Case Reference: FT/D/2025/043
Transport
Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Before
JUDGE HEALD
MEMBER BOOTH
MEMBER ROANTREE
Between
CHRISTIAN ADRIAN STOCHICI
Appellant
and
THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Robert Pinfold.
For the Respondent: Mr Heard appeared for the Respondent.
Decision: The Appeal is Dismissed.
REASONS
This Appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(1)(b) Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act"). It relates to a Decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 5 December 2024 ("the Decision") to refuse the Appellant's request for an extension of his registration as an approved driving instructor ("ADI").
What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference by us to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered.
In this Decision page numbers indicated by their inclusion in brackets refer to pages of the Bundle.
Law
By section 123(1) of the Act a person may only provide paid driving instruction if that person's name is on the Register or he holds a Licence by section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 ("the 2005 Regs) .
Also relevant to this Appeal is the EU's mutual recognition of professional qualifications Directive (Directive 2005/36/EC) ("the Directive") which applied to those with relevant driving instructor qualifications from other member states such as Romania. Article 1 states:-
"This Directive establishes rules according to which a Member State which makes access to or pursuit of a regulated profession in its territory contingent upon possession of specific professional qualifications (referred to hereinafter as the host Member State) shall recognise professional qualifications obtained in one or more other Member States (referred to hereinafter as the home Member State) and which allow the holder of the said qualifications to pursue the same profession there, for access to and pursuit of that profession."
Section 126(1) of the Act provides:-
(1)Unless previously removed under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, the name of a person shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be removed from the register at the end of the period of four years beginning with—
(a)the first day of the month next after that in which the entry of his name was made, or
(b)where his name has been retained in the register under section 127 of this Act, the day with which the last further period for which his name was so retained began.
Section 127(1) of the Act provides:-
"(1)A person may, before the time when his name is required under section 126(1) of this Act to be removed from the register, apply to the Registrar, in manner determined by the Secretary of State, accompanied by particulars so determined, for the retention of his name in the register for a further period of four years."
Section 127(2) of the Act provides that a persons name may be retained if the conditions in section 127(3) are fulfilled including:-
"(e)that, apart from fulfilment of the preceding conditions, he continues to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the register."
By section 127(5) and (6) of the Act before refusing such an application the Registrar is to give notice to the Appellant who is able to make representations.
In Harris -v- Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 Richards LJ held at para 30:-
".....I do not accept that the scope of the "fit and proper person" condition is as narrow as Mr Leviseur contended. Of course, a central question is an applicant's fitness to be a driving instructor – that he has the requisite instructional ability and driving ability and that he does not pose a risk in any respect to his pupils or other users of the road. The "fit and proper person" condition has obvious relevance to that issue, though the more technical aspects are covered by other, more specific conditions relating to tests, driving licence and the like. But 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: those registered are known as "Driving Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructors".
Guidance and Code
The Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency ("DVSA") has issued Guidance ("the Guidance") which an approved driving instructor ("ADI") is required to declare they have read when applying to become an ADI. It states for example that there are some situations where it would be unlikely an ADI would be deemed to be a FPP and allowed to remain on the Register and these include incurring both motoring and non motoring offences. As regards motoring offences the Guidance says:-
"It’s also unlikely that you’ll be classed as a ‘fit and proper’ person if you’ve been found guilty of: excessive speeding.
Many of these offences will result in 6 or more penalty points being put on your driving licence.
The ADI Registrar has refused applications or removed an ADI from the register when they’ve had 5 or more penalty points within the last 3 years under the ‘totting up’ rules."
As regards the FPP test the Guidance says:-
"Being a ‘fit and proper’ person
You must be a ‘fit and proper’ person to be an ADI.
ADIs are in a position of considerable trust. The ADI Registrar protects the image of the register and maintains the public’s confidence in the ADI industry.
What ‘fit and proper’ means
The law says you must be a ‘fit and proper’ person, but does not define what it means.
The ADI Registrar interprets it as the personal and professional standards, conduct or behaviour that could be unacceptable in the eyes of the public and other ADIs.
It’s not possible to be definitive about what’s classed as ‘fit and proper’. There has to be some discretion to take into account the circumstances of each case. The ADI Registrar makes an assessment of the risk you’re likely to pose to the public."
The Guidance also says for example (emphasis added):-
"You’re responsible for your ADI registration, including renewing it and keeping your registration up to date.
You must write to the ADI Registrar within 7 days if you get a caution or conviction. This includes:...any motoring or non-motoring offence, including penalty points."
"You’re responsible for renewing yourADI registration every 4 years."
"You have to show a:...responsible attitude to your pupils and profession."
Additionally a code of practice for ADI ("the Code") has been agreed between the DVSA and the National Associations Strategic Partnership a steering group for approved driving instructor associations. Whilst it is voluntary the Guidance states that "It is a framework within which all instructors should operate."This includes that the instructor agrees to "at all times comply with legislative requirements..."
Role of the Tribunal
Section 131(1) of the Act provides that:-
"A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar... (b)to refuse an application for the retention of his name in the register... may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal."
Section 131 (3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:-
"(a)for the grant or refusal of the application
or,
(b)for the removal or the retention of the name in the register, or the revocation or continuation of the licence,
(as the case may be) as it thinks fit."
Section 131(4) of the Act provides that:-
"An order for such refusal, removal or revocation may direct that an application by the appellant—
(a)for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act, or
(b)for his name to be entered in the register,
shall not be entertained before the expiration of such period, not exceeding four years beginning with the day on which the order is made, as may be specified in the order."
Section 131(4A) of the Act enables the matter to be remitted back to the Registrar for reconsideration
"If the...Tribunal considersthat any evidence adduced on an appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before he gave the decision to which the appeal relates"
In considering the Appeal the Tribunal must also give appropriate weight to the Registrar's view. The Court of Appeal in Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011) held that the answer to " How much weight was the district judge entitled to give to the decision of the licensing authority?" was:-
"45...the proper conclusion....can only be stated in very general terms. It is right in all cases that the magistrates' court should pay careful attention to the reasons given by the licensing authority for arriving at the decision under appeal, bearing in mind that Parliament has chosen to place responsibility for making such decisions on local authorities. The weight which the magistrates should ultimately attach to those reasons must be a matter for their judgment in all the circumstances, taking into account the fullness and clarity of the reasons, the nature of the issues and the evidence given on the appeal."
Therefore when making its Decision, 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 the relevant legislation with making such decisions. It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision- making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances.
Our decision is reached on the balance of probabilities.
Appearances, evidence and matters considered
Mr Heard appeared for the Registrar. The Appellant was represented by Mr Robert Pinfold from the ADINJC. Following a discussion with him it was established he was to speak for the Appellant by rule 11(5) The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 ("2009 Rules") which provides that:-
"At a hearing a party may be accompanied by another person whose name and address has not been notified under paragraph (2) but who, with the permission of the Tribunal, may act as a representative or otherwise assist in presenting the party's case at the hearing."
and permission was given.
The Appellant was in attendance by CVP and in the same location as Mr Pinfold. We were told (26) that he understood spoken English well but found written English more difficult. He was assisted in understanding the proceedings by a Mr Calo also in the same location. From hearing and observing the interaction between Mr Pinfold and the Appellant it was clear that he was following the proceedings and understood what was being said on his behalf. Finally also at the Appeal was Ms Denisa Peniuc a former pupil of the Appellant who had provided a letter supporting the Appellant dated 30 June 2025.
We had a bundle of 34 pages which included a case outline for the Appellant dated 14 July 2025 (30) and a copy of the First -tier Tribunal ("FtT") Decision in Abbasi -v- The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors D/2023/35IV (31-34).
Chronology
In outline the chronology and background facts leading to this Appeal are as follows and were not disputed by the Appellant:-
the Appellant became a qualified driving instructor in Romania in 2016 and instructed there before working between about 2018 and 2020 as an instructor in Ibiza (19).
on 1 November 2020 the Appellant submitted his application to transfer his EC Driving Instructor Registration to the Register (17).
on 16 November 2020 the Appellant's name was added to the Register.
on 22 December 2022 the Appellant received a fixed penalty notice and 3 penalty points for speeding. He did not report this to the Registrar.
on 13 February 2023 (within two months) the Appellant again received a fixed penalty notice and 3 penalty points for speeding and again he did not report this to the Registrar.
on 4 November 2024 the Appellant made an application to extend his registration as an ADI for a further 4 years (23) but on the online form the speeding offences were not disclosed.
on 7 November 2024 (25) the Registrar wrote to the Appellant indicating that he was considering refusal of the application on the basis that the failure by the Appellant to refer to the two fixed penalty notices and the two sets of 3 penalty points put his FPP status in doubt.
on 21 November 2024 Mr Pinfold, on behalf of the Appellant, made representations (26).
by letter dated 5 December 2024 (1) the Appellant was notified of the Decision to refuse his application for an extension of his registration as an ADI but that this would not take immediate effect by section 128(7) of the Act.
An additional point was raised with the Appellant (but which did not impact this Appeal) namely that for whatever reason his driving licence was due to expire on 3 August 2025 (24) (the Appeal was on 1 August 2025) and it was suggested he take advice and consider the impact of this carefully.
The Appeal
On 23 December 2024 the Appellant commenced this Appeal (2-11). His name in the Appeal form was incorrectly spelt "Christain." The Registrar provided a Response (12-16) dated 2 July 2025.
The Registrar's position
As set out in the Decision, the Response to the Appeal and at the Appeal hearing. the Registrar does not consider the Appellant to be a FPP. In summary, for the Registrar, there were three connected issues that impacted the Appellant's FPP status namely:-
the speeding offences themselves and the existence of his 6 penalty points.
the Appellant's failure to notify the Registrar of the points within 7 days as required being "...a clear breach of the declaration he made on his application to exchange his Romanian qualification signed and dated the 01 November 2020"(13).
the Appellant's failure to declare the points when seeking an extension in November 2024 which amounted, in the Registrar's view, to a "false declaration"(15).
The Registrar set out (15) the reasons for the Decision including the matters cited above and he went on to say:-
"(a)...The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. As such account is taken of a person's character, behaviour and standard of conduct. Anyone who is an [ADI] is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. Teaching(generally) young people to drive...should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. I would...be failing in my public duty if I allowed a person who had committed these offences to have his name retained in the register."
"(b)...in 2020 excessive speed contributed to 219 deaths, 1,674 serious injuries and 4,666 minor injuries..."
(c)...I do not consider that I can condone motoring offences of this nature. To do so would effectively sanction such behaviour, if those who transgress were allowed to remain in an official Register that allows them to teach others. It would send out wrong messages to learner and novice drivers about the standards expected of them on the road.
It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs who had been scrupulous in observing the law for me to ignore these undeclared offences."
At the Appeal Mr Heard told us that the Registrar's approach to the Directive was that an applicant, such as the Appellant with his pre-existing Romanian qualification, was able have his name on the Register and to work in this regulated business without having to (re) qualify or satisfy the Registrar of an ability to read English to a particular level of competence. However (as seen on page 17-18) this was subject to:-
background character checks
a check test
a commitment from the Appellant to one days CPD
a commitment from the Appellant to abide by the Code
a declaration made by an Appellant in these terms:-
"I declare that...I understand that I must notify the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors within seven days if I...:Am convicted of any offence including motoring offences, fixed penalties...."
The Appellant's case
The Appellant's position was set out in his representations (26), Appeal (2-11), in Mr Pinfold's outline (30) and at the hearing. The Appellant accepts that:-
he was speeding on both occasions.
he did not tell the Registrar about the points received.
the existence of the points was not declared when seeking an extension of his registration.
We heard from Mr Pinfold on each element.
Speeding
As regards the 2022 offence the Appellant's case was as follows:-
in the letter of representations (26) Mr Pinfold did not directly deal with the speeding offence itself but he did refer to the fact that the Appellant received no warning letter from the Registrar. He also said (26) that the Appellant did not recall if he had been offered a speed awareness course and that if he had been he would not have understood it unless he had been informed about it "in his native tongue"(26). He also said that if he had been offered a course and had understood it he would have taken that option resulting in him now only having 3 points (26).
in his Reasons for Appeal (8) Mr Pinfold, on behalf of the Appellant, did not address it other than by saying that:-
"Although it is not ideal for an ADI to have 6 points on his licence and we understand the Registrar's concern, both were committed in an unfamiliar part of Luton..."
in his note of 14 July 2025 (30) Mr Pinfold said:-
"...whilst it is not ideal for a driving instructor to have points on their licence, it does not necessarily mean that they are not a fit and proper person to be on the Register. Mr Stochici shares the Registrar's concern about the dangers of speeding and is normally very much aware of this when driving and he certainly imparts these dangers to his pupils."
and
"The motoring offences in 2022 and 23 were very much out of character for Mr Stochici, and we share the Registrar's view that as an ADI he should be more aware of speed limits. Mr Stochici admits that both offences should not have happened but in the first offence in 2022 there was a momentarily lack of concentration when Mr Stochici found himself in an unknown to him part of Luton."..."Neither of these offences were when Mr Stochici was on a lesson"
at the Appeal itself we were told that the Appellant thinks the road had a 30 mph speed limit and does not think he was going much over this limit.
As regards the 2023 offence the Appellant's case was set out as follows:-
in Mr Pinfold's representations (26) he did not directly deal with the speeding offence itself but he did refer to the fact that the Appellant received no warning letter from the Registrar after the 2022 offence and suggested that had he been told "...perhaps Mr S would have realised the seriousness of having points on his licence".
in the Reasons for Appeal (8) Mr Pinfold, on behalf of the Appellant, said that "Although it is not ideal for an ADI to have 6 points on his licence and we understand the Registrar's concern, both were committed in an unfamiliar part of Luton...". He added that the Appellant:-
"...had to accelerate to find a suitable place to pull in to allow an ambulance to overtake. Unfortunately he was caught on camera and received a letter from Bedfordshire Police. Although he could have appealed the offence Mr Stochici felt he did not have sufficient knowledge of written English to do so and just paid the fine."
in his note of 14 July 2025 (30) Mr Pinfold said (in addition to the points referred to above):-
"The second, there was some mitigation when he was being followed by a "blue light" ambulance and he had to accelerate to find a place to pull over to allow the ambulance to pass. Unbeknown to Mr Stochici he had gone through a speed camera. Neither of these offences were when Mr Stochici was on a lesson"
at the Appeal we were told that the emergency vehicle was a Police car not ambulance and that that he could not pull off to the side as the kerb was too high and the road had bends in it. Again he recalls the speed limit was 30 mph. We were also told (contrary to the representations) that the Appellant did appeal but because he had paid the fine this did not proceed.
Mr Pinfold was asked what the Appellant would tell his pupils they should do if there were to be an emergency vehicle "on blue lights" behind them. The answer given by the Appellant (via Mr Pinfold) was that he would advise them not to go over the speed limit. He added that he could speed in that situation to get out of the way of the emergency vehicle because he had enough experience to do so. As a result of that answer we asked for the question to be put again to ensure it had been understood and that we had correctly heard the answer. It was put again and we had the same answer.
Informing the Registrar
As regards not informing the Registrar of the points his case was put to us as follows:-
in the representation (Mr Pinfold on his behalf) said this (26):-
"...when he signed in 2020 that he would declare any offences within 7 days he had forgotten to do that by December 22. Mr S sincerely apologises for that and assures me that there was never any intention to deceive the Registrar."
in his Reasons for Appeal the Appellant said (8) that he is now "very much aware" of what he should have done. He apologised and said there was no intention to deceive the Registrar.
Mr Pinfold's written outline (30) said:-
"Mr Stochici now realises that the onus was on him to have told the Registrar within 7 days...and he has apologised for not doing so. There was also no intention to deceive the Registrar".
at the Appeal we were told that the Appellant was not aware reporting to the DVSA about the points had to be done by him. Mr Pinfold also raised the issue as set out above that the Registrar had not warned him when the first set of points had been incurred.
Mr Heard confirmed that the standard procedure was for DVSA to be told about the points by DVLA and thereafter for the DVSA to issue a warning to an ADI which would include a reminder about what might happen to a FPP status if further points were issued. In this case due to an administrative error DVSA was not informed and so no warning was issued to the Appellant.
Failure to mention the points when seeking an extension
Turning to the failure to mention the penalty points when seeking an extension of his registration the Appellant:-
said in his representations as drafted by Mr Pinfold (26) that:-
"When he came to complete his renewal on line he misunderstood the question about offences and assumed wrongly that it meant only criminal offences. He tells me there was never any intention to deceive the Registrar- it was the problem he has with written English. He now realises that he should have sought help in completing the renewal and that is why he has now joined the ADINJC".
in the Reasons for Appeal (8) did not specifically refer to this issue.
in Mr Pinfold's outline (30) did not specifically refer to this point.
at the Appeal itself said that in fact this online form had been completed for the Appellant by Mr Calo (who was present at the hearing and who had provided a character reference (29)).
It was put to the Appellant (via Mr Pinfold) that for Mr Calo to answer the various questions he must have had and/or sought information from the Appellant. We were told that he had been provided with information. However we asked how Mr Calo could have known the answer to such detailed questions such as (i) if the licence had been transferred or (ii) his driving licence number or (iii) if he was an EU licence holder without input from the Appellant. We were told he was given information and asked if he needed more.
We asked about the particular section of the online form which is headed "character details and asks "Have you ever been convicted of a motoring offence?" and "Do you have any endorsements on your driving licence?" both of which being answered inaccurately "no". We were told Mr Calo completed this without checking the answers with the Appellant because he made inaccurate assumptions about the answers to give.
Generally
A number of more general points and submissions were made for the Appellant. These included:-
that the Appellant is Romanian and that while his spoken English is good he does have problems with reading and understanding written English.
Mr Pinfold's submission that-
"If we were to liken the Registrar/ADI relationship to an Employer/Employee relationship there would be some merit in the argument that the normal employment rules have not been applied in this case when trying to dismiss an employee"
that (8) the Appellant has only known driving instructing and "...at 49 it would be very difficult for him to adapt to another way of life if he was to be refused his ADI renewal".
(30) that the Appellant is experienced with 15 pupils (who would have to find a new instructor), a good pass rate andthat he "...would be sadly missed if he was to be refused his ADI Licence".
(30) "Mr Stochici is a well liked, experienced, and professional driving instructor and that these offences were completely out of character and are unlikely to happen again".
Mr Pinfold also referred us to Abbasi in the FtT. In this case the appellant had 6 penalty point for speeding but due to the facts in that case his appeal was allowed. Mr Pinfold made the submission that having 6 points does not prevent an ADI being a FPP.
We were also referred to references provided. We noted in particular that given by Ms Peniuc who sent in a letter (29) and who had attended the Appeal. She said for example:-
"...I have had other instructors before but I never managed to pass my test. He has filled me with so much confidence in myself and my driving skills that for once I actually believed that I could pass my driving test. He was very patient during my lessons and I feel like he had to be because the car was jittering so much until I got used to change them properly and smoothly. He was also very observant as he used to give me always tips when driving, like where to look, how to judge the timing between cars and gave me good pointers that really help me during my test. I honestly feel like I couldn’t have chose a better instructor, one that I could also have a laugh with and who would also be honest and truthful with me even when I might not have liked what he had to say. I have passed my test 2 years ago now I have done many long journey confident that my skills would allow me to do so. Skills that I have been taught by Cristian and his excellent teaching methods. I can say that he prepares people and helps then improve on their personal skills and help them develop them even further. So I am eternally grateful to have had Cristian Stochici and the MCA driving school for teaching me."
Another reference from Mr Calo said (29):-
"I want to take a moment to share just how remarkable Cristian Stochici is. Cristian is truly a good person-kind-hearted,thoughtful,and always ready to lend a helping hand. His genuine care for others shines thrugh in everything he does,and it.s clear that he values honesty and integrity deeply. As a friend, Cristian is someone you can always rely on. He listens without judgment,offers support when it.s needed most, and brings a positive energy that lifts everyone around him. His lyalty and sincerity make him a friend who stands by throught thick and thin. Cristian,s warmth and kindness make him not only a great friend but also an inspiring person"
We were also provided with a link to the Appellant's business webpage with many further supportive reviews.
At the end of the Appeal hearing the Appellant spoke directly to the Tribunal (from which it was further clear he had been able to follow the proceedings despite the language issues). He spoke on his own behalf in favour of being allowed to remain on the Register. Among other things he said that did not understand technical written English language well but understood he had made a big mistake and was sorry for what had happened.
Our review
We considered all the circumstances presented to us noting the Registrar's view as the person who has the statutory role to maintain the Register, the decision in Harris and that the public must have confidence in the Register. We agree with the Registrar's position on it.
The core facts were not in dispute. The Appellant's name was placed on the Register pursuant to the provisions of the Directive. He received two sets of 3 penalty points for speeding in December 2022 and February 2023. He did not receive a warning letter about the first speeding offence from DVSA due to an administrate error. However on neither occasion did he tell the Registrar about the points. When applying for an extension of his registration the Registrar was told he had no motoring offences but in fact he had the two speeding offences referred to above.
We kept in mind that the Appellant had become an ADI pursuant to the Directive and had difficulty understanding written English. However in our view:-
an ADI whose name is on the Register pursuant to the Directive has the same level of regulatory obligations and is held to the same level of account as any other ADI (and the Appellant did not seek to say otherwise).
it would not be right to excuse a regulatory breach by an ADI on the grounds alone that an ADI had difficulty understanding written English.
the difficulty with written English may explain some of the issues in this Appeal but a person carrying out a regulated activity in a country where the official language is not understood to the level needed is always at risk that they may breach a regulatory obligation as a result unless they take sufficiently robust steps to mitigate the difficulty.
Speeding
We accept the Registrar's position as set out in this Appeal in particular noting the harm caused by excessive speed and that ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary drivers. The public has the right to expect ADIs to adhere to the highest standards of motoring. We did note however that despite the FPP decision the Registrar by section 128(7) of the Act had allowed the Appellant to continue as an ADI since 5 December 2024. We kept the written English issue in mind but in our view this was not, nor would it ever likely be, an effective excuse for speeding offences especially when committed by an ADI.
We also noted the content of the Guidance and the Code including that the Guidance specifically says "It’s also unlikely that you’ll be classed as a ‘fit and proper’ person if you’ve been found guilty of...: excessive speeding."
Very little was said by the Appellant about the 2022 offence apart from that he was not familiar with the relevant part of Luton. It is not, in our view, a persuasive excuse for an ADI to speed because they are in unfamiliar surroundings.
The Appellant did not attend a speed awareness course and does not know if he was offered one. We cannot reach a definitive conclusion on this issue in the absence of evidence. It does seem to us to be more likely than not that he was offered a course but did not read that part of the form or understand it well enough or understand the impact of having 3 penalty points. We are not able to say what might have then occurred (or not occurred) if he had been on the course. In any event, in our view, an ADI on the Register after training in the UK or as a result of the Directive should not need such a course to know of the dangers of excessive speed and the possible impact on their FPP status of speeding.
The second offence occurred soon after the first and by that time the Appellant already knew he had incurred 3 points and therefore should have been even more careful about the consequences of his future actions.
We accept that the normal warning letter was not sent by the Register to the Appellant after the first 3 points were incurred. We do not conclude that had the letter been sent the second three points would not have been incurred as such a conclusion would be speculative especially as, on his own case, there is a real possibility that he would not have understood the content and significance of such a letter unless the letter had been in Romanian (which it would not have been).
It is again not, in our view, a persuasive excuse for an ADI to speed because they are in unfamiliar surroundings. Also whatever emergency vehicle it was the Appellant was able to tell us that a driver should not exceed the speed limit in this situation not withstanding the perhaps natural desire to get out the way quickly. It did not assist the Appellant's case to tell us that the reason he was able to speed in this situation was because he had the experience to do so.
Informing the Registrar of the points
His case, in summary, was initially that by the time of the 2022 offence he had forgotten about this obligation which developed into him saying he thought someone else would have done it but that he "... now realises that the onus was on him to have told the Registrar within 7 days...and he has apologised for not doing so. There was also no intention to deceive the Registrar". Mr Pinfold also raised the issue that he had not been warned about the points after the first speeding offence.
It would have been preferable if he had received the warning letter from DVSA however in our view even if he had been, on his case, he may not have understood its content unless the letter had been in Romanian (which it would not have been).
Also:-
when applying to have his name on the Register the Appellant (as evidenced by the form signed by him) declared that he understood that if he was convicted of any motoring offence he had to tell the Registrar of this within 7 days (18).
the Guidance says that an ADI must:- "...write to the ADI Registrar within 7 days if you get a caution or conviction. This includes:...any motoring or non-motoring offence, including penalty points"
The failure by DVSA to send him a warning letter did not lessen or remove from the Appellant the obligation to inform the Registrar which he failed to do on two occasions.
Failure to mention the points when seeking an extension
The online form asks that the ADI declares as follows "I declare that: I have read the Guide to the approved instructor register on GOV.UK." The online form (23) also requires an applicant to state if they have or have not been convicted of any motoring offences. The Appellant had two motoring offences at that time for speeding. The form says at its conclusion "By ticking this box I confirm that the details I've given are true and correct to the best of my knowledge." To this the answer "yes" was inserted inaccurately and the Registrar regards this as a false declaration.
The Appellant's evidence on this point developed between his representations and the Appeal. Initially we were told (26) by Mr Pinfold that he (meaning the Appellant):-
"...misunderstood the question about offences and assumed wrongly that it meant only criminal offences. He tells me there was never any intention to deceive the Registrar- it was the problem he has with written English. He now realises that he should have sought help in completing the renewal"
However at the Appeal we were told the online form was completed for the Appellant by Mr Calo who obtained some information to enable him to complete it but when dealing with the specific questions about offences did not check and made inaccurate assumptions. These versions are quite different.
In our view whether the Appellant dealt with the form himself or asked Mr Calo to do so the Appellant alone and at all times remained fully responsible for its content. It would not be right for an ADI to be excused the consequence of providing inaccurate information to the Registrar on the basis only that the ADI's task of completing the form had been delegated to someone else who made a mistake on the form because they made inaccurate assumption or did not check with the ADI and/or misunderstood the form.
It is not our conclusion that the Appellant sought to mislead the Registrar deliberately. However providing inaccurate information or allowing inaccurate information to be provided even if it was "only" caused by a lack of care or understanding does not demonstrate a responsible attitude to the ADI's profession especially in light of the statement at the end of the online form itself and the Guidance where is says that the ADI is "...responsible for your ADI registration.."
Generally
A number of other matters were raised by the Appellant.
Written English
Our view on this is set out in paragraph 49 above.
Employer/employee relationship
Mr Pinfold likened the Registrar/ADI relationship to that of an employer and employee relationship and this case to the dismissal of an employee.We do not agree because the Appellant carries out a regulated activity and the Registrar acts as the Regulator not employer.
The references
While they did not directly address the issues of excessive speed or the other matters raised by the Registrar we accept that these all show the Appellant to be a very good instructor and we have no reason to doubt this. However the importance of Harris is that it makes clear that the FPP test is broader than whether the ADI has the requisite instructional ability. It says that this test includes whether the person is "...a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the register:-Registration carries with it an official seal of approval: those registered are known as "Driving Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructors".
Abbasi in the FtT
Mr Pinfold referred us to Abbasi in the FtT. There are many FtT cases reported where an appellant with 6 penalty points wins their appeal and also where an appellant with 6 penalty points loses their appeal. Each case is fact specific. However we do agree that having 6 penalty points does not automatically mean an ADI is no longer a FPP. In this case as well as the points themselves, which on their own can lead to an ADI's registration being removed, the Registrar also had concerns about the failure to disclose the points at the time and on the renewal application.
Other matters
As regards other matters such as the Appellant's experience, pupils, business and potential difficulty if Appeal is lost, while they are noted and understood we do not consider them to be a particularly relevant consideration. The need to maintain the integrity of and public trust in the Register is likely to be greater than the needs of an individual appellant.
Summary
As set out above:-
we were not persuaded by the Appellant's explanation of the 2022 and 2023 speeding offences and were concerned in particular about the short gap between the offences and his own explanation for speeding to get out to the way of a Police car. It is possible we would have dismissed the Appeal as a result of this issue alone.
while forgetting to tell the Registrar about points or thinking they would know about them in any event might be understandable on the facts of this Appeal, an ADI is held to the same standard in their professional regulated role whether that person has qualified after training in the UK or by the Directive and whatever their level of understanding of written English.
not being sent a warning letter was an administrative error but an ADI remains responsible to self report.
while we have not concluded that the Appellant set out to mislead the Registrar it was the Appellant's responsibility to ensure his application for renewal was factually correct either because he completed it himself or, if delegated, because he checked it. He is responsible for what it says whoever completed it.
the written English issue raised with us may well go to explain some of the facts in this Appeal (other than the speeding itself) but an ADI, however they qualified and with whatever level of language ability, is held to the same FPP standard as any other.
the evidence shows that the Appellant is a good instructor but the issues in this Appeal relate to the broader consideration of the FPP test as set out in Harris.
Decision
For the reasons set out above the Appellant has not persuaded us that the Registrar’s decision was wrong. Accordingly the Appeal is dismissed.
Signed Judge Heald Date: 11 August 2025