Abdul Mirza v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 1545 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 01545 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Hearing Heard on: 29 October 2025Date 15 December 2025
Transport
Appeal Reference: FT/D/2025/0513
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLANTRIBUNAL MEMBER DAVID RAWSTHORNTRIBUNAL MEMBER MARTIN SMITHHeard by way of remote hearing using Cloud Video Platform
Between
ABDUL MIRZAAppellantREGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentAppellant: The Appellant was unrepresentedRespondent: Mr RussellDecision: The appeal is DISMISSEDDECISION 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 Appellant’s application for re-registration as an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) was refused under s.125(3)(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 been the subject of complaints. 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]The background to this appeal is that the Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register prior to 1996. The electronic records relating to registration for that period are no longer available.[12]In his Statement of Case the Registrar has stated: ‘His name was removed from the Register on the 17 May 2023, having not appealed my decision to remove his name from the register when he had been charged on the 20 February 2023 with sexual assault by touching over clothing of a male child.[13]The Registrar added: ‘In anticipation of submitting his application to have his name re-entered in the register, the appellant had applied for a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. From the 17 June 2013, I no longer receive a copy of these checks, therefore if I am advised by the umbrella company that the disclosure has content I am now required to ask for the disclosure to be sent to me for assessment. The disclosure was not issued until the 26 February 2025. The appellant provided his enhanced disclosure certificate on the 04 March 2025. The appellant’s disclosure contained information disclosed at the Chief Police Officer(s) discretion, it stated The Metropolitan Police Service believes the following information to be relevant when considering the application by (the Appellant) born 05 April 1961, because it contains allegations of sexual assault and that on balance despite the need to protect the appellant’s right to a private life it ought to be disclosed for a role within the child workforce sector. 1. In August 2017, a 20 year old male alleged that during his driving course on the 11 August 2017, his driving instructor had made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature towards him and had attempted to kiss him. (The Appellant) was not spoken to by the Police in relation to this allegation due to a lack of corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegation. The investigation was closed and no Police action was taken. 2. On then the 08 April 2019, a 26 Year old male alleged that during his driving course his driving instructor had made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature towards him and sexually touched him. The male alleged that over his clothing had stroked his leg rubbed his stomach and brushed his penis with his hand. (The Appellant) was interviewed under Police caution and denied the allegation. The investigation noted that the male had failed his driving test prior to making a complaint and refund request to the driving school before then reporting the allegation to the Police. Due to a lack of corroborative evidence to substantiate the alleged offence no further action was taken. 3. On the 26 July 2023, a 41 year old male reported that whilst on a driving course his driving instructor (the Appellant) was alleged to have massaged the complainant’s legs. (The Appellant) reportedly pulled both the complainant’s legs into his lap, massaging around the lower legs, under knees and around the shorts area. The complainant stated he did not give any signal that he was not happy to have the massage performed on him. During the massage (the Appellant) requested the complainant to move his seat back so he would be in the lying down position. However he refused this. Following the massage (the Appellant) was alleged to have made a comment which the complainant felt was sexually suggestive, Due to a lack of corroborative evidence to substantiate the alleged offence no further Police action was taken. In representations made in relation to this disclosure, (the Appellant) states that he was not contacted by Police in relation to the allegation reported on the 26 July 2023 and denies the allegation. (The Appellant) states that the complainant was upset during his lessons due to a personal issue and believes the complainant’s intention was to find a reason to cancel his driving course without losing the course fee. Sussex Police hold the following information which we believe to be relevant to the application of the Appellant) born … for this child workforce The information held by the Police relates to an allegation of sexual assault intentionally touch male no penetration in May 2022. The circumstances reported were that the applicant (then aged 71) had sexually assaulted a male (then aged 13) The alleged aggrieved had attended a young drivers experience day and had received a driving lesson from the applicant It was alleged that the applicant had stroked the alleged aggrieved's leg during the lesson allegedly telling the alleged aggrieved that he would squeeze his leg if he wanted him to touch the break pedal. It was also alleged that the applicant had touched the alleged aggrieved's penis over his clothing during the lesson. The applicant was interviewed regarding the matter and denied the allegation telling Police that he could not remember any specific details about the lesson he had conducted with the alleged aggrieved. The matter was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service who authorized a charge of sexual assault intentionally touch male no penetration. The case proceeded to Crown Court where the applicant was found not guilty.[14]The Registrar stated that he was already aware of the first two allegations, and that these had been disclosed at the Chief Police Officer’s discretion on his DBS disclosure obtained in August 2021. As the Police had taken no further action and the complainants had never contacted the Registrar to conduct an internal investigation, he accepted the Appellant’s application to extend his period of registration and issued him with a warning concerning his conduct on 14 October 2021.[15]The Registrar added that he was already aware of the allegation contained in the information provided by Sussex Police in relation to the 13 year old male. This had led to him to commence the removal process on 16 March 2023 and suspending him at the time with immediate effect. The Registrar observed that the Appellant did not appeal his decision to the General Regulatory Chamber and his name was removed from the Register on 17 May 2023.[16]In light of the disclosures, the Registrar considered that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register[17]By way of email correspondence dated 4 March 2025, the Registrar gave the Appellant notice that he, the Registrar, was considering removing his name from the Register on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in it. The Registrar invited the Appellant to make representations to the Registrar which the Registrar submitted would be taken into consideration by him before reaching a decision.[18]Following a courtesy call from the office of the Registrar, by way of email correspondence dated 27 March 2025, the Appellant made representations. Those representations are set out in more detail below.[19]In the Statement of Case, the Registrar has stated that he carefully considered the limited representations made by Appellant and while he accepted that the police have taken no action in relation to three of the allegations made, and he was found not guilty of sexual assault on a further complainant, he found his explanation dismissive to all the allegations made. The Registrar observed that the Appellant may have been financially motivated. In the circumstances, the Registrar believed that the Appellant potentially posed a risk to pupils and that he had not convinced the Registrar to the contrary. Accordingly, he made a decision that the Appellant could not satisfy the condition set out in section 128(2)(e) of the Act in that he, the Appellant had ceased, apart from fulfilment of any of the preceding conditions to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register.[20]The Appellant was notified of the Registrar's decision on 9 April 2025.[21]A notice of appeal against the decision of the Registrar dated 9 April 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

[22]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. That background was set out in more detail in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Statement of Case. Mr Russell also summarised the reasons for the Registrar’s decision to refuse the Appellant’s application for re-entry to the Register. These were:(a) While I accept that the appellant has not been convicted of any offence, four complaints had been made concerning his behaviour that is not appropriate to the professional relationship between an instructor and pupil. The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. 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. I would therefore be failing in my public duty if I allowed a person who was the subject of these complaints to have his name re-entered in the Register.(b) Registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is "Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor". 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, I am concerned that the good name of the Register would be tarnished and the public's confidence undermined if it was generally known that I had allowed the appellant's name to be re-entered in the Register.(c) It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, for me to ignore these complaints.’[23]At the oral hearing, Mr Rusell expanded on the Registrar’s reasons for his decision.

The Appellant

[24]The Appellant made the following written representations to the Registrar:
‘Ref 01 /CEC/24/2583981/E 2017 male not true Police was aware of this person that you're referring to, this male, had tried to commit suicide. He Sufferers from depression. 8th April 2019 this gentleman you mentioned, He wanted me to allow him to take a driving test using my car at a different driving test centre, where (5day SOM)company will not pay me take him there for test.soi disputed and refused to take him on the test. I Denie any wrong doing. 26th July 23 This gentleman on his very first day of starting driving course he said i did not know, Intensive driving course will be so difficult, i just cannot continue this intensive driving course. Can I cancel This drive course? He asked me. No I said, once you have signed and started intensive driving course, You cannot cancel. You will lose money. He wanted to cancel his driving course and refund fee. 3rd day of his course, Lunch time was 30 minutes from 12 00 pm to 12 30pm he came back after 1 00 pm (drunk) I forced him out of my car. I Denie any wrong doing. Sussex police took the case to court which they lost. Boys father gave evidence in my favour and (all member} of juries in found me not guilty. I have been ADI over 40 years Was working locally self employed. Last few years I have been working with private companies who advertise INTENSIVE DRIVING COURSE (guarantee) PASS IN 5 DAYS, 20 hour course. charge £3000. Or more per course. Misleading information's. When driving candidates find its not as simple and large sums have been made, contractors signed and no way out? Way out is Make sexual assault claim Allegations. Easiest way out? Blame. Driving Instructors. Met Police should not have anything on record. met police did send me clearance letter which i did forwarded to Simon, and DBS. I reject Sussex police claim. I challenged Sussex police. I did when the case all members of juries cleared me I will challenge any claim. Please investigate my last 40 years record.’
[25]The Appellant attached a number of documents to his written representations, including character references, statements from his solicitor relating to his court appearance and in connection with the other allegations.[26]In email correspondence to the Registrar dated 9 April 2025, the Appellant stated the following:
‘I will request you not to time bar me for response to your letter. (A) I will be seeking Legal aid in order to present. ADI department acted illegally and suspended me from working. The moment I was accused. July 2023. DBS/police held my DBS record on purpose to delay. I wrote to ADI department to reinstate my AD status to the date I was suspended. My recuest was rejected. (B) Met police had give me an asurety in writing that the previous complaint has been removed from My record. It has not (that letter was forwarded to Simon Davis and DBS department. I Have been hit hard financially £13000 G&E Bills plus behind car loans and mortgage instalments. This racially motivation. By both departments. The company I worked for 8 other instructors were accused of similar cases. None of them were charged they were same as myself. I request you, extra time, many Months to fight this Racially motivated issue. Finly Your department is not sitting Silent they spread news around.’
[27]Once again, the Appellant attached various documents to his email correspondence including the following statement:
‘Section 8 – Reasons for your appeal Ref: 68952 AM DOB … Married, 7 children 8 Grand children. I worked as a driving instructor for over 40 years around … Local Areas. Not had a single complaint filed against me. These days there are large companies Advertising Intensive driving courses. PASS YOUR TEST in 5 day. And charge large sums of money. Its attractive aids; Pass your driving test in 5 days this includes theory and practical. The company I worked for as Instructor was based in … London Area. There were about 30 other Instructors. courses schedules Mon - Fri. Theory classes 8 30 am - 9.30 am Practical driving from 10 00 am - 2 30 pm and Theory class from 3 00 pm - 5 30 pm. Not including break times its approx over 9 50 hours daily. It is really hard work for novice driving student. Intensive driving courses can be challenging for novice students. The fast-paced, condensed nature of these courses can be overwhelming for individuals who are new to driving and haven't yet developed the necessary muscle memory and confidence. The Course schedule, often involves 5 hours of driving daily for 5 days, can also lead to fatigue and difficulty retaining information. Intensive driving course fee is charged up front is not refundable. Some students find it hard, stressful cannot continue. Company i worked for had issues like, Physical fight with staff, allegation against company. Instructors, been accused sexual nature. Since I started work With London based company. I have become victim of allegations. August 2017 a student, on first day of his lesson said, I cannot concentrate due to my break up with my girlfriend she left me for another man and he wanted cancel, His lessons. Next day he did turn up for his driving lesson. Filed complain he was touch emproriatly. No action was taken by police. Previously this person had taken overdose to end his life. 2019 this male student wanted to take his test at … test centre. I refused to accept his request. it was not my area. So a week after failing his driving test. He wanted to claim compensation, his claim was that I touched improperly, that was the reason he failed his practical. No action was taken. July 2023 Man started Lesson. First day on Monday morning He was upset during his Lesson, 12 00 pm he learnt, his wife: separated from, has taken his son without his approval to Scotland. So he cannot continue, I advised him To consult company manager. He was told if you want to cancel your lesson there will be no refund. On 3rd day of that week after lunch 12 30 pm, he was due back from lunch break. He returned at after 1 00 pm, as he got into my car, i could smell alcohol. I requested him to leave the car. He didn’t co operate, so I helped him physically to get out of my car. Next day he did not attend his driving course class. complained to the company, that he was assaulted by me. The student demanded refund. Since I started working for London based company. There has been complains about all of us Instructors. This just to get fee refunded. Please Read Met police Response below Section 9 – Outcome of appeal I feel i am being crucified, victimised maybe of Double standard? i do not believe it. i cannot get legal-aid to hire solicitor. I am in debt will lose my house and car. This is reward for my 40 years of good services. Accuser/instigator wins without a trial gets away. A Victims lose everything.(Job, respect, Family and home) I should not have to go through this. I am looking for Justice, i highly respect believe in British Justice System.’
[28]In his notice of appeal, the Appellant set out grounds of appeal which were parallel to the submissions which he had made in his written representations to the Registrar, and in his further correspondence to the Registrar.[29]As noted above, the Appellant participated in the oral hearing. He made oral submissions which reflected what he had already set out in writing and gave evidence in response to questions from the members of the Tribunal.

Analysis

[30]We begin by noting that in D/2015/243 John Jones v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors, the First-tier Tribunal made the following comments, at paragraphs 15 to 17 of its decision:
‘15. In considering this appeal the tribunal recognised that the Registrar had to take due regard of his function of maintain a robust register of fit and proper persons in order to protect the public and his need to maintain public confidence. The police had notified him of highly relevant information and he had considered and acted on it in order to protect the public and maintain public confidence. The tribunal also noted that the Appellant had not been charged, maintained his innocence, was subject to bail conditions to ensure the protection of the public and wished to be able to practice his profession. 16. The tribunal considered that a balance had to be struck between these competing public and private interests. In considering the public interest the primary concern was the maintenance of the safety of the public. In considering this the tribunal noted that the police had, with more knowledge of the circumstances (as understood at that stage of the investigation) than it was possible for the Registrar to have, imposed bail conditions which it considered were sufficient to protect the public. The police also had effective means of enforcing those conditions. In the current circumstances the tribunal was not satisfied that the removal from the register at this stage significantly increased public protection. 17. The second relevant matter for the Registrar to consider was the maintenance of the reputation of the Register; expressed in this case as the impact on public opinion of knowing that an individual with such a bail condition remained on the register. The difficulty with this position is that at present not only is there no conviction but also there has not been any decision to charge the Appellant. He is fully entitled to argue that he is innocent and it is entirely conceivable that the public would consider it wrong that an individual in such circumstances should not have the heavy burden of the loss of the ability to earn a living imposed upon him in order to maintain public confidence.’
[31]We are mindful, of course, that a decision of a First-tier Tribunal in one decided appeal is not binding on another First-tier Tribunal deciding another appeal. In GIA/2986/2011 [2012] UKUT 190 (AAC), Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs said the following, at paragraph 20, when discussing the principles relevant to the binding effect of one decision of an appeal tribunal at first-tier, on another:
‘… the tribunal is careful to say that it is not bound by those decisions. That is right as a matter of principle and authority. See Hampshire County Council v JP [2009] UKUT 239 (AAC), [2010] AACR 15, at [15] and West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association (INC) v Birmingham Corporation [1967] 2 QB 188 at 210 and 225. Previous decisions are of persuasive authority and the tribunal is right to value consistency in decision-making. However, there are dangers in paying too close a regard to previous decisions. It can elevate issues of fact into issues of law or principle.’
[32]In Hampshire County Council v JP [2009] UKUT 239 (AAC), [2010] AACR 15, a Three-Judge Panel of the Upper Tribunal stated, at paragraph 15:
‘… a decision of a First-Tier Tribunal does not bind anyone except the parties to the particular case being decided …’
[33]Similar remarks were made by Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley at paragraph 51 of his decision in Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v AM ([2010] UKUT 428 (AAC)).[34]Nonetheless, we accept that the First-tier Tribunal in D/2015/243 has accurately and succinctly set out the relevant principles to be applied in cases such as the present one.[35]There is a distinct public interest in the maintenance by the Registrar of a Register of Approved Driving Instructors where both initial entry and lasting retention is confined to those who satisfy the legislative requirements for approval. As was noted in paragraph 5 above, conditions for entry or retention extend beyond technical instructional ability alone and require satisfaction of a ‘fit and proper person’ test. There is no doubt that the standing of the Register would be substantially diminished and public confidence would be significantly undermined if the Registrar permitted the retention on the Register of an individual who had demonstrated behaviours substantially material to the question of fitness. In that respect the Registrar has the right to enquire into character and conduct – see Harris above.[36]In our view, the public has an investment in the function of the Registrar to maintain their safety. Further, other entrants on the Register, or those striving to achieve entry, and who uphold high standards of character and behaviour are entitled to an assurance that the integrity of the Register is preserved and that the collective adherence by the profession to its principles is not undermined by those whose behaviour or actions fall below normal.[37]That is the public interest. The Register is made up of the names of individuals, however, and in cases such as these the competing private interest is that of the individual. An individual ADI is entitled to expect that the duty of the Registrar to preserve the integrity of Register through intervention and scrutiny of individual behaviours, and conduct and in assessing whether the ‘fit and proper test’ is satisfied, is exercised in an effective, fair and proportionate manner.[38]In that respect, we cannot ignore that the Appellant has not been convicted of any criminal offence and, further, was found not guilty of the single criminal offence with which he was charged. Further he has set out in some detail what he has submitted were the background circumstances to the allegations which have been made against him, has argued, with some vehemence, that the allegations are false and he has denied them. He has pointed to his long career in the profession and has submitted character references in support of reputation. He has spoken about the effect which a refusal of his re-application for registration would have on himself and his family. He has introduced factors such racism and a failure to take action against other ADIs who have been the subject of parallel complaints and allegations.[39]Nonetheless, we recognise that the Registrar’s arguments concerning the standing and reputation of the Register, from the perspective of both the public and other registrants, is a powerful one.[40]We return to what we set out in paragraphs 5 and 8 above, as follows: ‘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. 8. … 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.[41]The emphasis here is our own.[42]In summary, we have concluded that even in the absence of a criminal conviction, the Appellant has been involved in a pattern of behaviour which impinges on his character, involves a significant departure from appropriate professional standards of conduct and is substantially material to his fitness to have his name re-entered on the Register.[43]In connection with certain of the allegations against him, the Appellant’s submission is that the claims were motivated by the conduct and attitude of the pupil. In two of the cases, the pupil expressed disappointment at the service which he had received.[44]One wished to take his driving test in a test centre using the Appellant’s car and for which the Appellant would not receive payment. The Appellant had refused to take the pupil to the test centre.[45]A second pupil had booked and paid for an ‘intensive’ five day driving instruction course which purported to guarantee, on completion, success in a subsequent driving examination. The pupil wished to cancel the course as he was finding it to be too intense and wanted a refund of his significant pre-payment. He had also returned to the vehicle in an intoxicated state. The Appellant had set out, in some detail, the form of the intensive driving instruction courses which his company was organising and for which the pupils were paying significant sums of money. He submitted that it was common for pupils to fail the driving examination following such courses and took their disappointment and anger out on the driving school and individual instructors by making allegations against them.[46]The Appellant submitted that the third pupil was suffering from depression, and the allegation was motivated by this.[47]We have noted the parallels in the nature of the allegations made in each of the cases set out above, namely inappropriate physical contact of what was submitted to be of a sexual nature. We have also observed that the Appellant has asserted that other driving instructors had been the subject of similar allegations and had not been subject to criminal or regulatory proceedings.[48]We find the Appellant’s account and submissions to be wholly implausible. It is, in our view, highly doubtful that three individual pupils would react to what they submitted as inadequate service provided by the Appellant or his driving school, by making what are virtually identical allegations involving the same conduct and behaviour. In our view, the fact that no further action was taken by the police in connection with those allegations is irrelevant to our conclusions with respect to this pattern of behaviour. As noted above, that behaviour goes to his character, standards of professional conduct and his fitness. We reject his assertion, which we also find to be improbable, that other ADIs had been the subject of parallel allegations and that no regulatory or criminal proceedings had been taken against them.[49]We turn to the allegation against the Appellant which led to the bringing of criminal charges against him. The charge was the sexual assault by touching over clothing of a male child.[50]The Appellant’s explanation of the background to the complaint was that he was participating in a driving programme. He asserted that the purpose of the programme was to allow young people to have a driving experience. He stated that there were staff members, 25 driving instructors and ‘hundreds’ of general public and parents present. His ‘pupil’ had never driven before and had booked a thirty-minute lesson. The ’pupil’ was aged 13-14 and the Appellant had spent the duration of the ’lesson alone in the car with him even though the ‘pupil’s’ parents and wider family were present at the venue. The format of the ‘lesson’ was that the first ten minutes of the lesson were spent in the provision of a briefing. There were 15 minutes of actual driving and a five minute de-brief. The driving instructor would help with the driving, with the pedals, the indicators and the steering wheel. The pupil had stalled the vehicle, became upset and started crying. The Appellant took him back to his parents and family. A week later an allegation was made against him.[51]While noting that the Appellant was acquitted of the criminal charge of sexual assault, we find, once again that his explanation of the cause of the allegation against him is highly questionable. It is noteworthy that the substance of the complaint is the same as that arising in the other allegations against him. We find it remarkable that the Appellant, as a professional ADI, did not consider it appropriate to invite a member of the child’s family to accompany the child in the car during the ‘lesson’. The decision to conduct the ‘lesson’ on his own and without the presence of a chaperone, is redolent of wholly unprofessional conduct. Once again, this impinges on his character, involves a significant departure from appropriate professional standards of conduct and is substantially material to his fitness to have his name re-entered on the Register.[52]We have also observed that following notification to the Registrar of the criminal charge of sexual assault against the Appellant, the Registrar commenced the process of the removal of the Appellant’s name from the Register. This included, on 16 March 2023, notification to the Appellant that his registration was suspended with immediate effect. The notification included details of the process by which the Appellant could challenge the suspension. The Appellant did not undertake any challenge and when asked about this at the oral hearing, submitted that he did not understand the relevant process. In our view, the Registrar’s notification of 16 March 2023 could not be clearer.[53]In his Statement of Case, the Registrar, after consideration of the Appellant’s written representations, submitted that he found the Appellant’s response to be dismissive. To that we would add unnecessary defiance, lack of insight and a complete indifference to the consequences of his actions.[54]We have observed that the Appellant has submitted that a degree of racism is a factor in the decision-making process in his case. We reject this assertion and find that there is no evidence to support it. We agree with Mr Rusell’s contrary submission that the process was fair.[55]The Appellant has made submissions on the impact, particularly financial, which removal from the Register will have on him and his family. If that is a consequence of the dismissal of his appeal, then that is unfortunate.[56]We are satisfied that the Registrar has satisfied the burden of proof and that his decision should be upheld.

Disposal

[57]For the reasons which are set out above, the appeal is DISMISSED. Kenneth Mullan Judge of the Upper Tribunal 12 December 2025