Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0445/FPP
Transport
Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE T BARRETT
TRIBUNAL MEMBER FRY
TRIBUNAL MEMBER ROANTREE
Between
HUSEYIN BORAN
Appellant
and
The REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr Russell
Decision: The appeal is Dismissed.
REASONS
This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 14 March 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Register”) on the grounds that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”).
The Registrar reached this decision because the Appellant had accepted a fixed penalty notice for breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle (including mobile phone offences) incurring 6 penalty points for an incident occurring on the 16 October 2024.
The proceedings were held by video (CVP). All parties joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.
The Appeal
The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 8 April 2025 included a lengthy attachment which in summary sets out:
That the Appellant understands the seriousness of the offence they respectfully disagree that this single incident demonstrates that they are no longer a fit and proper person.
The Appellant deeply regrets the circumstances that led to this situation and takes full responsibility for their actions, they had no intent to act in a way that could jeopardise their position as an ADI or reflect negatively on their professionalism and integrity.
The Appellant has been a dedicated driving instructor for nearly 20 years and it is their only source of financial stability.
The Appellant asserts that s.19 of the Equality Act 2010 concerning indirect discrimination state that decisions must not disproportionately disadvantage an individual unless there is a strong justification, and the Appellant believes similar cases have resulted in the ADI remaining on the Register.
The Appellant raises various points relating to an administrative law challenge of the DVSA decision on the basis of fairness and proportionality. The Appellant raises the cases of R v SoS for the Home Department ex parte Daly 2001 UKHL 26 and R v Ghosh 1982 in this regard.
The Appellant states that removal of their registration as an ADI would have a devastating impact on their livelihood and on their family more generally. The Appellant asserts that under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 decisions affecting personal and family life “must be proportionate and justifiable”. The Appellant further asserts that the case of AA vs UK 2011 establishes that “decisions impacting a person ability to sustain themselves must balance public safety and individual rights”.
The Appellant states that the incident arose when they were on a lesson with a pupil. The pupil saw an individual step into the road and was forced to carry out a sudden stop. That dislodged the Appellant’s mobile phone and the cradle it sat in from the dashboard to the floor by their feet near the dual controls. Concerned that the phone or cradle could obstruct the dual controls if another incident arose the Appellant looked for the phone and cradle. The Appellant asserts there was no safe place to park up as the road had double yellow lines. Having picked up the phone but not the cradle, the phone then rang. The Appellant noticed the number on the car’s bluetooth screen as looking like the number of the hospital where their wife was receiving treatment. The Appellant touched the bluetooth screen and answered the call whilst the phone was in their hand. A police officer saw this and pulled the car over.
The Appellant is aware of the risks of mobile phone usage given they have previously had penalty points imposed for this offence and so have always used cars with bluetooth systems since then.
The Appellant is the sole carer for their wife who has had a serious medical condition for a number of years. The Appellant was at the time of the incident anxiously expecting an update from the hospital about her condition.
The Appellant seeks another chance but recognises it is not acceptable to have the mobile phone in hand and as an ADI it is important to demonstrate a high regard for all aspects of road safety.
That the Appellant has taken preventative measures to prevent such an issue arising again such as by placing the phone in a glove box and providing alternate contact numbers for the hospital.
That the Appellant does not dispute the facts but has nothing but remorse.
That the offence was a lapse of judgement as the Appellant was under considerable distress. The Appellant asserts that in administrative and employment law personal mitigating circumstances must be considered when assessing professional fitness as identified in R (McCarthy) v Visitors to the Inns of Court [2015] EWHC 960 (Admin).
The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 19 August 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar in summary says:
The Appellant’s representations were carefully reviewed and whilst there is considerable empathy with the personal circumstances of the Appellant, it remains the case that the Appellant a) was previously warned in 2016 about this specific offence when they received penalty points for it previously and b) the Appellant admits to using their phone.
The Appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having accepted a fixed penalty notice and this cannot be ignored.
The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Anyone who is an ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task which should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. The Appellant is not believed to have displayed the required level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that is expected from an ADI.
Registration represents official approval, it would be inappropriate to condone motoring offences of this nature as it would effectively sanction such behaviour if transgressors are allowed entry on to the register to teach others.
It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as such, who have scrupulously observed the law for this recent relevant conviction to be ignored.
The Law
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”).
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).
The Registrar can remove a person’s name from the Register if they have ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name on the Register (section 125(2)(e) of the Act). The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. 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).
The Evidence
We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 43 numbered pages. This includes evidence of the original submissions provided to the Registrar by the Appellant as well as all the material submitted by the Appellant in support of the appeal (including various character references). We heard evidence and submissions from the Appellant, and submissions from the Registrar.
The Relevant Facts
The Appellant accepted a fixed penalty notice incurring 6 penalty points for breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle on the 16 October 2024.
The Appellant admits that they held their mobile phone, and at the same time took a call on it through the bluetooth system whilst conducting a lesson with a student in the vehicle.
Submissions
In submissions and in response to questions the Appellant told the tribunal in summary:
That he wished to adopt the contents of his written submissions, save that when questioned about the various cases and legislation cited in his written submissions the Appellant was unable to provide any comment. He was unable to give any explanation as to the points he sought to rely on them for, nor was he able to give any indication as to why and how the particular legislation and precedent case law his written submissions cited should be applied in the specific context of his case. He appeared somewhat unaware that his written submissions sought to rely on such caselaw and legislation.
On the day of the relevant offence he had reason to suspect he may receive a phone call from the hospital about his wife, and he was as a consequence in an anxious, stressed and worried state from the very start of the day. The Appellant chose to go to work that day despite being under considerable stress and without ability to concentrate. This was because he needed to work to earn money for his family and so could not afford a day off as his children are still in education,
Aware of the potential call he informed his student that day that if a call came in during the lesson they will have to pull over somewhere safe and pause the lesson so that he could take the call.
The Appellant ensures that his vehicles always have a bluetooth system and he only ever uses that system to answer calls. But for his wife’s health and the expected hospital call he would not usually answer a call whilst in a lesson.
That he had worked for his current firm for 10 years and never had any previous complaints from students or as regards mobile phone use.
The Appellant accepts what he did was against the law and that he shouldn’t have held the phone nor taken the call whilst holding it. He only reached down to get the phone and cradle after it fell because of the dangers it posed to the dual controls.
When questioned as to why he did not carry out the plan he raised with the student before the lesson of pulling over to take the call he said that he knew he had made a mistake and should not have done it and even though he answered the call by pressing the car’s bluetooth screen and not simply pressing the button on the phone, he realises he still should not have done it.
That since the incident the Appellant has made alternate arrangements so that the phone is not in a cradle but is locked in a glove box with alternate contact details given to the hospital etc.
The written submisisons must be incorrect as the incident took place on Station Road in Waltham Cross not Station Road in Chingford.
The Police must have seen the phone screen lit when they overtook the car just immediately after the pedestrian had walked out into the street and caused the emergency stop.
The representative of the Registrar set out in summary:
The registrar stands by all the points made in the Statement of case.
The Appellant should be removed from the Register given the 6 penalty points on his licence for breach of the control requirements relating to mobile phone use.
The representations made were taken into account. However, by picking up and then continuing to hold on to the phone in front of a student during a lesson, as well as by then choosing to answer a call on that phone whilst the vehicle was still being actively driven, the Appellant has demonstrably failed to have sufficient regard to road safety to be a fit and proper person.
Furthermore, this incident is aggravated by the fact that the Appellant had already previously been convicted on the same offence relating to mobile phone usage and yet did not sufficiently adapt his behaviour and approach to ensure it never happened again.
To allow the Appellant to continue on the Register would send the wrong message, given his actions during a lesson so clearly fell below the standard that is required of ADIs and fell far below the appropriate commitment to road safety exepcted of such persons.
Conclusions
The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.
ADIs are rightly held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs will act professionally, reliably, and with integrity. ADIs must 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.
Use of a mobile phone while driving is a very serious driving offence, such activity can and frequently does cause serious accidents. It endangers the lives of other road users, pedestrians and the driver themselves, or risks causing serious injury. The level of sentence imposed reflects the severity of the risk such behaviour poses, and the mandatory imposition of 6 penalty points will often result in an ADI being justifiably removed from the Register.
This offence is not conduct which can be permitted, condoned or excused at any time. The fact that the Appellant committed this offence in front of a student of his and during a lesson is a considerable aggravating factor. As is the fact that this is not the first time the Appellant has been convicted of this offence.
The Registrar has a duty to ensure that only those of appropriate standing are allowed to remain on the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities to not only know the rules but to scrupulously follow them as well. These are matters of wider public importance which attract significant weight even where removal from the Register may have serious consequences for an individual.
While the Appellant has offered explanations and expressed regret, we do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances in what was presented. Whilst the Tribunal has considerable sympathy in relation to the unfortunate position the Appellant found himself in on the day of the incident (given the health of his wife). The fact is that there were many different opportunities and approaches that reasonably could have been taken that would have entirely avoided the ultimate outcome here. Indeed, had after his previous conviction for this offence, the Appellant adopted the approach he told us he does now (i.e. locking his phone in the glovebox whenever he is driving) this incident would never have happened.
In all the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that removal of the Appellant’s name from the Register is fair, proportionate and justifiable even taking into account the personal circumstances and individual rights of the Appellant.
We therefore find that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. 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 unanimously dismiss this appeal.
Finally, the Tribunal notes that this was one of a number of recent appeals of this kind where the written submissions of the Appellant contained a number of sections that were drafted in a manner that bears an exceptional level of similarity to sections of the written submissions of other entirely unconnected appeals. The relevant sections generally focus on legal principles and caselaw that is not immediately connected with Fit and Proper Person cases (in terms of either the factual circumstances or the Road Traffic Act legal framework applicable). So, it is generally not obvious from the written submissions alone as to the point the Appellant is trying to make in the relevant sections and how it applies to the facts of the Appellant’s specific case.
In such circumstances the Tribunal will try to assist by making particular enquiries of the Appellant during the hearing, in line with its duty to support litigants in person to ensure they stand on an equal footing with other parties and can participate fully in the proceedings. This to ensure that cases are dealt with justly in accordance with the overriding objective.
However, in this case (and as is usual in these circumstances) when the Tribunal asked the Appellant to expand upon and explain the aim of the relevant sections of the written submissions, the Appellant effectively declined to do so leaving the Tribunal and Respondent uncertain as to the relevance and purpose of those sections of the Appellant’s written submissions.
Where a point has a purpose and relevance to the proceedings the Tribunal will always consider it carefully, and the Tribunal will (if necessary) support litigants in person in this regard to ensure they are able to stand on an equal footing.
However, the inclusion of make-weight, irrelevant, overly generic or otherwise inappropriate points in submissions actively undermines the overriding objective in that it prevents the case being dealt with expeditiously. It also necessarily means that the case takes more than appropriate amount of tribunal resources, thereby denying other cases that additional resource. Furthermore, even from the perspective of an Appellant it is unhelpful in that the inclusion of such material tends to negatively affect both the clarity and impact of their case.
The overriding objective is multi-faceted, and it is equally important that cases are dealt with expeditiously and fairly, including by ensuring that any case is allotted an appropriate share of the tribunal’s resources. Appellants (and those who assist them) must bear this in mind when preparing their submissions so as to ensure points made have both a relevance and a purpose in the context of the facts of the particular appeal. It is also critical that the points are such that they can be explained in plain English by the Appellant so the Tribunal can (if need be) assist the Appellant.
Signed Judge T Barrett Date: 11/10/25