Mark Danks v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 1435 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 01435 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Hearing Heard on: 29 October 2025Date 01 December 2025
Transport
Appeal Reference: FT/D/2025/0565
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLANTRIBUNAL MEMBER DAVID RAWSTHORNTRIBUNAL MEMBER MARTIN SMITHHeard by way of remote hearing using Cloud Video Platform
Between
mark danksAppellantREGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentDecision: The appeal is ALLOWEDDECISION AND REASONS

Mode of Hearing

[1]The proceedings were held using the Cloud Video Platform. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing this way.[2]The hearing was conducted by a Judge and two Tribunal Members in Chambers.[3]The Appellant participated in the remote oral hearing. The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors was represented by Mr Russell.

General Background

[4]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 name of the Appellant was removed from the Register under s. 128(2)(e) 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.[5]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.[6]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.[7]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.[8]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.[9]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 retained on the Register when he had received 6 penalty points for a mobile telephone 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 the Appellant’s conduct. 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.”[10]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

[11]We did not have a collated bundle of documents. Accordingly, the factual background which we can set out is somewhat limited.[12]There is a one-page response from the Registrar which states the following: ‘This is a case where the Registrar has decided to remove the appellant’s name from the Register on grounds that under Section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 the appellant is not considered to be a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register. This is because the appellant has been convicted of the following motoring offence:• Conviction dated 21 August 2024 for breach of requirements as to control of vehicle (includes mobile phone offences that carry a mandatory 6 penalty points) on 12 January 2024 resulting in 6 penalty points[13]The Appellant was notified of the Registrar's decision on 29 April 2025.[14]A notice of appeal against the decision of the Registrar dated 29 April 2025, dated 23 May 2025 was subsequently received in the office of the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) of the First-tier Tribunal. The submissions of the parties The Registrar

The submissions of the parties

[15]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 remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. He noted the Appellant’s conviction and the endorsement of his driving licence with six penalty points.[16]He observed that the Registrar, in email correspondence dated 31 March 2025, had advised the Appellant that the Registrar was considering the removal of his name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructor subject to any representations made within 28 days. Mr Russell submitted that the Registrar had considered the representations made in email correspondence received from the Appellant on 25 April 2025 but had then decided that the Appellant’s name should be removed from the Register on the grounds that under Section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the Register. He asserted that an ADI should have the skills, knowledge and understanding to remain within the law and know how to respond to particular circumstances. He noted that the Appellant had failed to notify the Registrar of the fact of the conviction and licence endorsement. He submitted that the Registrar’s decision was correct.

The Appellant

[17]The grounds of appeal, as set out in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, were as follows:
‘‘My name is Mark Danks. My PRN number is …I'm 57 years old, a father to six children and a grandfather to 3granddaughters. I have been with my wife for 25 years. I'm very much an orientated and committed person and put my all into making sure they are always taken care of and are happy. I've been a driving instructor for seventeen years. It's one of mylife's biggest achievements and I'm very proud of and very thankful for. I've had my driving license for over thirty years and in that timeI've maintained a clean driving record and always demonstrated safe driving with no convictions for any driving offenses.I do consider myself a very responsible driver and always follow the traffic laws i feel that my driving history reflects that and it does show a consistent pattern of safe and legal driving practice. I accept full responsibility for the offense I understand my actions were wrong and I'm very sorry for any inconvenience and any risks I possibly could have caused i do fully understand that this is a serious matter and I've taken time out to reflect on my actions while I understand the offense I would like to xplain whilst in stationary traffic the vehicle was fully secured this is where i took an opportunity to program my phone to sat nav driving as this is more up to date i got caught up in the heat of the moment as i was teaching a family member and not a student so it didn't feel as though I was teaching but now realize i should have had the same mindset i have focused on that moment and my actions in my head and taking ownership of my responsibilities I've learned from it implemented changes in my daily routines and taken action to avoid repeating this mistake in the future while I've made changes in my daily routines this day has sat heavy in my mind that being my emotional well-being I feel stressed and fear that I will not be able to provide for my family financially which would make it impossible to continue making mortgage payments and our essential bills the financial stress will overall effect my families well being and for me to meet my financial obligations again I would like to emphasize to you that this was my mistake and the changes I have made will make sure this situation will never arise again. I feel that if I can't continue in my role I will be letting so mypeople who rely on me achieve their goals and I will feel powerless about the direction my life could end up and how many people will be affected by the outcome that is the factor of me feeling regret and truly remorseful and that I take full responsibility for I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter I'm hoping from this letter you get an insight into how genuine of a person I am and hoping you can see all of my positives and not just this one negative situation.’
[18]The Appellant added to his grounds of appeal at the remote oral hearing.[19]He stated that he would like to apologise to the DVSA and to the Tribunal. The incident had been a wakeup call for him. He had taken steps to make sure that there would be no repetition. He has reviewed the use of mobile telephones and other devices in the vehicle when providing driving instruction. All such devices, together with bags, are now placed in the boot of the car. He has changed the satellite navigation system within the car and has gone back to an older form which does not have a reliance on mobile telephone technology. He has joined a local WhatsApp group of driving instructors and has benefitted from that membership in terms of advice on good practice. While self-employed as an ADI, he remained in contact with his driving school albeit that the driving school had been at a distance from him.[20]He noted that he had been driving for 37 years. He had a clean licence during that period. At the relevant time he was not providing driving instruction for payment. He was helping a family member and was concentrating on specific manoeuvres.[21]He had let his guard down, was hard-working and was an honest person. It was a slip and the consequences were that he had made himself ill.[22]He told us that he was holding his mobile telephone. A police officer had knocked on the car window. It was an oversight and was really apologetic about it. He did not know why he had done it. Normally he did not use telephones. He taught a wide range of pupils. Because of the involvement of a family member, he did not think that it was a lesson. He had a diagnosis of ADHD and normally did everything by the book.[23]He then said that he had picked up the telephone from the floor of the car. He doesn’t know which way to turn. He had been doing his job for eighteen years. It had been over a year since the incident, and he had learned from his mistake. The roads had been quiet on that day, and they had found it difficult to find their way back.[24]The Appellant answered questions from us. He had been using his liveried instruction vehicle. He had gone to court. He stated that the family member had asked whether he could drive using the satellite navigation. The driver had braked, and the mobile telephone had fallen to the floor from the cradle on the dashboard. He was three miles from his house when the incident happened. He was in an area that he did not know.[25]During the questioning, Mr Rusell confirmed that the management of a satellite navigation system is part of the driving examination.

Relevant Caselaw

[26]In D/2018/183, First-tier Tribunal

Judge Hunter said the following, at paragraphs 15 and 16:

‘15. There has been debate, in Tribunal hearings and decisions, as to the position when 6 penalty points have been incurred. The accumulation of that number of penalty points is regarded as a “tipping point”. That is, the accumulation of 6 penalty points will not automatically lead to the conclusion that an ADI should not be, or should be, removed from the Register. The position is set out clearly in and reiterated and approved in Appeal 2003/191 K Bates and others, and reiterated and approved in Appeal 2005/95 M Wild: “… A total of 6 points from speeding offences should not by itself lead to an automatic finding that a person is not fit and proper to be a driving instructor.… Each case must be viewed separately.” The Tribunal considers this dictum may validly be applied also to other motoring offences such as the offence in this instant case. Accordingly, cases such as this very much depend on their individual merits, and “demerits”, and the particular circumstances of the individual cases fall to be carefully scrutinised, as this Tribunal has done in this case.’

Analysis

[27]We agree with the Registrar’s submission that ‘… 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.’[28]In those circumstances, the Registrar’s argument that the Appellant’s conduct has fallen below these enhanced requirements and provides a poor example to his family member who, while not paying for driving instruction, was under what was parallel to professional tuition. The attention of a police officer and the penalty imposed after the conviction is reflective of the lack of attention and care on the part of the Appellant.[29]We have also noted inconsistencies in the Appellant’s account of the circumstances giving rise to the incident and the consequent conviction. He began by telling us that he had the mobile telephone in his hand in order to switch on the satellite navigation system. Later, he told us that he had to retrieve the mobile telephone from the car floor after it had been knocked from its cradle after the driver had braked heavily. Such inconstancies will not have gone unnoticed by Mr Russell.[30]We also agree with the Registrar that on first consideration, the Appellant’s sloppiness and inattention would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law.[31]Against that we have noted that the Appellant had held his driving licence for a period of thirty-seven years without any previous endorsement and that his name has been on the Register for eighteen years. During that latter time, his name has not come to the attention of the Registrar. We accept that he has learned from his mistake, has introduced changes to his preparation for driving instruction by banning mobile telephones and other technology from his instruction vehicle. We accept that he is contrite.[32]The issue which arises in the appeal is finely balanced but having weighed the competing factors, we are prepared to allow the appeal.[33]We would ask the Appellant to note the following. Following the conviction for the offence of breach of requirements as to control of vehicle (including mobile phone offences that carry a mandatory 6 penalty points), resulting in the endorsement of his driving licence with 6 penalty points, the Appellant has come very close to losing a professional career and employment to which he has already expended financial outlay and given a significant time-commitment. 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.

Disposal

[34]For the reasons which are set out above, the appeal is ALLOWED.[35]We make the following additional comments. During the hearing we were informed that giving instruction in the management of a satellite navigation system is now a part of the role of an ADI. This is because the ability to manage and control a satellite navigation system forms part of the driving examination. As the circumstances of this case illustrate, the management and control of a satellite navigation system, which is not integrated to the instruction vehicle’s systems, may require the handling and use of a mobile telephone e.g. the removal of the telephone from a dashboard cradle and turning on the satellite navigation function, when that aspect of the driving test requirements arises during the course of a lesson. Carrying out such tasks while giving instruction has the potential to infringe the separate laws on the use of mobile telephones and satellite navigation while providing driving instruction. Accordingly, there is an important lesson for ADIs faced with such a situation, that is the requirement for care and attention and due regard for the legislation. Kenneth Mullan Judge of the Upper Tribunal 28 November 2025

Cited in 1 later judgment