Simon Howarth v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Registrar”) made on 21 March 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”) on the ground that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”).

The Registrar’s reasons for removal, in summary, were that the Appellant had received:

A fixed penalty on 1 January 2025 for exceeding the statutory speed limit on the public road (SP30) resulting in 3 penalty points

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

The Appellant lodged an appeal on form GRC1 dated 27 March 2025. He gave the following reasons for the appeal: 

“I wish to dispute the suggestion that I am no longer a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor, as I qualified as an instructor in 2005 and practiced continually until 2010 where I took a career break until 2018 and then continuously until the present day.

The fact that I have two speeding offences does not outweigh the fact that I am a fit and proper person, as both of these matters did not involve my acting as an instructor, one being in North Wales where I was convicted at travelling at 60mph in a 50mph zone (caused by my missing a traffic sign which had reduced the speed limit) and the more recent offence being my accidentally travelling at 36 mph in a 30mph area.

The particular reason I would wish to continue is that I have over the years developed a special interest in the teaching of individuals with special needs to drive. I currently have over 50% of my pupils who have different forms of anxiety, autism, ADHD and Asperger’s Syndrome and all of these individuals would be caused great distress if I were not allowed to continue to teach them. I will be able to supply documentary proof of these matters and references from my pupils and others before an oral hearing takes place.”

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 27 August 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant has failed to notify within 7 days or fully explain the circumstances of either offence or the speed he was travelling at the time and being under pressure is no excuse for committing these offences. A professional instructor having committed the first offence would have changed his behaviour. The Registrar stated that anyone who is an ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. However, he did not believe the Appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that he would expect to see from a professional ADI. The Registrar cannot condone motoring offences of this nature and persons who commit them should not be allowed to remain on an official register that allows them to teach others.

The Appellant did not provide a Reply.

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 of Approved Driving Instructors – see s. 125 (3) and s. 127 (3) (e) Road Traffic Act 1988

The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. The burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory criteria rests with the Registrar.

In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808, the Court of Appeal described the “fit and proper person” condition thus:

“..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. This is why there are stringent disclosure requirements”.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Registrar’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing i.e. the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and take a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as is considered appropriate to the Registrar’s reasons as the Registrar is the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process.

We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 29 numbered pages.

The Appellant gave further evidence at the hearing and says that he teaches in an automatic car. He said that his central concern was for the safety and wellbeing of pupils. Approximately 40-50% of his pupils are people who have difficulty in achieving a test pass, so it takes time to build trust with those pupils. He drew the Tribunal’s attention to the references from pupils in the bundle.

When asked about the first incident of speeding, he said that he missed a sign on a temporary variable speed area on a dual carriageway where a normal speed of 70mph was reduced to 50mph. He stated that he was driving a van at the time, which had a maximum speed of 60mph, which was the speed he was doing at the time of the incident. It was dark and the road was quiet. The Appellant said that he was able to see approaching roadworks and slowed down, but did not see the sign indicating a limit of 50mph.

When asked about the second incident he said that he was distracted by two of his children arguing in the back and accidentally allowed his speed to lapse.

The Appellant sought to draw a distinction between driving in his private capacity and teaching, saying that when he is in a work environment it is just himself and the learner, so he is watching the learner’s eyes and feet and completely focused on that person.

When asked about his failure to notify the Registrar of either offence, he explained that he is busy all day at work in the car, then comes home to a large family and things slip by that he has not done. He said he was not intending to hide it, and it did not mean he was not taking it seriously, but said it was poor time management on his part.

He concluded by saying that circumstances had changed in that there has been no further offence since March 2025.

On 10 February 2025, the Registrar was advised by the DVLA that the Appellant had accepted 2 fixed penalty notices offences on 7 October 2023 and 1 January 2025 for exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road, with each offence carrying an endorsement of 3 penalty points on his licence, giving a total of 6 points. The Appellant failed to notify the Registrar within 7 days of either offence, in breach of his declaration made in support of his application to extend his period of registration made on 9 April 2023.

On 19 February 2025, the Registrar emailed the Appellant giving him notice that he was considering removing his name from the Register on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person. The Appellant was invited to make representations within 28 days.

The Appellant responded by email on the same day apologising for not adhering to the expected standards. He took full accountability for both offences. He said the failure to inform the Registrar was because on both occasions “I simply forgot to inform you due to how busy I am and how intense and stressful my life is at present.” He also stated “on both occasions I was tired and more than likely distracted temporarily by children in the back of the car.” He gave an account of his daily life and the pressures he faces, saying “some things are put off or forgotten about, until I find myself in this situation.” He explained that he and his wife are working very hard to save up money for a deposit towards a mortgage and that his income is the family’s main source of income. He said “our work like balance has not been right for some time and I see this as a wake-up call to change things and reduce the number of hours I work to give me more headspace to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

The Registrar gave notice on 21 March 2025 that he had decided to remove the Appellant from the Register.

If an ADI’s name is allowed to be put on or remain on the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public’s confidence in the Register. This includes behaviour relating to driving.

Here the Appellant failed to abide by important aspects of road traffic law in exceeding the speed limit on two occasions. The speeding offences of themselves were serious enough for the Appellant to be removed. His failure to notify the Registrar on either occasion served to aggravate this position, and the Tribunal considered that the Appellant did not deal sufficiently with this or appear to have grasped that this was a more serious aspect of his behaviour in his evidence.

The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the protection of students was central to its decision, or that teaching those who might otherwise struggle to pass the test outweighed the Appellant’s failings. Indeed, where students have additional needs arguably more focus and attention is required and lapses of concentration, however momentary, are cause for concern.

The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, that those who are on it understand their responsibilities, and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. It seems to the Tribunal that it would undermine confidence if the Appellant was allowed to remain on the Register. He has repeatedly failed to meet the necessary standards of driving and has compounded this by not notifying his offences to the Registrar in a timely way or at all.

We find on the balance of probabilities 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 as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.