appeal is dismissed.