Paul Nelson v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Registrar”) made on 11 April 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”). This is because he had a fixed penalty dated 11 February 2025 for breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle, mobile telephones and so on (CU80) resulting in 6 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 7 May 2025. In summary he made the following points:

The incident occurred at the start of a lesson when he was stationary and he had genuinely forgotten to place his mobile phone away when conversing with the student. The phone had illuminated due to an incoming message and was on his lap, but he was not actively using it or engaging in any form of communications on it. His intention was to turn the volume down and place it in the glove compartment to avoid further distraction, but he was approached by a police officer before he could do so. This incident caused distress to his student.

Removal from the Register would have a profound impact on his ability to support his family financially and disrupt the progress of his students.

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 2 September 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant’s driving licence is endorsed with 6 penalty points, and an ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. In committing the offence while conducting a driving lesson, the Registrar does not believe that 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 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 – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”). 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).

We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 24 numbered pages.

We heard submissions from the Appellant at the hearing. He explained that at the time of the incident, he was not on his phone, but had just started a lesson and had forgotten to put it away. The phone went off in the lesson, and when the car was stationary at traffic lights he was moving the phone to the glove box when a police officer stopped him with an illuminated phone in his hand. He said that his pupil was distressed and concerned so he did not challenge the officer or attempt to argue with him, as he understood the nature of the offence.

The Appellant said that he had never had points or any prior conviction before and he was disappointed in himself and the situation, because he realised that he could be taken off the register and lose his livelihood. He noted that he had informed the Registrar of the offence proactively, because of how serious the situation was.

When asked about how he normally dealt with mobile phones in lessons, he explained that when he parks up prior to a lesson, he will call his pupil to let them know he is outside or knock on the door. Once the pupil is inside the car he puts the phone into the glove compartment or his bag and starts the lesson. In this instance he had just responded to a message before the lesson started and was going through a bereavement at the time, so he forgot to put the phone away and it was on charge between the two seats. The lesson had only just started.

He described the impact which the incident had had on his pupil, which was concern about what was happening. He was clear with her about what had happened and why he was in trouble and also that it would not affect her. She had not seen him on the phone. He ended the lesson early because they were both distressed, but she did continue with other lessons with him after that day.

The Appellant said that he did understand the offence and it was a mistake for a short while when the vehicle was stationary. He has been an ADI for a long time and it is his livelihood and passion. He has a clean record and considers that he is an asset to the industry because of how he deals with pupils. He concluded by saying it had never happened before, would never happen again and that he accepted he had made a mistake.

On 5 March 2025, the Appellant emailed the Registrar to inform him that he had just had 6 penalty points added to his licence for a CU80 offence. He expressed his regret and remorse.

Following this notification, the Registrar’s staff obtained a printout of the DVLA Swansea database, which confirmed that on 11 February 2025 he had committed the offence of breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle, mobile phones and so on and his driving licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points.

On 13 March 2025, the Registrar emailed the Appellant giving him written 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 to have his name retained in it. The Appellant was given 28 days to make representations.

The Appellant replied on 31 March 2025. He said that he and his student were stationary at a traffic light when his phone lit up and emitted a sound due to an incoming message. He had forgotten to place the phone in the glove box before the lesson and intended to mute the device and put it in the glove compartment. He was not actively using the phone, but acknowledges that having on his lap is a breach of the law for which he takes full responsibility. He has also had multiple family bereavements which he says have placed additional emotional strain on him.

The Registrar gave notice on 11 April 2025 that he had decided to remove the Appellant from the Register.

If an ADI’s name is allowed to be put 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.

ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of motoring, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. 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. It is essential that ADIs follow the law that they are supposed to be teaching to often young and impressionable pupils. We are aware that the Registrar consistently views six points on a driving licence as a serious matter which means someone is not a fit and proper person.

The Tribunal considered all the evidence before it. On the one hand the Appellant’s conduct was not becoming of an ADI. However, the Appellant gave what the Tribunal felt was honest and thoughtful evidence of what had happened, including being aware of the impact it had had on his pupil and how he was able to handle her distress. We considered that he was very well aware of the circumstances of what happened and the consequences and that he showed genuine remorse. We considered it would be very unlikely that he would repeat the offence and that the usual system he has in place for preventing his mobile phone from being out in lessons is robust.

Accordingly, the Tribunal came to the view, having had the benefit of hearing from the Appellant, that it would be wrong to remove the Appellant from the Register. The Tribunal considered the Appellant was still fit and proper to remain on the Register. Having said that, the Appellant should understand that this was a very close decision. The Tribunal through the Registrar would like a very clear warning given that any further motoring offences would likely lead to removal.

The Appeal is allowed accordingly.