Driving Instructor Wins Appeal: Tribunal Overturns Removal from Register After Mobile Phone Offence

Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00940 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/D/2026/0036/FPP First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Heard by Cloud Video Platform Heard on: 21 May 2026 Decision given on: 25 June 2026 Before JUDGE STEPHEN ROPER MEMBER DR PHEBE MANN MEMBER DAVID RAWSTHORN Between [APPELLANT] Appellant and THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Respondent Representation : For the Appellant: Simon Clarke of Smith Bowyer Clarke, Solicitors For the Respondent: Ahtiq Raja Decision: The appeal is Allowed REASONS Preliminary matters 1. References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of T he Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. In this decision, we use the following terms to denote the meanings shown: ADIs: Approved Driving Instructors (those whose name appear in the Register) . Appellant: [APPELLANT] . Offence: The offence committed by the Appellant referred to in paragraph 4. Register: The Register of Approved Driving Instructors maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Registrar: The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Respondent). Registrar’s Decision: The decision of the Registrar, by way of letter to the Appellant dated 5 January 2026, to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register . Introduction - b ackground to the appeal 3. This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

4. The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision were, in summary, that the Appellant had received six penalty points for a CU80 offence (breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle, including mobile phone use) – and accordingly the Registrar considered that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register. The appeal The grounds of appeal 5. The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision, arguing that he remains a fit and proper person. The Appellant accepted that he received a fixed penalty of six points for the Offence, but submitted that the Registrar failed to take into account mitigation and the Appellant’s previous good character. The Registrar’s case 6. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s Statement of Case stated that the Appellant, as an experienced ADI of many years, should be fully aware of the laws surrounding mobile phone use and the potential distractions that these devices cause. The Registrar’s position was that an ADI should be expected to have the skills and knowledge to manage such distractions and should apply the appropriate strategies to remain safe and within the law whilst driving.

7. The Registrar considered that, in committing the Offence, the Appellant had not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety to be expected from an ADI.

8. The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to have their name in the Register.

9. The Registrar also stated that the Appellant had not given notification of the Offence within 7 days, despite an obligation to do so pursuant to their registration as an ADI. Mode of hearing 10. The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel, the Appellant, Mr Clarke (on behalf of the Appellant) and Mr Raja (on behalf of the Registrar) joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

11. There was an issue with the Appellant’s video feed at one point during the hearing, such that the image of the Appellant was ‘frozen’ to the other participants. Attempts were made, unsuccessfully, to fix this issue but the other participants could still clearly hear the Appellant. The Appellant also confirmed that he could see and hear the other participants. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate to continue the hearing notwithstanding that the Appellant’s image was ‘frozen’.

12. There were no other issues of note during the hearing. The evidence and submissions 13. The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle of evidence and pleadings. The bundle included a witness statement given by the Appellant . We also had written skeleton arguments from both parties.

14. We also heard from the Appellant directly, as well as hearing oral submissions from Mr Clarke on behalf of the Appellant and from Mr Raja on behalf of the Registrar .

15. All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant legal principles 16. Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor’s name is entered in the Register, or they are the holder of a current licence issued under section 129 .

17. Conditions for entry and retention in the Register require a person to be, and continue to be, a “fit and proper person” pursuant to section 125(3)(e) and section 127(3)(e).

18. A person’s name may therefore be removed from the Register under section 128(2)(e) if the Registrar considers that they have ceased to be a “fit and proper person”.

19. The requirement to be a “fit and proper person” is not simply that the person is a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor, but that they are a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register. Accordingly, the requirement to be a “fit and proper person” extends beyond instructional ability alone and, in assessing whether someone is a “fit and proper person”, account has to be taken of their 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.

20. The entry of a person’s name in the Register carries with it an ‘official seal of approval’ and consequently maintenance of public confidence in the Register is important. The Registrar therefore has the duty of ensuring that ADIs are ‘fit and proper’ persons to have their names entered in the Register. As part of that, the Registrar exercises functions of scrutiny and that is why there are stringent disclosure requirements expected of ADIs and those wishing to become an ADI.

21. 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 (including those aged under 18) 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.

22. In cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the Register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence could be 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.

23. Some of the factors in the preceding paragraph can also be relevant in cases involving motoring offences. The role and powers of the Tribunal 24. An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

25. The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the removal or the retention of the Appellant’s name in the Register, as it thinks fit.

26. However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for them to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

27. Where the Tribunal makes an order for the removal of the Appellant’s name in the Register, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply to have their name entered in the Register for a period of up to four years. Discussion and findings 28. The bundle included the representations which the Appellant had made to the Registrar prior to the Registrar’s Decision. These were the mitigating circumstances which the Appellant had referred to in his grounds of appeal and which were also reflected in the Appellant’s witness statement. The Appellant’s representations to the Registrar stated: “ On 13 August 2025, I was stopped by the police for briefly looking at my phone. I did not accept or make a call, nor did I send or read a message. At the roadside, the police gave me what I understood to be a caution, and I believed that this was the conclusion of the matter. I awaited formal written notification, but no letter arrived within the statutory fourteen-day period. This led me to believe that no further action was being taken. On 12 October 2025, I received a letter from the police offering me two options: either to pay and accept the penalty or to request a court hearing (attached as Doc A). On 20 October 2025, I responded to that letter, contesting that no Notice of Intended Prosecution had been served within the required timeframe (attached as Doc B). On 13 November 2025, I received their reply confirming that a NIP had in fact been issued verbally at the roadside and therefore no further written notice was required (attached as Doc C). After receiving this clarification, I sought legal advice and was informed that even looking at a phone constitutes an offence under the law. On Monday 1st December 2025, I accepted the fixed penalty of six points and began the process of notifying DVLA and informing them of the situation. Before I could complete this notification, I received your email dated 4th December 2025 regarding a potential breach of ADI requirements. I acknowledge your concern that I did not notify the Registrar within seven days. The delay was not intentional, and arose because I genuinely believed the roadside caution was the conclusion of the matter, and I awaited written confirmation which did not arrive. I was also seeking legal advice to clarify my obligations, which took time to obtain. Once advised, I promptly accepted the penalty and began the process of notifying DVLA. I have held a clean driving licence for forty-four years, since 30th May 1988, and I have been an Approved Driving Instructor for thirty-seven years. During this time, I have served my community faithfully, providing both manual and automatic instruction. This is the first offence in my long driving history, and I deeply regret the incident. I respectfully submit that the offence arose from a misunderstanding and momentary lapse, not from deliberate disregard for the law. The delay in notification was due to genuine confusion and awaiting clarification, not wilful neglect. My long record as both a driver and instructor demonstrate that I remain a fit and proper person to continue on the Register. I am committed to upholding the standards expected of an ADI and ensuring such an incident does not occur again. I sincerely apologise for the incident and for any administrative delay in notification. I ask that you take into account my decades of safe driving, service to the community, and the mitigating circumstances outlined above…. ”.

29. Mr Clarke submitted that the Offence was not of such seriousness that it ought to have led to the Appellant’s name being removed from the Register. He also argued that removal of the Appellant’s name from the Register is not necessary to support the integrity of the Register and that it would be disproportionate, both on the facts of the Appellant’s case and to the aims of the statutory scheme regarding the Register.

30. As we have noted, the Registrar has the duty of ensuring that those who have their names entered in the Register are ‘fit and proper’ persons. Part of this is ensuring that ADIs understand their responsibilities and can show that they not only know the rules but follow them.

31. Mr Raja disputed the argument that the Offence was not of such seriousness that it ought to have led to the Appellant’s name being removed from the Register. Mr Raja argued that, notwithstanding the Appellant’s evidence that he was not using or looking at his mobile phone but was simply reattaching the power cable, the Appellant would nevertheless have looked away from the road and was, essentially, distracted by his mobile phone.

32. Mr Raja also submitted that, given the nature of the Offence, the Registrar’s Decision was proportionate.

33. The Registrar considered that, in committing the Offence, the Appellant had not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety to be expected from an ADI. The Registrar also cited statistics of injuries and deaths relating to driving offences. They considered that they could not condone motoring offences such as the Offence. The Registrar’s view was that doing so would effectively sanction such behaviour, if those who transgress were allowed to remain on the Register allowing them to teach others.

34. We recognise that the Offence is a serious one and we understand the Registrar’s concerns. However, given the circumstances, our view is that this was a case of human error and an isolated incident in respect of which the Appellant expressed remorse. We found the Appellant to be contrite and we consider that he has ‘learned his lesson’ in respect of the incident. We also take into account that, based on the information before us, the Appellant has held a clean driving licence for 44 years and has been an ADI for 37 years without issue.

35. In respect of the Registrar’s assertion that the Appellant had not given notification of the Offence within 7 days, the Appellant’s evidence was that the incident giving rise to the Offence occurred on 13 August 2025 but that the fixed penalty of six points (as opposed to the option of requesting a court hearing) was accepted by him on 1 December 2025. By email dated 4 December 2025, the Registrar stated that the Appellant had not given notice of the Offence within 7 days. The Registrar’s position that the Appellant had not given notification of the Offence within 7 days was not reflected in the Registrar’s Decision but rather in his Statement of Case. In the circumstances of this case, this issue has not been material to our conclusions.

36. This was a finely balanced decision but, for all of the reasons we have given, we find that it would be disproportionate to conclude that the Appellant has failed to meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person to have their name retained in the Register. On balance, taking into account all the circumstances, we conclude that there is no risk to the integrity of the Register by the retention of the Appellant’s name in it.

37. We therefore allow the appeal and we order that the Appellant’s name be retained in the Register.

38. We would ask the Appellant to note the following. Following the endorsement of his driving licence with six points, he has come very close to losing his career as an ADI. It should be self-evident that there are significant learning outcomes from this process and that any future transgressions could result in him losing his status as an ADI. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 17 June 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal