Rabah Kassa v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 24^th November 2023 to remove his name from the Register.

The Registrar’s reasons for removal, in summary, were that the Appellant had accrued 6 penalty points for using a car without insurance following conviction on 30^th September 2023, and failing to declare the same to the Registrar. The Registrar took the view the offending was serious, and determined the Appellant must be removed as a result.

The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 12^th December 2023, argues that he believed that his insurance would normally renew automatically and that he was unaware his policy had lapsed. He complains that his insurers did not do enough. He seeks to explain his failure to be aware that the policy had lapsed due to his own ill health in part.

He accepts not informing the Registrar of the conviction, saying he was not aware he had to declare the same and felt the actions of the Registrar were harsh as a result.

The Appellant sought to keep his licence indicating that he was the sole provider for his family, that he has medical issues and at his age finding alternative work would be difficult if not impossible.

The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the offence, resulting in 6 penalty points, was a serious matter. The Registrar took the view the conviction was valid at the time of the response, and as no reply was submitted by the Appellant, removal was appropriate.

The case was listed for oral hearing and was carried out via the CVP video enabled hearing system.

The Appellant attended and was unrepresented, albeit a neighbour and friend attended to assist him. The Respondent was barred from participating.

The Respondent was barred from any involvement in the Appeal by directions given on 14^th August 2024, which reflected a failure by the Registrar to assist the Tribunal. As an example a direction was not met for some 123 days! A further barring decision was made on 24^th March 2025. Despite that the Respondent filed a GRC5 seeking permission to file a bundle for this hearing. The Application is refused. The Respondent has been told twice in full and proper directions that its failure to assist has been unacceptable and as a result the application to go behind Case Management Directions is beyond inappropriate.

The Registrar has indicated that it simply wants to ensure that the Register is in effect protected by a balanced position being considered. The Tribunal can’t help but note, if that were so, why wasn’t compliance provided earlier. The application in the GRC5, dated 9^th June 2025, is refused.

The Tribunal considered a mixed bundle of documents.

The Appellant indicated orally before the Tribunal that he believed his insurance would renew automatically, as he was paying on a direct debit basis. He said at the time he was engaging in medical treatment and didn’t get round to looking at all of his emails. He said he was “old school” and preferred pencil and paper, and wasn’t the most technically advanced. Accordingly he might have missed an email from his insurer. He accepted that he didn’t take calls from what seems to be his insurers, but he maintained he was unaware his policy had lapsed. He accepted however it was his fault not being aware.

He accepted the conviction and the penalty that followed. He explained that he did not tell the Registrar about the conviction as he was waiting for the proceedings to commence so didn’t have a Court number to provide, and he didn’t have points to declare, so he asserts, it was a misunderstanding that led to the failure to report.

He accepted it was his fault, but asks for the possibility of being allowed to continue on the Register. He asserts the problem that occurred here will not be repeated. He indicated that he now has a robust system in place to remind him of key dates now. He has renewed his car insurance twice since this matter on time without issues.

He indicated that he is not teaching very much at the moment but is receiving positive comments from those pupils he assists.

He said his health was better than it had been around the time of the offence when be was in considerable pain.

The Tribunal considered carefully all the papers and evidence before it.

The Appellant breached a central aspect of motoring law, namely being insured. He asserts that there was no actual risk here and it was an inadvertent mistake. The Tribunal does not accept this. It is always incumbent on an ADI to ensure that they are insured; they take learner drivers on the open road. Insurance must be in place and an instructor must ensure that they have steps in place to check their cover. Here there was a failure, which was definitely not risk free. It was a serious failure by the Appellant. The Tribunal noted that the lack of insurance would have continued for a little while, or longer, but for the police stop.

His failure to inform the Registrar was a further serious failure and one that caused the Tribunal real concerns. ADIs know that they have to comply with a number of rules. Each time they make a declaration there is an indication of the continued duties to inform the Registrar. Further, in the Tribunal’s experience it is well known by ADIs that they must disclose improper conduct.

The Registrar is entitled to expect the very highest standards from ADI’s and here the Appellant was found wanting. For the Registrar to allow the Appellant to remain on the Register would have been wrong. In that regard the decision by the Registrar was correct.

However, it is now over two years since the offence; the Appellant’s insurance lapsed on 14^th February 2023 and he was stopped on the 1^st March 2023. Since that time the Appellant has remained an instructor, and the Tribunal has not been told about any other misconduct issues. The Registrar has not helped speedy justice to follow and the Tribunal stands back and considers even with the seriousness of the offence whether now, all these months later, whether it would be just to remove the Appellant’s licence.

The issue for the Tribunal is in effect having become unfit, as the conviction and failure to report caused the Appellant to become, has the passage of time allowed the Appellant to regain a status of being fit and proper now. The Appellant indicates he continues to teach. There have been no other issues. Pupils give him solid recommendations.

The Tribunal did not find this decision easy, as it would undoubtedly have supported the Registrar’s decision if the Appeal had been considered sometime ago. After considerable balancing of the issues the Tribunal just came to the conclusion that removal now would be unfair. The time taken to deal with the Appeal and the Appellant’s admittedly self-reported behaviour, which showed the steps he had taken to prevent this sort of incident happening again, alongside the positive character evidence, is such that the Tribunal finds that he has regained a fit and proper status.

As a result the Appeal is allowed. However, the Appellant needs to understand that this was not an easy decision for the Tribunal and:

The Registrar is directed to issue the Appellant with the strongest possible warning that this sort of, or indeed any, misdemeanour in the future, will result in the Appellant losing his licence and being unable to continue as an ADI.

DATE: 18^th June 2025