Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0491/FPP
Transport
Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE T BARRETT
TRIBUNAL MEMBER FRY
TRIBUNAL MEMBER ROANTREE
Between
SEHAN MILANA GUNATILAKA GUNATILAKA MUDALIGE
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 refuse to enter the Appellant’s name on 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 been convicted of causing or permitting the use of a vehicle uninsured against third party risks for which the Appellant received a fine and 6 penalty points on the 12 February 2025 (the offence took place on 20 July 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 7 April 2025 in summary sets out :
The Appellant believes that whilst accepting responsibility for the relevant conviction that that conviction does not accurately reflect their character, professional conduct or the full context of the situation.
The incident that led to the conviction was isolated and an unintentional lapse in judgement, but also at the same time asserts that despite the conviction the other individual drove the car without the Appellant’s consent.
That they have a had a clean driving record since 2016 apart from this one conviction, and have been a trainee driving instructor since 2022 having passed the final part of the ADI exam on the 7 November 2024.
That the decision to refuse to enter their name on the Register has had a significant impact on their family as they are the sole provider and so this has “extreme” personal and professional consequences.
The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 19 August 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar in summary says:
The Appellant has been convicted of the offence of causing or permitting the use of a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. 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 has not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that is expected from a potential ADI and so allowing someone on the Register whose licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points would be a failing of the DVSA’s public duty.
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 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 41 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 and copies of previous instances of insurance). We heard evidence and submissions from the Appellant and his witness Mr Bandara, as well as submissions from the Registrar.
The Relevant Facts
The Appellant was convicted of the offence of causing or permitting the use of a vehicle uninsured against third party risks on the 12 February 2025.
That conviction related to 20 July 2024. The Appellant describes the circumstances that led to that conviction as follows:
It involved an incident where the Appellant drove home with a passenger (Mr Bandara) in his vehicle, the Appellant then exited the vehicle for approximately 10-12 minutes to use the washroom and speak to his wife, leaving Mr Bandara in the passenger seat of the vehicle with the keys in the ignition.
Upon return the Appellant found Mr Bandara in the driving seat attempting to practice parallel parking but with the car at that point in the middle of the road.
The Appellant chose to then enter the vehicle as a passenger and attempt to assist Mr Bandara in his parking attempt, rather than taking any other action.
During this effort the car came into contact with a scooter resulting in damage to the vehicle. Police officers witnessed this collision and investigated which revealed the lack of insurance for the driver and led to the prosecution of both Mr Bandara and the Appellant.
The case went to Court and Mr Bandara pleaded guilty, but the Appellant did not and was found guilty instead.
Though the Appellant has never been on the Register, they have benefited from several trainee licences that has allowed them to train students for payment. Since the date of the offence the Appellant has also completed the third and final part of the ADI examination scheme.
The Appellant has provided a total of 6 character references as regards their professional conduct. All of which were positive, but none of which disputed the details of the conviction.
Submissions
In submissions and in response to questions asked, the Appellant told the Tribunal in summary:
The Appellant is the only person working in his household and both his wife and daughter have medical issues. He has two children and a large part of the reason he works as a trainee driving instructor is because of the freedom it offers to set his working times around school pickups etc. The Appellant previously worked in a kitchen but had to give that work up due to a medical condition.
The Appellant accepts and apologises for the mistake and that prior to that point he had never had any points on his licence or any other criticism of his driving. He had never been involved with the Police or a Court before and always obeyed by all the laws since he arrived in the UK in 2010.
That the incident took place as set out in the ‘Relevant Facts’ section of this judgment, and that because he had been a friend of Mr Bandara for many years “I could not ask him to get out of the car” and so “I had to jump in the car and help him” to move the car out of the middle of the road. No one had any reason to suspect this would happen outside his house nor that the impact with the scooter would take place.
The Appellant accepted that he had a choice when he returned to finding Mr Bandara driving his car, and that he could have refused to enter the car but did not do so.
The Appellant set out that in his written submissions there was evidence of previous times when he ensured that others had obtained temporary insurance for use of his vehicle, but clarified that on each of these occasions he was not in the car as these were times others borrowed the car to take a test in it.
That the court date was the day he chose to submit his application for entry to the Register (before he knew the outcome of his appearance).
That all the character references relating to former pupils are from pupils from the period between 2021 and April 2023, some time prior to the date of the conviction. He was able to contact them because he remained on friendly terms with them and would call at holiday periods and alike.
The Appellant presented Mr Bandara as a witness who identified himself and read the relevant affirmation and in summary told the Tribunal:
The incident that led to the conviction was as set out in the ‘Relevant Facts’ section of this judgment. I was not a qualified driver but still a learner.
I had seen how the Appellant had easily parallel parked his vehicle and as that is something I had trouble with I decided to try and practice that skill while I waited for the Appellant to return from his house.
I was in the middle of the road when the Appellant returned having panicked and stalled the car when I heard sirens approaching. The Appellant saw me and immediately jumped into the car to guide me to safely park the vehicle. Unfortunately, the scooter and the police vehicle chasing it appeared and there was a minor collision with the scooter. If the Appellant had not jumped in the car it could have been a disaster but instead there was no injuries and only a very small scratch to the car.
The representative of the Registrar in summary made the following submissions:
The Appellant at the time of the offence was a trainee driving instructor in the middle of completing the three-part test to become an ADI. They should therefore have been acutely aware of the high standard of driving and respect for the laws of the road that is expected of an ADI.
Allowing a person who the Appellant knew was not qualified to drive and who he knew was not insured, to drive a vehicle of the Appellant’s does not demonstrate those required high standards. Especially when the conduct relates to actively assisting the uninsured driver to drive by entering the car and providing instruction on how to complete the manoeuvre.
Additionally, the holding of a six points on the Appellant’s driving licence itself alone demonstrates that the Appellant does not meet the required quality of being a fit and proper person to be an ADI.
In those circumstances as the Registrar is charged with maintaining the Register and ensuring that all persons named on it meet the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria it is not appropriate to enter the Appellant’s name on the Register.
Conclusions
The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it. In particular, the evidence given by the Appellant and Mr Bandara about the incident that gave rise to the relevant conviction as well as the personal impact not being entered on to the Register would have for the Appellant and his family.
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. 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.
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 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.
The offence of causing or permitting the use of a vehicle whilst uninsured is a particularly serious one as regards persons entrusted to teach others the standards expected of drivers and to demonstrate model behaviours. This is especially so in the context where the uninsured person is known to be a learner driver themselves. The threat posed to road safety as well as to the lives and health of other road users by uninsured drivers is hard to underestimate. Ensuring that your vehicle is only driven by someone with valid insurance is a fundamental cornerstone of responsible and lawful driving.
Whilst it may be the case that when Mr Bandara first started driving the vehicle this was without the permission of the Appellant, once the Appellant discovered Mr Bandera driving then by the Appellant’s own admission he chose not to insist that Mr Bandera stopped driving and instead took it upon himself to join him in the vehicle and assist Mr Bandera in continuing to drive the vehicle.
In all the circumstances, we conclude therefore that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. Therefore, we find that the Registrar’s decision to refuse to enter the Appellant on the Register because the Appellant was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal accordingly.
Signed Judge T Barrett Date: 19 October 2025