Ghulam Mustafa Jat v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 24 January 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a licence to give instruction in driving motor cars (“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 been convicted of the offence of failure to give information as to the identity of driver etc on 10 November 2023 resulting in 6 penalty points on his driving licence.

The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The Appellant joined remotely, and Mr Russell for the Respondent joined by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal is dated 2 January 2025. As this pre-dates the Registrar’s decision, the date is clearly erroneous. The appeal was sent to the Tribunal by email on 2 February 2025, timed at 21.25. It was submitted in time.

The Appellant relies on the grounds that it was never his intention to deliberately prevent the Police from identifying the driver. He was simply trying to help a friend in need who had to collect his car from West Yorkshire so he could start work in the UK after fleeing war torn Ukraine.

The Appellant had received the Notice of Intended Prosecution (“NIP”). Upon checking the date, he immediately realised his friend was driving. The friend confirmed he was the driver. The letter was somehow misplaced and by the time it was found, the deadline had passed. The Appellant attended Court with his friend, but the friend was not given chance to be heard. The Appellant deeply regrets the incident which is preventing him pursuing his career. The impact upon his work, family and mental health has been tremendous. It was a genuine mistake although an irresponsible one.

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 20 June 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. The Appellant did not provide a reply.

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 Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘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 s125(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 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 33 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 of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”). He was issued with two trainee licences between January 2023 and January 2024 but failed to complete the qualification process to become an ADI. On 10 October 2024 the Appellant applied to begin the qualification process again. On 11 October 2024, the Appellant declared that he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence and explained the circumstances of that offence.

By email sent on 11 October 2024 the Registrar informed the Appellant that he was unable to stop him from starting the qualification process. However, the Appellant was warned that it was unlikely that any subsequent application for a trainee licence or application to have his name entered in the Register would be approved due to the motoring offence and resulting penalty points.

The Appellant subsequently applied for a trainee licence on 9 January 2025. He divulged that he had 6 penalty points on his licence for an offence dated 10 November 2023. A routine check of the DVSA database confirmed the Appellant had accepted a fixed penalty for failure to give information as to the identity of the driver.

The Registrar notified the Appellant by email on 10 January 2025 that he was considering refusing his 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” to become an ADI. The Appellant was given 28 days to make representations.

The Appellant replied by email on 10 January 2025 explaining the circumstances of the offence. He said that he had been helping his friend who is a Ukrainian refugee with a Ukrainian driving licence.

Having considered the response, the Registrar gave notice to the Appellant on 24 January 2025 that he had decided to refuse the Appellant’s application as he could not fulfil the condition in section 125(3)(e) of the Act of being a “fit and proper” person to become an ADI.

The attachments provided by the Appellant show that the NIP dated 11 October 2023 concerned a speeding offence of 36mph in a 30mph zone on 9 October 2023. In bold red capital letters, the NIP underlined the requirement to provide information under section 172 of the Act. There were two possibilities. If the Appellant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, he could make a driver admission. If he was not the driver at the time, he was required to provide details of the driver. The NIP set out that the requested information must be supplied within 28 days of service of the NIP. Failure to do so could incur a maximum fine of £1,000 and 6 penalty points.

A letter from West Yorkshire Police dated 5 April 2024 confirms that the NIP was returned by the Appellant, but the information was received after the statutory period had expired.

At the hearing the Appellant explained that he somehow misplaced the NIP and thought he would get a reminder. By the time he found the letter it was too late. The Appellant had understood what the NIP was, but he did not appreciate the consequences. He has received a £400 fine, 6 penalty points and his insurance has increased by 50%. Had he been aware of the repercussions then he would have replied to the NIP straight away. He had made a mistake. He was helping a friend by letting him borrow his car.

Whilst the Appellant has been unable to teach, he has been working as a taxi driver.

Mr Russell for the Registrar submitted that even if the Appellant had lost the NIP, he could have made immediate contact with the Police. Instead, he left it until April 2024.

The failure to comply with the requirements of a NIP may not seem to be a serious offence, but the law treats it very seriously. It is essential that those aspiring to be ADIs follow the law that they are supposed to be teaching to often young and impressionable pupils. The standard of behaviour expected is higher than that for an ordinary motorist.

The Tribunal believed the Appellant’s claim that he genuinely did not realise he would receive 6 penalty points on his licence for failure to reply to the NIP. He thought it was a speeding offence, which would ordinarily attract 3 points. Had he read the NIP carefully, he should have realised the severity of the offence for failing to respond. The warning was clearly set out within the NIP.

He was afforded the opportunity to say that he was not the driver. He did not take that opportunity. We note that no witness statement has been produced by the Appellant’s friend to verify the accuracy of his account. The Tribunal has some sympathy for the position the Appellant finds himself in if he was not the driver. However, the penalty for non-compliance with a NIP is deliberately severe. He has been convicted of the offence and the Appellant has not satisfied us that there are exceptional circumstances to go behind that conviction.

The Tribunal finds it surprising that someone in the Appellant’s position seeking to become an ADI, should be so lax about responding to a NIP. The obvious step was to contact the Police promptly if he could not find the letter rather than await a reminder. His poor administration indicates to the Tribunal that the Appellant has not fully understood the responsibility of an ADI.

When the Appellant applied to re-start the qualification process, he was warned (on 11 October 2024) that any subsequent application for a trainee licence was likely to be refused given the 6 penalty points on his driving licence. He therefore re-embarked upon the training process in the knowledge that he was unlikely to obtain a trainee licence at least whilst he had points on his driving licence.

The system may have treated the Appellant harshly by the consequential refusal of the trainee licence, but it was in accordance with the law.

In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s decision was correct to refuse the Appellant’s application for a trainee licence as he was not a fit and proper person to become an ADI. We dismiss the appeal.