Atul Ravalia v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Registrar dated 5 September 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the register of approved driving instructors.

The Tribunal received and considered a bundle of documents, and the partiesattended a hearing by Cloud Video Platform. The Tribunal has had regard to all evidence and submissions in these documents and at the hearing, whether or not these are referred to in this Decision.

The Registrar maintains the register of approved driving instructors, pursuant to s125 Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”).

When a person applies to be registered as an approved driving instructor, the Registrar must enter that person’s name in the register if he fulfils certain conditions, including, in s125(3)(e), 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.

Section 128 of the Act provides that the Registrar may remove a person’s name from the register if one or more of a number of conditions is fulfilled. One of these conditions is that the person has ceased to be a fit and proper person to be registered (s128(2)(e)).

In Harris v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808, Richards LJ said that, when applying this standard:

“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".

The powers of this Tribunal in relation to appeals against decisions of this nature are set out in s131 of the Act. When making a decision on any such appeal, 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.

The Appellant’s name was first entered onto the register in 2011.

The Appellant accepted fixed penalty notices in relation to two speeding offences which he committed, one in October 2023 and one in April 2025. These resulted in a total of six penalty points being endorsed on the Appellant’s driving licence. The Appellant did not report either of these offences to the Registrar.

Having received a report from the Driver and Vehicle and Standards Agency (DVSA) notifying him of these offences, the Registrar wrote to the Appellant on 7 August 2025, indicating that he was minded to remove the Appellant’s name from the register on the basis that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person.

The Appellant made representations in an email dated 31 August 2025.

The Registrar wrote to the Appellant on 5 September 2025, stating that he had decided to remove the Appellant's name from the register.

The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

The Appellant submits that:

The Registrar submits that:

During the hearing it emerged that the Appellant had attended a speed awareness course having committed a third, earlier, speeding offence of which the Registrar had not been aware. The Registrar submits that this offence further supports his decision to remove the Appellant.

At the hearing the Appellant gave more information about his speeding offences, although he submits that his memory is unclear on some of the details.

He says that the first offence (which the Registrar had not been aware of until the hearing) probably occurred in 2022. He believes that this occurred on the A406 when the speed limit changed from 50 mph to 40 mph and he did not decelerate in time.

In relation to the 2023 offence, the Appellant says that he was driving slightly faster than 30 mph in a 30 mph limit zone.

In relation to the 2025 offence, the Appellant says that he believes this was as a result of travelling from a 30 mph limit to a 20 mph limit, and again not decelerating quickly enough.

The Appellant submits that his personal circumstances made it difficult to concentrate at the time. He and his wife have been principal carers for his mother since 2007, and her health deteriorated rapidly in 2023. At the time of the offences this was affecting his sleep and his mental state over an extended period.

In 2024, the Appellant’s nephew passed away. Not only was this a traumatic event in itself, but it resulted in the Appellant taking on further responsibilities looking after surviving members of his nephew's immediate family.

The Appellant provides further detailed information about each of these situations in his grounds of appeal. It is not necessary to recite this information in this decision, but the Tribunal has taken this into account.

The decision in this case is finally balanced. The Appellant has committed multiple speeding offences over a period of time, and has failed to declare these to the Registrar. The Registrar rightly expects high standards of approved driving instructors, as set out in his submissions.

Set against this, the Tribunal accepts the extreme burden which the Appellant’s personal circumstances will have placed on him over a period of years, as well as his evidence regarding the circumstances of the speeding offences which, while they are serious matters, are not of the most severe kind.

Having weighed these matters and considered all evidence and submissions in this case, the Tribunal considers that the Registrar's decision was wrong and accordingly that the appeal should be allowed.

The Appellant should note that, while the Tribunal has found in his favour, this does not undermine the seriousness with which his speeding offences should be viewed. The Registrar is right to point out that speeding creates serious risks to road users, and the Appellant has committed a series of such offences over a period of years. The Tribunal would expect that the Registrar will take a keen interest in any further offences, which could result in further sanctions.