James Waddington v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Registrar”) made on 3 February 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 was due to complaints made against him by pupils relating to failures to provide lessons and not refunding prepaid fees.

The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The Registrar joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The Appellant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal decided that, in all the circumstances, it was appropriate and in accordance with the overriding objective to proceed with the hearing in the Appellant’s absence. 

The Appellant lodged an appeal on form GRC1 dated 26 February 2025. He gave the following reasons for the appeal:

“I am appealing against the decision as I have been really unwell. I am currently waiting for an echocardiogram at the hospital and have been for quite a few months now. I admit I did cancel lessons numerous times on pupils and did not disclose my health issues as they are a personal matter.

I had every intention of delivering lessons but unfortunately my health got worse to the point where I tried to end my own life.

I have been signed off work by the doctor and will continue to do so until I get a full diagnosis. They are thinking I may have Marfan’s syndrome which is a rare genetic disorder.

Once I have a clear diagnosis and have any help they can provide I would be a fit and proper instructor.

I would find it very harsh to lose my registration as an instructor over ill health.”

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 31 July 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant has repeatedly been the subject of complaints concerning financial disputes with his customers. He stated that “there is an unacceptable pattern of behaviour whereby the Appellant takes block booking payments then fails to provide the service paid for, resulting in the learner drivers constantly chasing him for a refund and contacting the DVSA to complain.” He noted that teaching people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standards. Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct. The Registrar was concerned that the good name of the Register would be tarnished and the public’s confidence undermined if he failed to act in the paying public’s interest concerning the Appellant’s business dealings and conduct.

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). 

On 26 July 2023, the Registrar received a complaint concerning the appellant’s business dealings. The complainant stated that she had paid £350 for 10 hours of tuition and wished to claim a refund for the unused 9 hours. The Registrar subsequently contacted the Appellant.

The Appellant wrote back to the Registrar on 24 August 2023 stating that the complaint had since been resolved and the complainant received a refund. He stated that the pupil had purchased a block of 10 hours but it was clear that she would not be ready for her booked test and there was some difficulty in continuing lessons as she moved away. The Appellant stated “I did have a look at the consumer rights act and from what I can see it says customers have 14 day grace period to cancel or get a refund, as this time had passed and it wasn’t my fault that the pupil wouldn’t be ready or was moving out of the city. So therefore to begin with I did refuse to refund the pupil.”.

The Registrar received a second complaint on 30 May 2024 that the Appellant had cancelled lessons, failed to answer messages and calls and owed the complainant 4 hours from a block booking. The Registrar subsequently again contacted the Appellant.

The Appellant responded to the Registrar on 20 August 2024 stating that he had been ill and had been having really bad chest pains every morning for a few months. He said “I’m not sure why my phone number hasn’t updated on the website as I did go on and change it quite a few months ago so the number [complainant] has given to contact me is incorrect. If she can contact me on [new number] I’ll happily refund any remaining hours she has with me.”

On 25 August 2024, the Registrar received a third complaint that the Appellant had not provided the service that was paid for as well as disappearing completely after the complainant had made a complaint to the Appellant personally.

The Registrar notified the Appellant on 29 November 2024 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 appear on it. The Appellant was invited to make representations.

A fourth complaint was received on 9 November 2024 concerning the Appellant cancelling lessons at short notice and monies owed for lessons that he had failed to fit in prior to the complainant’s driving test. A fifth complaint was received on 29 November 2024 concerning monies owed and failure to respond to calls.

The Registrar wrote to the Appellant again on 18 December 2024 giving him further notice that he was considering removing him from the Register and inviting him to make representations within 28 days. The Appellant did not make representations.

The Registrar gave notice on 3 February 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 and other matters of responsibility and trustworthiness.

We have assessed the facts on the basis that it is imperative that the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs is maintained, given the substantial level of trust that is placed on ADIs by pupils, parents and other ADIs as well as road users, the public and the DVSA. It is expected an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist.

The Approved Driving Instructor Code of Practice provides a helpful reference point for the standard of behaviour expected of an ADI. We note that section 1 on personal conduct refers to complying with legislative requirements including consumer regulations. Section 2 on business dealing says that the instructor agrees to “safeguard and account for any monies paid in advance by the client in respect of driving lessons, test fees or for any other purpose and make the details available to the client on request”. The Appellant’s actions in taking advance payment for lessons, failing to provide booked lessons and failing to communicate effectively do not comply with this Code.

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. This would be undermined if the Appellant was allowed to remain on the Register. It seems to the Tribunal that it would undermine confidence if the Appellant was allowed to remain. He has repeatedly failed to meet the necessary professional and business standards in his dealings with pupils.

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.