Transport
Appeal Reference: FT/D/2025/0688/FPP
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLAN
TRIBUNAL MEMBER RICHARD FRY
TRIBUNAL MEMBER DR PHEBE MANN
Heard by way of remote hearing using Cloud Video Platform
Between
AUSTINE GEORGE
Appellant
and
REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Decision: The appeal is ALLOWED
DECISION AND REASONS
Mode of Hearing
The proceedings were held using CVP. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing this way.
The hearing was conducted by a Judge and two Tribunal Members in Chambers. The Appellant participated in the hearing and was accompanied by Mr John Benson who informed the Tribunal that he was the owner of the Benson Motoring School. Also present was Miss Yat Wan Tang who told the Tribunal that she was the ‘… guarantor of a franchise agreement with the School’. The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors was represented by Mr Russell.
General Background
The appeal is against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (ADIs) that the Appellant could not satisfy the statutory requirement to be a “fit and proper person”, with the result that the licence which was granted to the Appellant enabling him to give instruction, paid for, by or in respect of the pupil, in driving motor cars from 28 April 2025 to 27 October 2027 was revoked under s.130(1)(b) and 2(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 [“the Act”]. The burden of proving that an Appellant is not a fit and proper person is on the Registrar.
Conditions for entry or retention on the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant be a fit and proper person. As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including convictions, cautions and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate.
Given that many pupils are just 17 years of age and the scheme as a whole relies upon the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs, it is clear that substantial trust will be placed in ADIs by pupils, parents, other ADIs and road users, the public and the Agency. It is the Registrar’s function to ensure that the persons whose names appear in the Register are worthy of that trust and are fit and proper persons to have their names entered therein.
In cases involving motoring offences it is expected that anyone who is to be an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. Teaching people of all ages to drive safely, carefully and competently is a professional vocation requiring a significant degree of responsibility. Such a demanding task should only be entrusted to those with high personal and professional standards and who themselves have demonstrated a keen regard for road safety and compliance with the law.
Additionally, in cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the Register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence undermined, if it were known that a person’s name had been permitted onto, or allowed to remain on, the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours, or been convicted or cautioned in relation to offences, substantially material to the question of fitness. Indeed, it would be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.
In the Registrar’s Statement of Case, he points out that registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is ‘Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor’, [“ADI”]. Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct. In view of this, he expressed concern that the good name of the Register would be tarnished and the public’s confidence undermined if it was generally known that he had allowed the Appellant’s name to be re-entered on the Register when he had been convicted of an offence. He added that 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 offence. The Registrar’s approach was approved by the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (2010 EWCA Civ 808), in which Richards LJ said:-
“….. 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 …..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. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.”
Applicants to become driving instructors are notified that the DVSA is entitled to ask for information about spent convictions and as a result they lose the protection provided by s.4(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This arises in consequence of paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 as amended which states that “none of the provisions of s.4(2) of the Act shall apply in relation to … any question asked … in order to assess the suitability … of the person to whom the question relates for any office or employment specified in Part II of the said Schedule 1 … where the person questioned is informed at the time the question is asked that, by virtue of this Order, spent convictions are to be disclosed”. Paragraph 14 of Part II of Schedule 1 states that “offices, employment and work” include “any work which is work in a regulated position” and by Part IV of Schedule 1 “regulated position” is “a position which is a regulated position for the purposes of Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000”. Paragraph 36(c) of Part II of the latter Act provides that “the regulated positions for the purposes of this Part are … a position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children”; and by paragraph 42 of Part II “child” means a person under the age of 18. Since driving instructors may teach pupils aged 17 (or 16 if disabled) it follows that the DVSA is entitled to take spent convictions into account.
Factual background
The background to this appeal is that the Appellant’s name, as at the date of the decision under appeal, was not then, and up until then, been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.
A licence under Section 129 of the Act was issued to the Appellant for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and was valid from 28 April 2025 to 27 October 2027.
On 2 June 2025, the Registrar received an email from the Appellant in the following terms:
‘I would like to inform you of a recent incident that may be relevant to my ADI licence application. On the 26 April 2025, while driving a car I had purchased for my daughter home from the garage after partial repairs, I was stopped by the police. Due to financial limitations, I had been repairing the vehicle in stages. Unfortunately, during this journey, I was issued a fixed penalty notice of £300.00 and 6 penalty points.
I received formal notification of this offence last week via a letter from the police, I deeply regret the situation and take full responsibility for what happened. I also understand the importance of maintaining the highest standards expected of a driving instructor.
I am bringing this to your attention in the spirit of full transparency and would be very grateful for your advice on any action I need to take in relation to my application and how this may impact it.
In his Statement of Case, the Registrar noted that as the Appellant had provided no information concerning the offence and a DVLA check at that time was showing no endorsements, he had asked the Appellant, in an email dated 4 June 2025, to confirm the offence he had been charged with.
In email correspondence dated 4 June 2025, the Appellant stated the following:
‘Thank you for your email and for the opportunity to provide clarification.
The 6 points were issued in relation to driving without valid insurance. The vehicle in question was one I had purchased for my daughter, and due to financial constraints, I was carrying out the repairs gradually before arranging insurance and formal use.
On 26th April 2025, I was driving the car home from a garage after completing one of the repair stages, with the intention of insuring it once all works were complete. Unfortunately, I now realise that this decision was not in line with legal requirements, and I fully accept responsibility for that error in judgment.
I deeply regret the incident and assure you that it was not intentional or done with disregard for the law. I remain committed to upholding the highest standards expected of an ADI and am more than willing to provide any further information or assurances needed to support your assessment.
Thank you for your understanding and for considering my explanation.’
By way of email correspondence dated 5 June 2025, the Registrar gave the Appellant notice that he, the Registrar, was considering the revocation of his licence to give instruction on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in it. The Registrar invited the Appellant to make representations to the Registrar within 14 days which the Registrar submitted would be taken into consideration by him before reaching a decision.
In email correspondence dated 10 June 2025, the Appellant made representations. Those representations are set out in more detail below.
In the Statement of Case, the Registrar has stated that he carefully considered these representations but came to the view that the Appellant’s licence should be revoked. The Registrar noted that by his own admission, he (the Appellant) was driving a vehicle in the full knowledge that it was not registered or insured. The Registrar observed that this was not professional conduct that he would expect to see from a person who is attempting the ADI qualification process and aspiring to be an ADI.
The Appellant was notified of the Registrar's decision on 20 June 2025.
A notice of appeal against the decision of the Registrar dated was subsequently received in the office of the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) of the First-tier Tribunal.
The submissions of the parties
The Registrar
At the remote oral hearing, Mr Russell appeared on behalf of the Registrar. He outlined the Registrar’s case, summarising the background to the Registrar’s decision to revoke the Appellant’s to give instruction. That background was set out in more detail in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Statement of Case. Mr Russell also summarised the reasons for the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. These were:
The appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having accepted a fixed penalty notice for the offence of using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. Anyone who is aspiring to become an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI} is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. In committing this offence, I do not believe that the appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that I would expect to see from PDI part way through the qualifying process, the appellant should have been fully aware of the standards expected of him.
As an officer of the Secretary of State charged with compiling and maintaining the register on his behalf, 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 on an official register that allows them to teach others.
To allow the appellant to continue utilising a licence to give instruction would be unfair to others who had been scrupulous in observing the law and could undermine the public's confidence in the register. It would send out wrong messages to learner and novice drivers about the standards expected of them on the road and to those seeking to aspire to become an ADI.’
The Appellant
The written representations
In the written representations forwarded to the office of the Registrar, the Appellant made the following submissions:
‘Response to Notice of Consideration to Revoke Trainee Licence
Thank you for the opportunity to make representations regarding the unfortunate incident which occurred on 26 April 2025, for which I received a Fixed Penalty Notice for driving without insurance, resulting in 6 penalty points
Firstly. I accept full responsibility for this error in judgment It was not an act of disregard for the law, but rather a lapse during a difficult moment. I understand the seriousness of the offence and deeply regret my actions. I wish to offer the following context and information in the hope that the Registrar may consider my circumstances.
Background and Circumstances
Earlier this year, I purchased a used silver Honda Civic as a gift for my daughter, who has stood by me throughout several difficult years. I had been gradually repairing the vehicle with the help of a friend due to limited finances. I have attached a screenshot of our WhatsApp message, from January, where she identified this specific car as the one she hoped to receive. I have also included evidence of my application for her provisional driver's licence to show our preparation and intention for her to learn to drive properly and also proof of purchasing parts of the shock absorber of the said vehicle.
Unfortunately, while transporting the car home after one of these repair sessions, I was stopped by the police and found to be uninsured. I had not yet taken out insurance on the car as I had planned to complete the remaining repairs first before registering and insuring it, I now recognise that this was a serious oversight on my part.
Evidence of Responsible Conduct
I want to reassure the Registrar that this is not representative of my usual conduct:
I own a fully insured private family vehicle. for which I can provide monthly insurance payment statements as evidence of continuous and responsible ownership (please see proof of payment for the insurance of our family car).
The car involved in the offence is not my instructional vehicle.
My teaching vehicle, issued to me under my franchise agreement with Benson School of Motoring. is also fully insured and compliant with all DVSA requirements. I have never before driven uninsured and this incident has shaken me deeply. I can confidently say it will never happen again.
Personal and Professional Integrity
This incident has been deeply distressing, not only because of its legal and professional implications but because I have worked tirelessly to rebuild my life and career, Having lost my engineering job some years ago during the covid pandemic, and after struggling to secure stable employment. I eventually found
renewed purpose through my journey to become a driving instructor.
With the support of my family, I worked in care and warehouse jobs to fund my ADI training. Being granted my trainee licence and working under a professional franchise has given me a strong sense of direction, dignity, and hope for a sustainable future. I am committed to providing honest, law-abiding service and instilling safe driving habits in others.
Appeal for Consideration
I humbly ask the Registrar to consider my genuine remorse, my otherwise responsible history, and the evidence I have provided. I am more than willing to accept any further conditions or guidance deemed necessary, and I will continue to uphold the high standards expected of instructors under the DVSA’s guidance.
This situation has taught me a painful but important lesson, and I am determined that nothing like it will ever happen again under my watch.
Attachments
WhatsApp screenshot: Daughter identifying the Honda Civic
Application for her Provisional Driving Licence
Evidence of continuous insurance for my personal vehicle
Purchase of vehicle parts for gradual repair of the said vehicle.’
The grounds of appeal
In section 9 of the Notice of Appeal, the section which asks about the outcome which the Appellant is seeking from his appeal, the Appellant stated the following:
‘I am respectfully seeking the reinstatement of my ADI trainee licence, or alternatively, the modification of the revocation decision to allow me to continue providing instruction under probationary or supervised conditions, if deemed appropriate by the Tribunal.
I am not contesting the facts of the offence, but I am appealing for a second chance to prove my commitment to the responsibilities of the profession, and to continue contributing positively - both as an instructor and through my newly launched charitable initiative, Second Chance, aimed at supporting UK ex-offenders and Veterans.
I am willing to accept any conditions or oversight the Tribunal feels necessary in order to demonstrate my fitness to continue working in this role.’
Attached to the Notice of Appeal was the following statement:
‘I write now with a renewed appeal - not to deny or downplay my offence, but to once again express my sincere remorse and present additional efforts I have made to demonstrate my commitment to making amends and becoming an asset to the community.’
Acknowledgement and Accountability
As previously stated, I fully acknowledge the gravity of driving without insurance and accept full responsibility for this regrettable lapse in judgment. It was not an intentional act of disrespect for the law, but a miscalculation that I now realise carried far-reaching consequences. I am deeply sorry and have reflected intently on the seriousness of the situation.
Demonstrating Penance Through Action
Since this incident, I have not only shown remorse but have also sought a proactive and restorative path. One of the most meaningful responses I could envision was to give back to others who, like me, seek a second chance. This led to the formation of an initiative I have named "Second Chance" - a charitable programme offering free driving lessons and fully funded theory and practical tests to ex-offenders and British veterans or their family members.
To this end, I have reached out to two respected organisations:
UK Veterans associations (Royal British Legion)
UK Prisons network
I'm pleased to inform you that both organisations responded positively, expressing interest in partnering with the programme. I will be forwarding copies of these correspondences for your perusal as a testament to the sincerity and practicality of my plans. I am committed to dedicating my own resources - both time and funds - to this initiative, with an initial pledge to sponsor three individuals each year, based on 53 hours of driving instruction per person. This will include an additional 5 hours of theory preparation for each participant to support successful test outcomes. The total estimated annual cost for this pilot programme is £6,960, which I am fully prepared to bear through my own invested time and resources - offered in the same spirit of a second chance tha1 I now humbly seek from you.
The Catastrophic Impact of Licence Revocation
While I accept the need for accountability, I also ask you 10 consider the devastating personal and financial impact that a revocation would have on my life at this stage.
I am currently operating under a franchise agreement with Benson School of Motoring, which - if terminated as a result of my licence being revoked- would place me in a debt exceeding £66,000. This financial burden would be overwhelming and unrecoverable without the ability to continue my work.
Beyond the financial ramifications, I must also share the emotional weight of this situation. My family has already experienced severe hardship. Two years ago, we lost our home due to financial difficulties, and my marriage nearly collapsed under the pressure. It was my daughter who gave me the strength to persevere - she believed in me when I had stopped believing in myself. Teaching others how to drive had finally given me a sense of dignity, purpose, and stability. To now be at the brink of losing this due to a mistake I deeply regret is almost too much to bear.
In the short 1ime since I began instructing, I have found profound purpose in helping others. I have worked with students - young and old - many of whom came to me discouraged from previous experiences. Some were on the brink of giving up. They've told me that through my guidance, they regained the courage and belief to pursue their licence again. Their heartfelt messages - some of which I have included - are among the few things that tells me my heart is in the right place.
A Plea for Mercy and Redemption
… I do not ask to escape the consequences of my actions. Rather, I ask that you temper justice with mercy and give me an opportunity to continue making things right. I know that six points is at the upper limit for consideration, but I also know that people can change and I am determined to prove this through action, not words alone.
If reinstated, I will continue this journey with renewed vigilance, accountability, and a heartfelt promise never to disappoint the DVSA or the profession again. I am willing to accept any additional supervision, probationary terms, or restrictions that may allow me to continue my training and service under stricter oversight.
Thank you for your time, your humanity, and the important work you do in maintaining the integrity of our profession. I hope you will consider giving me the chance to show that I can do better - and to use this chance not only for myself, but to lift others who also deserve a second beginning.
With utmost respect and humility.’
As noted in the statement, the Appellant set out details of the proposed ‘Second Chance’ programme and responses from external organisations and a supporting statement from the owner of his Driving School.
The remote oral hearing
As noted above, the Appellant participated in the remote oral hearing and gave evidence and made additional submissions. He repeated his deep regret and remorse at what had occurred and stated that he understood the Registrar’s position. He appreciated the impact and consequences of driving a motor vehicle without insurance.
He accepted that he had made a mistake which had led to a steep learning curve for him. He accepted that he had broken the law, understood the seriousness of the offence and did not wish to downplay it.
The incident occurred because of a lack of judgment on his part. He had purchased a motor vehicle from a friend which was intended for use by his daughter. The vehicle was in poor condition and was being repaired at premises close to his home. He had driven the vehicle to his home after certain repairs had been carried out, and he intended to insure it when the vehicle was at his home. The vehicle was now insured. The vehicle was not used for the provision of driving instruction, and he had a separate driving instruction vehicle which was full insured and compliant with DVSA requirements and a private family vehicle which was also fully insured.
He was the main earner for his family. The incident had a significant effect on his mental health. The loss of his trainee licence would have a parallel devastating impact on the family finances. He had financial difficulties in the past and had worked hard to pursue his ambition to become an ADI.
He was committed to making amends for his failure and described in detail the charitable organisation which he was setting up. He had positive responses from two external bodies. He was wholly committed to the profession and indicated that he was ready to take his Part III examination.
In general terms, and having heard from and seen the Appellant, we found him to be wholly honest and credible.
At the oral hearing, the Tribunal heard evidence from Mr John Benson, the owner of the Benson Motoring School and Miss Yat Wan Tang. Both spoke in supportive and positive terms about the Appellant, emphasising that the incident was out of character for him, the consequent learning outcomes which had arisen for him and his commitment to the profession.
Analysis
We have reminded ourselves of the benchmarks which are expected of ADIs, their character, behaviour, general standards of conduct including as drivers themselves, the requirement to have standards of driving above that of the ordinary motorist and the need for ADIs to promote high standards of driving while instructing their pupils and to ensure public safety. To repeat what was stated at paragraph 6 above:
‘6. In cases involving motoring offences it is expected that anyone who is to be an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. Teaching people of all ages to drive safely, carefully and competently is a professional vocation requiring a significant degree of responsibility. Such a demanding task should only be entrusted to those with high personal and professional standards and who themselves have demonstrated a keen regard for road safety and compliance with the law.’
We cannot ignore that the offence is a serious one and we have noted the Registrar’s reasoning that he did ‘… not believe that the appellant had displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that he would expect to see from PDI part way through the qualifying process, and that the appellant should have been fully aware of the standards expected of him.’ Further, the Registrar has highlighted his role and function in compiling and maintaining the Register and the unfairness to others who had been scrupulous in observing the law and the potential undermining the public’s confidence in the Register. Finally, and importantly, the Registrar was concerned about the messages which conduct of this nature would send out to learner and novice drivers and the standards expected of them and others, such as the Appellant, seeking aspire to become an ADI.
Given all of that, the argument for the revocation of the Appellant’s licence is a powerful one.
Against that, however, we are of the view that there are equally convincing grounds for a finding that the Appellant should continue to hold a licence to give paid instruction.
We repeat that having heard from and seen the Appellant and having assessed his written representations and grounds of appeal, we have found him to be wholly honest and credible. As such, we list the following factors which are, in our view, in the Appellant’s favour:
The Appellant’s clean driving record until this endorsement of his driving licence, with no reoffending and with no propensity to fail to adhere to the driving laws
His career as a PDI with no other regulatory interventions by the Registrar, particularly with respect to fitness
His commitment to the ADI profession and its professional standards, evidenced by the commendations from his pupils and his subsequent passing of the Part III examination
His good character as evidenced by the references provided by his pupils and others
His declaration of the offence to the Registrar
Our acceptance that the offence was a ‘one-off’ lapse of judgment on his part, which was entirely his own fault and for which he expressed contrition and regret
His recognition that the offence was a serious one and that he did not seek to downplay it
His understanding of the Registrar’s position with respect to his professional standards and the integrity of the Register
His statement that he has learned from his mistake and a consequent commitment to make amends by the creation of a charitable organisation
The impact of the offence on his personal mental health and on his family’s circumstances and his concern about his ability to continue to make provision for them if he was to lose his professional career
We are asked to determine whether the Appellant has failed the statutory test to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register. On balance, we find that the Appellant has not failed that test. There is, in our view, no risk to the integrity of the Registrar and his statutory role by permitting the Appellant to retain his licence to give instruction.
Disposal
For the reasons which are set out above, the appeal is allowed.
We would ask the Appellant to note the following. Following the endorsement of his driving licence with 6 points he has come very close to losing his professional career and employment. It should be self-evident that there are significant learning outcomes from this process and that any future legal or professional transgressions are likely to have considerable adverse consequences.
Postscript
On 23 December 2025, email correspondence was forwarded to the members of the Tribunal from an officer of the General Regulatory Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. In this email, the officer stated the following:
‘Dear Judge Mullan
Please see the attached emails from the parties. The Appellant wishes to withdraw the appeal as they have passed their Part 3 test.’
The attached emails to which the officer referred were as follows:
‘Good morning
REGISTER OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Personal Reference Number: 897379
I refer to your trainee licence application, which was refused.
I note that you recently passed the part 3 test of instructional ability, meaning your appeal is now obsolete.
You will need to email The General Regulatory Chamber - Transport Tribunal (GRC), copying us in, confirming you want to withdraw your appeal against the Registrar’s decision, quoting your appeal reference (see above in the subject line).
Once I have received this confirmation, I will arrange for a refund of the licence fee back to the card you paid on, and I will update your status to allow you to apply for your first full certificate.
Congratulations on passing your part 3 test!
Kind regards
Andrew Heard Approved Driving Instructors – Appeals Coordinator
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write further to recent correspondence from the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency.
In light of my successful completion of the ADI Part 3 test, I confirm that I wish to withdraw my appeal against the Registrar’s decision, as the appeal is now obsolete.
Please treat this email as formal confirmation of my withdrawal of appeal in respect of case reference FT/D/2025/0688/FPP.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards,
Austine George’
Good afternoon
REGISTER OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Personal Reference Number: 897379
I refer to your trainee licence application, which was refused.
You have notified us and The General Regulatory Chamber - Transport Tribunal (GRC) that you want to withdraw your appeal against the Registrar’s decision, having successfully passed the part 3 test of instructional ability.
Accordingly, your trainee licence was revoked, and I have updated your status to allow you to apply for your first full certificate.
I am arranging for a refund of the licence fee back to the card you paid on, which you should receive within the next few days.
Congratulations again on passing the P3 test!
Kind Regards
Andrew Heard Approved Driving Instructors – Appeals Coordinator ‘
Rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (the 2009 Rules’) provides:
‘Withdrawal
—(1) Subject to paragraph (2)[, and, in the case of a withdrawal of a reference from an ethical standards officer, to the provisions of regulation 5 of the Case Tribunals (England) Regulations 2008(a)], a party may give notice of the withdrawal of its case, or any part of it—
by sending or delivering to the Tribunal a written notice of withdrawal; or
orally at a hearing.
Notice of withdrawal will not take effect unless the Tribunal consents to the withdrawal.
A party who has withdrawn their case may apply to the Tribunal for the case to be reinstated.
An application under paragraph (3) must be made in writing and be received by the Tribunal within 28 days after—
the date on which the Tribunal received the notice under paragraph (1)(a); or
the date of the hearing at which the case was withdrawn orally under paragraph (1)(b).
The Tribunal must notify each party in writing that a withdrawal has taken effect under this rule.
The emphasis here is our own.
The Tribunal has considered the notice of withdrawal forwarded by the Appellant and the response from the Respondent. By way of a separate determination, issued at the same time as this substantive decision, the Tribunal has not consented to the notice of withdrawal and in the determination refusing consent has set out its reasons.
The emphasis here is our own.
The refusal of consent to the notice of withdrawal does not affect our substantive decision here. The Appellant has been successful in his appeal and the Registrar’s decision that:
‘… the Appellant could not satisfy the statutory requirement to be a “fit and proper person”, with the result that the licence which was granted to the Appellant enabling him to give instruction, paid for, by or in respect of the pupil, in driving motor cars from 28 April 2025 to 27 October 2027 was revoked under s.130(1)(b) and 2(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 …’
was not upheld.
The decision in the preceding paragraph is the one which was under appeal to the Tribunal. As can be seen, the Registrar’s decision is predicated on a submission that the Appellant does not satisfy the statutory requirement to be a “fit and proper person” and has nothing to do with whether he has passed Part III of the qualifying test or not. The Tribunal’s duty is restricted to the consideration of the correctness of the decision under appeal.
The practical consequences of our holding that the Appellant retained his licence to provide instruction against the Appellant’s and Registrar’s views that he no longer needs it as he has now passed the Part III test are for the office of the Registrar to work out. It is our view that, and as was observed by Mr Heard in his second email to the Appellant following notification by the Appellant that he has passed his Part III test, he was no longer eligible for a trainee licence and, further, we agree it that it was a practical solution to determine that it had been revoked. His professional status has changed, and he can proceed, as Mr Heard also observed, and in the context of which he has rightly offered the Appellant his congratulations, to apply for his first full certificate.
That does not affect, however, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as set out in paragraph 48 above.
Kenneth Mullan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
3 February 2026
