Waqas Siddiq v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 2 September 2024 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a licence to give instruction in driving motor cars (known as a “trainee licence”). The decision was made on the grounds that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to become an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). This is because he received a conviction for speeding resulting in 6 penalty points. He had previously been convicted of speeding for which he received a warning before being allowed to start the qualification process.

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. A short adjournment took place at the start of the hearing to enable the Appellant’s Solicitor to check that he had seen the entire bundle. Upon resumption, Dr Abba confirmed that there was nothing in the bundle that he had not already seen.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 13 September 2024 relies on the grounds that he lost sight of the reduced speed limit on the motorway whilst driving a friend to the airport for their mother’s funeral. The friend was distraught. It was an emotional and time-pressured environment. The Appellant sincerely apologises for the lapse in judgement and takes full responsibility for his actions.

At the time of his application (on 16 August 2024), the 3 penalty points on his licence for a speeding offence that occurred on 10 July 2020 were no longer valid. The Tribunal is asked to consider that humans make mistakes. It was a one-off mistake from which the Appellant says he has learnt and has improved his driving skills.

The Appellant has supplied a character reference from the owner of the company who have trained the Appellant towards achieving qualification as an ADI.

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 7 February 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having accepted a fixed penalty for exceeding the speed limit on the motorway. 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 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 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 Tribunal has considered a bundle of evidence containing 40 numbered pages plus index. We heard submissions from the Appellant’s Solicitor and the Registrar’s representative at the hearing. Mr Saddiq himself answered questions from the Tribunal as did Mr Russell for the Registrar.

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 22 November 2022 the Appellant was convicted of exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road (SP30) on 10 July 2020 resulting in 3 penalty points and a fine. The Appellant explained that the delay between offence and conviction was due to his post going astray and the case being re-heard in the Magistrates Court. It is undisputed that the 3 penalty points were no longer valid after 3 years, calculated from the date of the offence in 2020. The endorsement stayed on the licence for 4 years.

On 11 March 2024 the Appellant was convicted of speeding on a motorway (SP50) on 20 June 2023 resulting in 6 penalty points and a fine. He was recorded as driving 74mph in a temporary 50mph zone.

When the Appellant first applied to the Registrar for a trainee licence on 5 June 2023, he declared his speeding offence from July 2020. In a letter to the Appellant dated 8 June 2023, the Registrar stated that he had on this occasion decided to allow the Appellant to continue the process of qualifying to become an ADI. The letter warned that his conduct had, however, fallen below the standard expected of an ADI. If in future it became necessary to consider whether the Appellant is a “fit and proper person” to be on the Register, then his record as a whole, including unspent convictions, would be taken into account. It could result in refusal to issue a trainee licence.

When the Appellant applied for a further trainee licence, the Registrar responded by email on 16 August 2024 to say that he was considering refusing his application. This was on the grounds that the Registrar could not be satisfied that the Appellant fulfilled the condition of being a” fit and proper person” in light of his two speeding convictions. The Appellant was given 28 days to make representations.

The Appellant replied by email on 19 August 2024. In summary:

The Registrar gave notice to the Appellant on 2 September 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’s Solicitor acknowledged that the 6 remaining penalty points on the Appellant’s driving licence are relevant. He submitted that the Registrar had erred in taking the 2020 penalty points into account. The circumstances at the time of the second offence were that there was a variable speed limit in place. The Appellant had not realised the limit had temporarily dropped to 50mph. His Solicitor described this as a ”lapse in judgement”, which he later corrected to a “lapse in concentration”.

When he received 6 penalty points, the Appellant made a statutory declaration to explain that he had not received the notice of intended prosecution. After the conviction was vacated, the Appellant had pleaded guilty promptly. He anticipated receiving 3 penalty points because he thought he was only 4mph over the limit. Instead, he received 6 penalty points.

The Appellant’s Solicitor added that the Appellant was looking forward to his new life as a driving instructor. He should be forgiven for his lapse in concentration. He is entitled to learn from his mistakes. He has passed the first two stages of the Qualifying Examination and has received detailed training from his brother who is an experienced ADI. The Appellant is the breadwinner in his family. The income he could earn with a trainee licence would be a significant resource. The Appellant is willing to give an undertaking that he will be vigilant in future.

When asked by the Tribunal whether he had attended a speed awareness course, Mr Siddiq replied “Not that I can remember”.

Mr Russell confirmed that the Registrar accepts that the first offence “no longer counts” in terms of totting up of penalty points. He clarified that the position of the Registrar is that the first speeding offence has relevance insofar as it showed that the Appellant had been convicted of two speeding offences within a 3-year period. In the view of the Registrar, it demonstrated an ongoing attitude towards motoring laws and caused him to question whether it showed a trait being displayed. The Registrar was concerned there had been two speeding offences within 3 years.

The endorsement of 3 penalty points for the speeding offence in 2020 would have stayed on the Appellant’s driving licence for 4 years but were valid for 3 years from the date of the offence. The conviction was ‘spent’ by the time of the application for a trainee licence in August 2024.

The Registrar’s decision could have been clearer that the 2020 offence was mentioned because it showed a repeat offence within a 3-year period. The Registrar was entitled to come to that view. The Appellant’s Solicitor was incorrect to suggest that the 2023 offence was an isolated incident when there had been a previous conviction in 2020. Nevertheless, the Tribunal focuses its decision on the 2023 conviction for which there are 6 remaining penalty points on the Appellant’s driving licence.

The Tribunal recognises that the Appellant purchased a vehicle on finance in the anticipation of continuing the Qualifying Examination and the personal impact of the trainee licence being refused. These factors, however, carry little weight. They do not mitigate the severity of the 2023 speeding offence.

The undertaking offered by the Appellant to be vigilant in future does not assist. As a bare promise it has no legal force. We acknowledge that the Appellant is remorseful and that he made a mistake. However, the Tribunal is concerned that through his actions, the Appellant displayed a serious lack of concentration in failing to realise that the speed limit had reduced to 50mph. The speed limit was unlikely to have dropped without warning. The Appellant was not slightly over the speed limit. He was recorded as exceeding the limit by 24mph. He cannot have been alerted by other motorists driving far more slowly than himself.

When 50mph average speed-controlled restrictions are in place on motorways, it will be for good reason and often for safety purposes. Even though his passenger may have been distressed, it did not obviate the need to be alert to the environment and any restrictions in place. It was his responsibility not to be distracted from his driving.

To be a fit and proper person to become an ADI, means following the law that they are supposed to be teaching to often young and impressionable young people. It requires high personal and professional standards with a keen regard for road safety and compliance with the law. The Registrar’s decision does not mean that the Appellant will never be considered to be a fit and proper person to become an ADI.

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.