Luke Loveridge v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 24 November 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Register”) on the grounds that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). This was because he had been convicted of the offence of driving without due care and attention, resulting in six penalty points.

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.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 20 December 2025 says that the incident was out of character. He says that he was preoccupied while driving due to a situation with his ex-wife, and during a moment of distraction he mistakenly drove through a red light and collided with another vehicle. He says that he was not speeding or driving recklessly, and he has since taken steps to address the personal issues and reflected on the incident to strengthen personal resilience and teaching safe driving under pressure. He submits that removal from the Register would be disproportionate to a single offence.

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 27 March 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar says:

The Appellant’s Reply says that he disagrees with the conclusion that this single incident means he is no longer a fit and proper person to remain on the Register. He says this was an isolated incident during a period of significant personal distress, when he felt anxious and under threat. He says there is no pattern of unsafe driving, he has shown insight into the seriousness of the incident, and he has taken meaningful steps to address the causes. He says that he now places even greater emphasis on hazard awareness, emotional control, and decision-making under pressure when teaching his pupils, and refers to good teaching results. He submits that being a “fit and proper person” must involve a balanced assessment of character, conduct, and the likelihood of future risk.

Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to be and continue to be a “fit and proper person” to have his name on the Register – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”).

The Registrar can remove a person’s name from the Register if they have ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name on the Register (section 128(2)(e) of the Act). The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. The Registrar has the burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

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).

We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 31 pages.

The Appellant provided evidence of his character, including positive reviews from pupils, character references from his partner and pupils, and a statement from a professional who has been supporting his mental health.

We heard submissions from both parties at the hearing.

The Appellant’s name was first entered on the Register in October 2023. On 17 October 2025 the Registrar received notification from the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency that the Appellant had been convicted of driving without due care and attention. The Appellant committed the offence on 1 June 2025, and he received a conviction on 17 October 2025 which resulted in six penalty points.

The Registrar gave the Appellant written notice on 24 October 2025 that he was considering removing the Appellant’s name from the Register on the grounds he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in it. The Appellant made representations on 9 November 2025. The Appellant explained that the incident had been an isolated lapse due to extreme personal distress, and explained the circumstances. He also provided character references.

On 24 November 2025 the Registrar removed the Appellant’s name from the Register on the grounds he had ceased to be a fit and proper person. This decision did not take immediate effect.

At the hearing, the Appellant explained that the offence happened when he was going through a hard point in his life with lots of conflict, and his anxiety had been “through the roof”. He was on his way to collect his daughter from his ex-partner and was anxious because he had been threatened by her family and thought he might be assaulted. He remembers checking his speed and mirrors, but did not see the red light. He fully acknowledged that this was a dangerous mistake, and it was lucky that nobody was hurt. He has taken steps to address his mental health through counselling, and will now not drive if he does not feel 100%. He explained that he has been allowed to continue teaching for a year, he works with people with anxiety and different challenges, and his good test results speak for themselves.

If an ADI’s name is allowed to remain on the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public’s confidence in the Register. This includes behaviour relating to driving and other matters of responsibility, trustworthiness, inappropriate personal conduct or commission of criminal offences.

ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of motoring, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. 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.

The Registrar’s position at the hearing was that he has some empathy for the Appellant, but he cannot ignore an offence which results in six points. The offence of driving without due care and attention is listed in the ADI register guide as an offence where it is “unlikely” that someone will be classed as a fit and proper person. The Appellant has failed to meet the higher standard of motoring that is required of an ADI.

The Appellant argued that the guide only says “unlikely”, and this one isolated incident does not speak to his character.

We have taken into account the Appellant’s very good character references, and his explanation of how the offence happened. It is to his credit that he has been having counselling, and that he acknowledges how potentially dangerous this incident was and the need to avoid it happening again. We understand that it may seem harsh to remove an ADI from the Register for one mistake. However, driving without due care and attention is a very serious motoring offence. It is specifically listed as an offence that means it is unlikely someone will be a fit and proper person. Although this is not an absolute ban, allowing an ADI to remain on the Register with this conviction would require exceptional circumstances. We do not find that the circumstances in this case are exceptional. We understand that the Appellant was under a high level of personal stress. However, an ADI is required to maintain a consistently high standard of driving, including in circumstances where distraction or pressure may arise, and the issue for us is whether, in light of this incident, the Appellant can properly be regarded as a fit and proper person to remain on the Register. We must also give some weight to the Registrar’s position in this appeal as the expert regulator.

The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, that those who are on it understand their responsibilities, and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. This would be undermined if the Appellant was allowed to remain on the Register. This is not simply a matter of whether the Appellant is now a safe driver. The public must have confidence in the Register, and this would be undermined if the Appellant is allowed to remain on the Register while he has six points on his licence for driving without due care and attention.

We find that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.