Transport
Appeal Reference: FT/D/2025/0753
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLAN
TRIBUNAL MEMBER DAVID RAWSTHORN
TRIBUNAL MEMBER RICHARD FRY
Heard by way of remote hearing using Cloud Video Platform
Between
HAZEFAH IRFAN
Appellant
and
REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Decision: The appeal is DISMISSED
DECISION AND REASONS
Mode of Hearing
The proceedings were held using the Cloud Video Platform. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing this way.
The hearing was conducted by a Judge and two Tribunal Members in Chambers.
In his Notice of Appeal, the Appellant ticked a box to indicate that he wanted his appeal to be decided with a hearing.
The pre-hearing application
As will be noted in more detail below, the decision under appeal is a decision of the Registrar dated 2 August 2024 that the Appellant's name should be removed from the Register on the basis that he has ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the Register. The cited evidential basis for the decision, as set out in the Statement of Case, is:
'Conviction dated 21 March 2024 for failure to give information as to identity of driver etc (MS90) on 15 January 2024 resulting in 6 Penalty points and £600 fine'
In email correspondence to the Registrar dated 2 July 2024, the Appellant has stated:
'I had no way of seeing or responding to the letters during the period and the officers are aware of this hence why I’ve spoken with the courts and officers and they will be sending me a hearing to complete a statutory declaration to provide proof (which I have) and they will remove the points. Hopefully this clears up any miss understanding. I will continue to update you with when I receive information about the hearing ect.'
In written representations to the Registrar, dated 29 July 2024, the Appellant has stated:
'After speaking with the court on the phone I’ve requested them to speed up the process as much as possible as I’ve to inform dvsa of the situation before the end of the month however they have told me that there is nothing more I can do but to wait for a court hearing which I am now still waiting for where they also advised that the 6 points should be removed from your licence after the hearing.'
In his notice of appeal, the Appellant has stated:
'I emailed DVSA to make them aware of this and the circumstances surrounding what had happened and about the court hearing that I am waiting for (Attached Annex 3 – Emails to DVSA)'
He added:
'I am now waiting a court hearing date. (Attachment Annex 13 – Court Payment for hearing) I have been in regular contact with the court by calling them. I informed them of the situation they advised to wait for a court hearing in Reading, but no timeframe or date provided yet.'
In email correspondence to the GRC dated 13 August 2025, the Appellant has stated:
'I apologise for the late reply I have just seen my emails now regarding the hearing date set for 20th August. I have been dealing with the deal of a relative in my immediate family and have thus not been able to reach my emails properly so I apologise in advance for the delays.
As per my previous email, I would like to take this time to request to the tribunal that the hearing be delayed until my appeal date be set with the magistrates court, at this point they have emailed me that they are reviewing the appeal and will let me know when a date is set. This should be done without 6 weeks, it is very closely approaching 6 weeks so I am hopeful a response will be soon.'
We are assuming that the word 'deal' should be 'death'.
The email correspondence from the Appellant dated 13 August 2025 was shared with the Tribunal members on Friday 15 August 2025. The application to ‘delay’ the hearing was discussed in a subsequent exchange of email correspondence.
Following that, we determined that we were not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to postpone the appeal tribunal hearing on this occasion. We noted that it is axiomatic that any successful appeal of the initial penalty will have a bearing on his appeal against the Registrar's adverse decision. Nonetheless, our view was that we should continue with the remote oral hearing in order to hear more from him about the action he has taken to date and the reasons for the delay. Further, we had concerns about the status of the Appellant’s driving licence. We could not ignore that the decision under appeal is a decision of the Registrar dated 2 August 2024.
Accordingly, the application for postponement of the remote oral hearing on Wednesday 20 August 2025 was refused.
In the determination refusing the application to postpone the oral hearing, which was forwarded to the parties to the appeal, including the Appellant, we stated that the Appellant should note that he was free to renew his application by way of an adjournment at the remote oral hearing.
The remote oral hearing
The appeal was listed for remote oral hearing at 10.00. At that time there was no appearance by the Appellant by logging into the Cloud Video Platform System. The clerk telephoned the Appellant’s number twice at 10.02 and there was no reply. Following discussions and given the determination refusing the application to postpone which was forwarded to the Appellant, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to proceed in his absence and did so at 10.04.
The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors was represented by Mr Heard. Mr Russell from the Registrar’s office participated in the hearing as an observer.
General Background
The appeal is against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (ADIs) that the Appellant could not satisfy the statutory requirement to be a “fit and proper person”, with the result that the name of the Appellant was removed from the Register under s. 128(2)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 [“the Act”]. The burden of proving that an Appellant is not a fit and proper person is on the Registrar.
Conditions for entry or retention on the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant be a fit and proper person. As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including convictions, cautions and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate.
Given that many pupils are just 17 years of age and the scheme as a whole relies upon the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs, it is clear that substantial trust will be placed in ADIs by pupils, parents, other ADIs and road users, the public and the Agency. It is the Registrar’s function to ensure that the persons whose names appear in the Register are worthy of that trust and are fit and proper persons to have their names entered therein.
In cases involving motoring offences it is expected that anyone who is to be an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. 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.
Additionally, in cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the Register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence undermined, if it were known that a person’s name had been permitted onto, or allowed to remain on, the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours, or been convicted or cautioned in relation to offences, substantially material to the question of fitness. Indeed, it would be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.
In the Registrar’s statement of case, he points out that registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is ‘Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor’, [“ADI”]. Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct. In view of this, he expressed concern that the good name of the Register would be tarnished, and the public’s confidence undermined if it was generally known that he had allowed the Appellant’s name to be retained on the Register when he had been the subject of complaints. He added that it would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law to ignore the Appellant’s conduct. The Registrar’s approach was approved by the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (2010 EWCA Civ 808), in which Richards LJ said:-
“….. 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. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.”
Applicants to become driving instructors are notified that the DVSA is entitled to ask for information about spent convictions and as a result they lose the protection provided by s.4(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This arises in consequence of paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 as amended which states that “none of the provisions of s.4(2) of the Act shall apply in relation to … any question asked … in order to assess the suitability … of the person to whom the question relates for any office or employment specified in Part II of the said Schedule 1 … where the person questioned is informed at the time the question is asked that, by virtue of this Order, spent convictions are to be disclosed”. Paragraph 14 of Part II of Schedule 1 states that “offices, employment and work” include “any work which is work in a regulated position” and by Part IV of Schedule 1 “regulated position” is “a position which is a regulated position for the purposes of Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000”. Paragraph 36(c) of Part II of the latter Act provides that “the regulated positions for the purposes of this Part are … a position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children”; and by paragraph 42 of Part II “child” means a person under the age of 18. Since driving instructors may teach pupils aged 17 (or 16 if disabled) it follows that the DVSA is entitled to take spent convictions into account.
Factual background
The background to this appeal is that the Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in July 2023 and in the normal course of events his certificate would expire on the last day of July 2027.
In his Statement of Case the Registrar has stated that on 2 July 2024, the Appellant notified him that he had received 6 penalty points on his driving licence for failing to provide driver details. The Registrar’s staff obtained a printout from the DVLA database which confirmed that the Appellant had accepted a fixed penalty notice for failing to give information as to the identity of a driver on 21 March 2024.
The Registrar submitted that in light of this offence, he considered that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register
By way of email correspondence dated 2 July 2024, the Registrar gave the Appellant notice that he, the Registrar, 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 Registrar invited the Appellant to make representations to the Registrar within 28 days which the Registrar submitted would be taken into consideration by him before reaching a decision.
By way of email correspondence received on 29 July 2024, the Appellant made representations. Those representations are set out in detail below.
In the Statement of Case, the Registrar has stated that he carefully considered the Appellant’s representations but that he had come to the view that the Appellant’s name should be removed from the Register. Accordingly, he made a decision that the Appellant could not satisfy the condition set out in section 128(2)(e) of the Act in that he, the Appellant had ceased, apart from fulfilment of any of the preceding conditions to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the register.
The Appellant was notified of the Registrar's decision on 2 August 2024.
A notice of appeal against the decision of the Registrar dated 20 January 2025, was subsequently received in the office of the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) of the First-tier Tribunal. The grounds of appeal are set out in summary below,
The submissions of the parties
The Registrar
At the remote oral hearing, Mr Heard appeared on behalf of the Registrar. He outlined the Registrar’s case, summarising the background to the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. That background was set out in more detail in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Statement of Case. Mr Heard also summarised the reasons for the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. These were:
The appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having accepted a fixed penalty for failure to give information as to identity of driver on 21 March 2024. If as he stated he was no longer the owner of the vehicle it is his responsibility to inform the DVLA that the registered keeper has changed. The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standardsand a keen regard for road safety. In committing this offence, I do not believe that the appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that I would expect to see from a professional ADI.
The Government increased the payment levels for serious road safety offences such as speeding, the requirement to control a vehicle (including mobile phone use), passing red traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and wearing a seatbelt. These offences contribute to a significant number of casualties. For example, in 2018 excessive speed contributed to 177 deaths, 1,251 serious injuries and 3,224 minor accidents, using a mobile phone contributed to 25 deaths, 92 serious injuries and 306 minor accidents; and careless driving, reckless, or in a hurry contributed to 252 deaths, 3,208 serious injuries and 9,466 minor accidents.
As an officer of the Secretary of State charged with compiling and maintaining the register on her behalf, I do not consider that I can condone motoring offences of this nature. To do so would effectively sanction such behaviour, if those who transgress were allowed to remain on an official register that allows them to teach others.
It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, for me to ignore this conduct.’
At the remote oral hearing, Mr Heard provided us with details of further offences which were committed after the date of the decision under appeal. Mr Heard observed that the endorsements resulting from these further offences meant that the Appellant was disqualified from driving which would also have implications on his ability to provide driving instruction. He also agreed to provide additional information in connection with any further court proceedings in which the Appellant was, as he had submitted, involved.
The Appellant
In the written representations to the Registrar, the Appellant stated the following:
‘Just following up with the email. the car that had the incident had been sold so it was not in my possession at the time at all. My parents were out of the country at the time so there was absolutely no way I was aware of the letters until afterwards as there was no one at the address at the time. At that time I wasn’t living with my parent, I was living at … .
After my parents had arrived back at the address they informed me of this and I immediately wrote to you to inform you of the situation as I didn’t want any miscommunication and wanted to remain professional at all times. After speaking with the court on the phone I’ve requested them to speed up the process as much as possible as I’ve to inform dvsa of the situation before the end of the month however they have told me that there is nothing more I can do but to wait for a court hearing which I am now still waiting for where they also advised that the 6 points should be removed from your licence after the hearing.
Now with all that being said I’d like to take a moment to address the issue of still remaining a fit and proper persons. Not only myself but individuals from my community, ADI’s from other company’s and also some of the examiners at our LTC would argue that I have and remain a professional individual who always exceeds expectation in and outside the workplace. From since I graduated university with flying colours I’ve wanted to go into a career where I can make an impact on my community, driving instructing is not only my sole source of income but I put my entire passion and energy into the career.
Working with BEST driving school the managers have also told me of times where pupils have contacted them directly to praise my teaching methods and just overall politeness and professionalism. With reviews online mentioning me by name, to verbally informing the managers and also contacting myself personally thanking me for the amount of extra time I put in to see my pupils shine. I am a fully qualified ADI that goes the extra mile to satisfy my pupils as I always teach with an attitude to “safely drive for the rest of their life” and teach regarding
this attitude. The examiners and our LTC and other ADI’s are always pleased to see me and would argue I have
not ceased to be a fit and proper person.
I eagerly urge you to take all of this information into consideration before making a decision that will not only affect my entire career but also my community and pupils who have found a comfort place with me and I’m 100% sure would argue my case also. If any further information is required please let me know and I will provide this with no hesitation as much as possible.
A copy of my licence with proof of address is attached below for clarification.
The grounds of appeal, as set out in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, are summarized as follows:
‘The endorsement arose from a failure to respond to give information as to the identity of a driver due to personal circumstances, including a change of his address and his inability to access mail at his parents’ address. They were abroad and no-one was checking the mail.
He is waiting for a date for a court hearing. He has been in contact with the court on a regular basis. He is confident of success before the court on appeal.
He has been a driving instructor for two years, with a high pass rate (85%-87%) and a strong commitment to road safety and professional standards. He has no prior motoring or criminal convictions. He explained the timeline of events leading to the penalty, emphasising his lack of involvement in the offence and his efforts to resolve the matter. He has implemented measures to prevent similar issues in the future.
He highlighted the financial and emotional consequences of losing his ADI registration, including potential homelessness and reliance on state benefits. He provides financial support to his father. He stresses his passion for driving instruction and his role in supporting the community.
He provided supporting documents, including references from students, trainer recommendations, and examples of similar cases where instructors remained on the Register despite motoring offences.
He argued that the decision should consider his individual circumstances, professionalism, and character rather than applying a blanket rule. He requests a humane approach and stresses his commitment to continued professional development and high standards.
He requested the tribunal to consider his case on its merits and provide a fair decision.’
Post-hearing
As was noted above, at the remote oral hearing, Mr Heard indicated that he would check the court records to determine whether the Appellant, as he had submitted, had instigated further court proceedings in connection with the offence committed on 2 March 2024 and notified to the Registrar on 2 July 2024.
Extracts from the court records were received on 27 August 2025. These revealed that there were further court proceedings on various dates and that there was an adjournment until 4 September 2025. This tied in with the submissions made by the Appellant in his application to ‘delay’ or postpone the remote oral hearing.
In further discussions, the Tribunal agreed to give the Appellant time following his court hearing on 4 September 2025 to provide an update. On 15 September 2025, a direction was issued to the Registrar's representative who was asked to provide an update. It appeared that there was a reply on 17 September 2025, but which was not forwarded to the Tribunal. Accordingly, on 29 September 2025, the office of the GRC was requested to contact the Registrar with a reminder. On 3 October 2025, a reply, which had been dated 17 September 2025, was received from the Registrar to say that there was no substantive update and it did not appear that there was a court hearing on 4 September 2025. The Registrar’s representative provided an extract from the DVLA database, extracted on 17 September 2025, which indicated the following:
‘Detailed endorsement
Conviction Court Code 1921 Conviction date 01/04/25
Appeal Court Code - Appeal date -
Expiry date 15/11/2028 Next Report Date -
From Date 15/11/2024 Notification source -
Identifier - Offence Code MS90
Offence Date 15/11/2024 Offence Legal
Literal Failure to
give information
as to identity of
driver etc.
Other Sentence - Penalty points 6
Detailed endorsement
Conviction Court Code 1921 Conviction date 01/04/25
Appeal Court Code - Appeal date -
Expiry date 10/10/2028 Next Report Date -
From Date 10/10/2024 Notification source -
Identifier - Offence Code MS90
Offence Date 10/10/2024 Offence Legal
Literal Failure to
give information
as to identity of
driver etc.
Other Sentence - Penalty points 6
Detailed endorsement
Conviction Court Code 2375 Conviction date 21/03/24
Appeal Court Code - Appeal date -
Expiry date 15/01/2028 Next Report Date -
From Date 15/01/2024 Notification source -
Identifier - Offence Code MS90
Offence Date 10/10/2024 Offence Legal
Literal Failure to
give information
as to identity of
driver etc.
Other Sentence - Penalty points 6
Following further discussions. The Tribunal determined to proceed to make the decision which is set out above.
Analysis
We begin by considering the evidential basis for the Registrar’s decision dated 2 August 2024 that the Appellant's name should be removed from the Register on the basis that he has ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the Register. The cited evidential basis for the decision, as set out in the Statement of Case, is:
'Conviction dated 21 March 2024 for failure to give information as to identity of driver etc (MS90) on 15 January 2024 resulting in 6 Penalty points and £600 fine'
In his written representations to the Registrar and in his grounds of appeal, the Appellant has given an explanation for the detection of this offence. In summary, he submits that his motor vehicle had been sold, implying that the driver was the new owner of the vehicle and, as such, could not be identified. He added further reasons for his failure to respond to the fixed penalty notice and to provide timely notification to the Registrar of the fact of acceptance of that notice. In short, he asserted that he had changed his address, his parents were absent from his previous correspondence address and, accordingly, no one was checking the mail. He observed that he was challenging the endorsement of his licence for this single offence and was confident of success. Finally, he set out several factors which, he submitted, mitigated against the strictness of having his name removed from the Register.
We have noted that the MS90 offence involves, in reality, two offences, both equally serious. The first is the omission to fail to notify DVLA of the new registered keeper when the relevant motor car was sold and the second is to fail to respond to the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) by giving the details of the driver at the time of the offence, when requested to do so by the relevant authorities. In respect of the latter, we observe that it is likely that the Appellant would have been given two opportunities to provide the required information. The lack of any form of proof of the car being sold or any correspondence with the courts over the matter suggest at the least a very casual attitude and at worst a lack of candidness.
The Appellant has submitted that he is an experienced, competent and efficient ADI, evidenced by his standing and repute with his pupils, his driving school and his peers. In our view, a proficient and capable ADI would have in place systems and procedures which would prevent a situation like the one which led to an endorsement from arising. In the circumstances of the case, if the Appellant had sold the motor vehicle, then it would have been appropriate for him to notify the licensing authorities of that fact. His actions have been redolent of a failure to understand the significance of the regulatory requirements.
Further, it would be expected that the response from an ADI would be immediate. The Appellant argues that it has been, submitting that he has commenced court proceedings and emphasized his confidence in a successful outcome. The materials relating to the court proceedings which have been collected by Mr Heard show that the Appellant has not made any appearance when the proceedings have been listed. Further, and restricting our consideration to the initial offence alone, the most recentrecord of that offence, as set out in paragraph 38 above, does not note an ‘Appeal Court Code’ or an ‘Appeal Date’. In our view, a concerned ADI, faced with an adverse decision of the Registrar impacting on his professional career to the extent of removal of his name from the Register, would respond with promptness and energy to prevent the obvious consequences.
The same consideration applies to the Appellant’s response to the Tribunal proceedings. He was notified of the Tribunal’s determination that the appeal proceedings would not be postponed and would proceed. He was informed that he would have the opportunity to renew his postponement application at the remote oral hearing. Further, and most importantly, he has been given the opportunity to attend and give, in person, albeit remotely, a further explanation of the background to the initial offence, his response to that and what has happened with respect to the court proceedings which he has submitted he has instigated. He has not taken that opportunity and his response to what has happened is marked by a degree of casualness and lack of recognition of the reality of what has occurred.
The Appellant argues that what occurred does not go to his fitness to have his name retained on the Register. In our view, it most certainly does. He has set out several factors which, he submitted, demonstrated that he was a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register and mitigated against the strictness of having his name removed from the Register. As noted above, these included his successful professional career as an ADI and his standing with his pupils and peers. He also set out the financial and personal impact which removal from the Register would have on him and his family.
In our view the Appellant is failing to comprehend the meaning of the term ‘fit and proper person’ in the context of the relevant legislation. As was noted above, conditions for entry or retention on the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant be a fit and proper person. As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including convictions, cautions and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate.
If a consequence of the dismissal of this appeal is that there will be an impact, particularly financial, which the removal from the Register will have on him and his family, then that is unfortunate. It is our duty, however, to act in accordance with the law.
As was noted above, the Appellant has referred to examples of similar cases where instructors remained on the Register despite motoring offences. Our response is that other decisions of the First-tier Tribunal are not binding on us, and that the decision in each case is taken is dependent on its individual circumstances.
In D/2018/183, First-tier Tribunal Judge Hunter said the following, at paragraphs 15 and 16:
‘15. There has been debate, in Tribunal hearings and decisions, as to the position when 6 penalty points have been incurred. The accumulation of that number of penalty points is regarded as a “tipping point”. That is, the accumulation of 6 penalty points will not automatically lead to the conclusion that an ADI should not be, or should be, removed from the Register. The position is set out clearly in and reiterated and approved in Appeal 2003/191 K Bates and others, and reiterated and approved in Appeal 2005/95 M Wild: “… A total of 6 points from speeding offences should not by itself lead to an automatic finding that a person is not fit and proper to be a driving instructor.… Each case must be viewed separately.” The Tribunal considers this dictum may validly be applied also to other motoring offences such as the offence in this instant case.
Accordingly, cases such as this very much depend on their individual merits, and “demerits”, and the particular circumstances of the individual cases fall to be carefully scrutinised, as this Tribunal has done in this case.’
We have also noted and cannot ignore that the decision under appeal is a decision of the Registrar dated 2 August 2024 and that the appeal has been outstanding for some time.
We are satisfied that the Registrar has satisfied the burden of proof and that his decision should be upheld.
Disposal
For the reasons which are set out above, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Postscript
Mr Heard’s forensic skills post the hearing have revealed further offences resulting in the endorsement of the Appellant’s licence with additional penalty points. The detail of the offences is set out in extract from the DVLA database, extracted on 17 September 2025, and noted in paragraph 38 above. It is highly likely that in the absence of any further appeal (and the DVLA extract does not record any ‘Appeal Court Code’ or an ‘Appeal Date’ for those offences) the Appellant is now disqualified from driving. That has an immediate effect on his ability to provide driving instruction and will have a further significant impact on his ability to do so in the future.
Kenneth Mullan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
27 October 2025