Abdul Rauf v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal is brought by the Appellant by section 131(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act"). It relates to a decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 3 December 2024 ("the Decision") not to accept the re-registration of the Appellant onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("ADI") on the grounds that the Appellant had received a fixed penalty notice and 6 penalty points and was not a fit and proper person ("FPP").

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.

A person may only provide paid driving instruction if his name is on the Register (section 123(1) of the Act) or if 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 requires the Registrar to enter an applicant's name onto the Register under certain conditions which include that he is a FPP.

The FPP test was considered in Harris -v- Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 in whichRichards LJ held at para 30:-

The DVSA has issued Guidance which an ADI is required to declare they have read when applying to become an ADI. It states:-

Additionally a Code has been agreed between the DVSA and the National Associations Strategic Partnership which is 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."The DVSA also says that it gives "a summary of the conduct and behaviours that DVSA and the public expect from an ADI."It says for example that an instructor will:-

Section 131(1)(a) of the Act provides:-

Section 131 (3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:-

In considering the appeal the Tribunal must 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:-

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.

We had a bundle of 23 pdf pages and we heard from the Appellant and from the Registrar's representative. We were assisted by an interpreter who translated between the English and Urdu languages.

From the evidence in the Bundle and what we were told at the hearing:-

On 3 December 2024 the Registrar notified the Appellant of the Decision namely to refuse the application for re-registration because of the 6 penalty points and fixed penalty notice.

When writing to the Appellant on 1 November 2024 the Registrar had also noted a concern that the Appellant had not notified the Registrar of the points within 7 days as required. The Appellant in his representation said that he had done so in writing by post. The Registrar had also raised a concern that the date of the offence had been stated as being in 2024 whereas in fact it was 2023. Again the Appellant sought to explain this error in his representations and the issue was not cited in the Decision.

Although these other matters were raised in the Registrar's response they were not stated in the Decision itself and the Appellant has set out his case on them both. We have therefore not taken them into consideration.

This appeal of 27 December 2024 is against the Decision. The outcome sought is "to carry on teaching" The Registrar has provided a response dated 13 August 2025.

The Appellant told us that the incident occurred while alone in the car (ie not teaching). He said that the traffic was very slow moving. He was about 400 yards away from his home. The phone rang and he saw the number calling was from a cancer specialist treating his [redacted close relative]. He answered the call using the hands-free bluetooth technology from the steering wheel. He said that at this point the car was stationary with the handbrake on.

He became aware of a cyclist tapping on his driver's side window. The cyclist, he thinks, was complaining about him talking on the phone (even though hands-free) but as he was unsure of what was being said he wound down the window. To hear the cyclist better he told us that only then did he pick up the mobile device to turn down the speaker volume even though that function was also available from the steering wheel. He could not explain why he did this.

The cyclist had a helmet camera and the police were sent the video. From what they saw the Police decided to issue a notice of an intended prosecution giving the Appellant the option of pleading guilty and accepting penalty points or pleading not guilty and proceeding to trial. He accepted a fixed penalty notice and 6 points. He told us he did not seek to challenge this in court as he had held the mobile phone and did not see the benefit of going to court to explain what had happened. He told us he did not fully understand the impact 6 points could have on his ADI status.

The Appellant has apologised and taken responsibility for what he accepted was a serious incident. The Appellant also has said for example:-

The Register does not consider the Appellant to be a FPP due to the fixed penalty notice and the existence of the 6 points. The Registrar referred to the need for an ADI to have higher standards than an ordinary motorist and that only those with a keen regard for road safety should be an ADI. The Registrar also said that in 2020 the use of a mobile phone had contributed to 17 deaths, 92 serious injuries and 97 minor accidents. As the person responsible for the Register such offences could not be condoned by the Registrar.

The Registrar said that leaving the Appellant's name on the Register would appear to sanction the behaviour which would be unfair on other ADIs and would send out the wrong message to learner and novice drivers about what was expected of them.

Our starting point was to consider first and give due regard to the view of and the Decision made by the Registrar. The public expects the Registrar to work to ensure that ADIs are FPP in the wider Harris sense and has the right to expect ADIs to adhere to the highest standards of motoring. It is right for the Registrar to be concerned about a person with 6 points potentially being on the Register. The Guidance and the Code deal specifically with the use of mobile devices and we accept all the Registrar says about the dangers of mobile phone use.

We noted what the Appellant said about his regret, recognition of the serious nature of the offence and steps taken to ensure the incident does not occur again.

We noted that the Appellant is not currently on the Register but we were sympathetic to what he said about the financial impact on him and his family if he was not able to re-register as an ADI. However in our view, while we review all the circumstances and have taken it into account, we do not consider the likely financial impact to be a particularly relevant consideration for a decision about whether an ADI is a FPP. Again the need to maintain the integrity of and public trust in the Register is likely always to be greater than the needs of an individual appellant and we gave this point very little weight.

We understood why the Appellant would have been anxious to take the call but he did not provide a compelling answer as to why, as an ADI, he took the call while driving nor why he had picked up the mobile device to turn down the speaker volume given the available hands-free technology he says he was using.

We did not have the benefit of seeing the video that led to the Police action but in our view it is possible that his attention was so focused on the call that he was surprised and flustered by the intervention of the cyclist. In any event he decided not to challenge the notice of intended prosecution in court where the video could have been viewed. Also bearing in mind the wording of the Guidance and the Code we found it hard to accept that he was not aware of the likely impact of 6 penalty points to his ADI status.

Accordingly the Appellant has not persuaded us that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and the Appeal is dismissed.