Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0120
Transport
Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Before
JUDGE SAWARD
MEMBER FRY
MEMBER RAWSTHORN
Between
SAQIB ASLAM
Appellant
and
REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent:Mr Russell
Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The Registrar’s decision is upheld.
REASONS
Introduction
This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 23 December 2024 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Register”) on the ground that the Appellant had been disqualified and no longer holds a driving licence. The Registrar directed that the decision would not take immediate effect.
The proceedings were held by video (CVP). Both parties joined the Hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.
Procedural Matter
The Registrar’s decision was sent to the Appellant by email on 23 December 2024. The Notice of Appeal was received by the Tribunal on 21 January 2025. Under Rule 22 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, an appellant must start proceedings within 28 days of the date that notice of the decision was sent to them. The appeal in this case was submitted 1 day late. The reason given in the Appeal Form for the late submission was that the Appellant had not been well and had overlooked the date it was due by for which he apologised.
The Tribunal bears in mind that the appeal was only 1 day late and the 28-day window in which to submit the appeal coincided with public holidays over Christmas and New Year. We note that the Appellant says he was unwell. We also note that the Tribunal’s correspondence stated that the appeal had been submitted in time. The Registrar took the opportunity to respond and has fully engaged in the process. At the hearing, Mr Russell raised no objection to the Tribunal granting an extension of time to admit the appeal. The balance of prejudice lies with the Appellant whose appeal would not be heard if there is no extension of time.
In accordance with the case management powers within Rule 5 of the 2009 Rules, the Tribunal granted the Appellant an extension of time retrospectively so that the appeal can be considered.
The Appeal
The reason given for the Registrar’s decision of 23 December 2024 was that the Appellant was convicted on 22 November 2024 of “driving or attempting to drive with drug level above the specified limit” on 8 September 2024 for which he had received 14 months disqualification and a fine.
The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 21 January 2025 relies on the grounds that:
Being an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) is not only his profession but passion.
He has consistently strived to help his students succeed.
He is deeply remorseful and upset about what happened. He has the upmost respect for the law and the responsibility that comes with being an ADI.
He was advised to plead guilty by his Solicitor who he believes did not adequately represent him and put the full circumstances and mitigating factors to the court.
The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 29 May 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that:
the Appellant is disqualified from driving and does not hold a valid driving licence to act as an accompanying driver. Being in control of a vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs is a very serious offence with potentially dangerous consequences that cannot be ignored.
The Appellant has not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that is expected of an ADI.
It 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, to ignore this relevant motoring offence.
The Law
Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act") prohibits the giving of paid instruction in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor's name is in the Register, or the person is the holder of a current licence granted under section 129(1) of the Act.
Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to hold a licence to drive a motor vehicle to have his name on the Register, as provided in sections 125(3) and 128(2)(b) of the Act.
The Registrar may remove a person’s name from the Register if they have been disqualified under section 34 or 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Act (section 128(2)(b)). In this case, the disqualification was under section 34 for “driving or attempting to drive with concentration of specified controlled drug above specified limit” being an offence under section 5A of the Act.
Although not relied on in this instance, removal from the Register may also occur if the Registrar is satisfied that the person has ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name on the Register (section 128(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 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
The Tribunal has considered a bundle of evidence containing 23 numbered pages plus index. We have read and considered all the written evidence.
We also heard submissions from the Appellant and the Registrar’s representative.
Relevant facts
The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in September 2022. In the normal course of time, his registration would expire on 30 September 2026.
On 22 November 2024 the Appellant notified the Registrar by email that he had that same day been disqualified from driving for 14 months for a drug related offence.
On 22 November 2024 the Registrar gave the Appellant written notice by email that he was considering removing the Appellant’s name from the Register as he is disqualified from driving and no longer holds a driving licence. The Registrar asked for a reply within 28 days.
The Appellant replied by email on 12 December 2024. In summary he said:
As an ADI he had achieved an excellent pass rate and maintained a reputation for quality instruction and dedication.
The circumstances surrounding the incident leading to his “ban” were that he attended Rochdale driving test centre with a student who smelt faintly of cannabis. The examiner refused to take the student out for this reason and reported the Appellant. He was stopped and charged by police about a couple of weeks later.
A couple of days beforehand, the Appellant attended a social event. He was offered drinks by individuals he did not know. He claims, unbeknownst to him, that his drink was spiked.
The Appellant was not intoxicated the day he was stopped by police and felt fully capable of driving and his ability to drive was not impaired. At the time the Appellant was alone. He was not conducting a driving lesson.
A week later when the Appellant was back at Rochdale driving test centre with a different student, the same examiner reported him again. The Appellant feels he was being harassed. After the student returned from the test, a police car was waiting for the Appellant to drive out. He was stopped and asked to take a roadside test that was negative.
The Appellant is deeply remorseful for what happened. He says the consequences have been devastating. The Appellant now faces severe hardships including the loss of his home, inability to see his children or visit his parents regularly. There has been an effect on his mental health due to the stress. Without any other source of income, the Appellant must claim benefits.
The Appellant begs not to be removed from the Register. He is willing to undergo all necessary ADI tests again at the earliest opportunity.
The Appellant provided character references to support his case that he is a fit and proper person.
The Appellant elaborated upon his case at the hearing. He does not deny that when stopped by the police, he failed the drug test. Nevertheless, he was adamant that he had definitely not taken any drug. This is why he concludes that his drink must have been spiked. The police did not investigate his claim. The Appellant is aggrieved with the legal representation he received despite spending thousands of pounds. He spoke of his desire to resume as an ADI once his disqualification expires.
Consideration and Conclusions
There appeared to be some misunderstanding on the Appellant’s part over the nature of his appeal. The task of the Tribunal is to decide afresh whether the Appellant should have his name removed from the Register following his disqualification from driving. We are not deciding whether the Appellant should be allowed to be re-admitted to the Register once his ban expires or what period of time should pass before any such application succeeds.
Whilst the Appellant has made representations on why he is a fit and proper person to be on the Register, that is not the ground on which the Registrar based his decision. Instead, reliance was placed by the Registrar on the statutory power to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register on the grounds within section 128(2(b) of the Act i.e., for disqualification from driving under section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Removal of a person’s name from the Register under section 128 is not obligatory, but the Appellant has been convicted of a very serious offence of “driving or attempting to drive with concentration of specified controlled drug above specified limit”.
To have been convicted the Appellant must have had a specified controlled drug in his body that exceeded the specified limit for that drug. The Appellant accepts the test result, but not that he had intentionally taken any drug. In effect the Appellant tries to re-run his defence. The Tribunal heard how much the Appellant had spent on his defence but felt let down by his Solicitor. That may be so, but ultimately the Appellant has been convicted of the offence and disqualified from driving.
It is irrelevant to the commission of the offence that the Appellant felt harassed by an examiner at the driving test centre. The disqualification is no less serious by the Appellant not instructing any pupil at the time he was stopped by police.
As things stand the Appellant is 8 months into his 14-month period of disqualification. Therefore, he remains disqualified for a further 6 months. As he does not hold a valid licence to drive a motor vehicle, he does not meet one of the conditions for entry on the Register. That is sufficient reason for the Appellant’s name to be removed from the Register.
Whilst we acknowledge the hardship that the Appellant has faced personally and financially, those are consequences of his disqualification following conviction and not the Registrar’s decision. Those factors do not diminish the severity of the offence.
In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register was correct. We dismiss this appeal.
Signed: Judge Saward Date: 25 July 2025