David Wiiliam Gregory v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 20 December 2024 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a licence to give instruction (“trainee licence”) on the grounds that the Appellant cannot be considered a “fit and proper person” to become an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). This is because he had two convictions for speeding offences resulting in a total of 6 penalty points.

The proceedings were held by video (CVP). Due to technical difficulties, the Appellant joined by telephone when his video connection did not enable him to hear proceedings. The Registrar’s representative also joined by telephone. Once the parties confirmed they were content to proceed, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 2 January 2025 relies on the grounds that: (i) both offences occurred before he started his journey as an ADI in 2023 and began training in February 2024 (ii) he has passed the Part 1 and Part 2 examination and was very upset to learn of the second offence and the effect it could have on his role as an ADI (iii) he has worked hard and really changed his own approach to safe driving (iv) he has developed the skills and knowledge ready for the Part 3 test (v) he has fully invested in the career change as an ADI (vi) he understands the impact of having 6 points on his licence but truly loves his new role and believes he can prove redemption, betterment and rehabilitation.

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 29 May 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant’s driving licence is endorsed with 6 penalty points. The Registrar does not believe that the Appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that he would expect to see from a potential ADI.

Under section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”), no paid instruction in the driving of a motor car shall be given unless—(a) the name of the person giving the instruction is in the register of approved instructors, or (b) the person giving the instruction is the holder of a current licence granted under Part V of the Act authorising him to give such instruction.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in section 129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted: ‘for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination... as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.’

Under section 129(2) of the Act, the Registrar must grant a licence to an applicant who fulfils specified conditions. One of these conditions, set out in section 125(3)(e), is that the applicant is a “fit and proper person” to have his name entered in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”). The Act does not specify what this standard requires.

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).

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 panel has considered a bundle of evidence containing 21 numbered pages plus index. We heard submissions from the Appellant and the Registrar’s representative at the hearing.

The Appellant is not and never has been on the Register. When the appeal was made, he was going through the qualification process to become an ADI.

On 20 November 2024 the Appellant applied to the Registrar for a trainee licence. He replied “yes” to the question “Have you received any fixed penalties for motoring offences?”. A routine check of the DVLA Swansea database confirmed that the Appellant had been convicted of two motoring offences for exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road. The first offence occurred on 1 January 2023 (conviction on 23 September 2023) and the second was a fixed penalty on 10 December 2023, resulting in 3 penalty points for each offence.

The Registrar was already aware of the first offence as it showed on the Appellant’s record when he applied to start the ADI qualification process. Due to the second offence giving the Appellant a total of 6 penalty points, the Registrar notified the Appellant by email on 5 December 2024 that he was considering refusing the application for a trainee licence on the grounds that the Registrar could not be satisfied that he fulfilled the condition of being a ”fit and proper person”. The Appellant was given 28 days to make representations.

The Appellant replied by email on 9 December 2024. In summary:

The Registrar gave notice to the Appellant on 20 December 2024 that he had decided to refuse the Appellant’s application for a trainee licence as he did not meet the condition in section 125(3)(e) of the Act of being a “fit and proper” person to become an ADI.

The Appellant explained the circumstances of the offences further at the hearing.

At the time of the first offence on New Year’s Day, the Appellant explained that he was driving a Jaguar along the empty road and had not monitored his speed properly. The Appellant volunteered that he had no excuse for speeding.

For the second offence, the Appellant suggested there was some doubt as to whether he was in fact the driver. By the time the letter came through with the conviction in June/July 2024, the Appellant had already left the company he was working for. This meant that he was unable to check the App used by the company that held the relevant records. On the day in question the Appellant was driving a pool transit van allocated to him at the depot. The Appellant said that the doubt in his mind arose because he does not speed. However, he acknowledged that he was driving that day, and knows the route where the offence occurred. He cannot say if it was, or was not, him driving.

The Appellant did not apply to have the conviction set aside. When asked why he had not appealed, the Appellant stated that he was told it was too late. With hindsight he would have taken the matter up with more vigour had he known the severity of the consequences.

During the hearing, Mr Russell confirmed that the Registrar had looked at the individual circumstances of the case, including the dates of the offences. The Appellant’s first application for a trainee licence was made on 8 December 2023. The date of the second offence was 2 days later. Therefore, only one offence pre-dated the start of the Appellant’s ADI journey. Mr Russell emphasised that the Registrar is not saying that the Appellant should never be an ADI. He would like to see a sustained period without further incidents before allowing the application.

The Tribunal has some sympathy for the Appellant’s position in that the second offence only came to his attention some while after he began his ADI training. Although the Appellant sought to suggest at the hearing that the second offence might not have been committed by him, the fact remains that he was convicted of the offence. He did not appeal as might be anticipated of someone who doubts if they committed the offence and who has so much at stake. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the 3 penalty points from the second offence should be disregarded. Both convictions are clearly relevant offences.

On totting up, he still has 6 points for speeding on his driving licence. This might not seem serious, but the law treats them very seriously. To become an ADI, it is essential to follow the law that they are supposed to be teaching to often young and impressionable pupils. We are aware that the Registrar consistently views 6 points on a driving licence as meaning that someone is not a fit and proper person. However, there is no fixed rule about 6 points being a trigger.

The Tribunal has considered the circumstances. The first offence was on New Years Day when the roads were quiet. The second offence arose whilst the Appellant was working as a delivery driver along an unfamiliar route and was unaware that he had exceeded the speed limit. None of these factors mitigate the fact that he has been convicted of the motoring offences.

The Appellant spoke convincingly of his passion, ability, and intent to become an ADI. We accept that the Appellant has learnt from his experiences. We further note his high driving safety standard recorded on the App utilised by the national company he worked for as a delivery driver. We have also considered that it is only another 5 months before his first 3 points will no longer count for totting up purposes.

However, we do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances which would justify allowing the Appellant to be granted a licence after committing two offences of this nature.

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 was correct to refuse the Appellant’s application for a licence to give instruction in driving motor cars as he was not a fit and proper person to become an ADI. We dismiss the appeal.