Paul Tully v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1090 (GRC)
Preliminary matters
[1]References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of The 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: Paul Tully. 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 24 October 2025, to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register. Introduction - background 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 accrued penalty points for two offences – namely, a fixed penalty of six penalty points for a conviction dated 11 September 2025 for failure to give information as to the identity of a driver on 9 June 2025 (MS90), and a fixed penalty of three penalty points on 23 June 2025 for speeding (SP30). The Registrar’s Decision recorded that the Appellant had informed the Registrar that he was seeking to appeal the MS90 conviction, but it noted that the Appellant nevertheless had two speeding offences. The Registrar accordingly considered that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register. The appealThe grounds of appeal
[5]The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision. The Appellant’s appeal relied, in summary, on the grounds that:a. in respect of the two offences referred to in the Registrar’s Decision:(i) there were mitigating circumstances for the SP30 offence; namely that another driver hit their brakes and pulled in front of him, and in taking evasive action to prevent an accident going over a flyover his speed increased; and(ii) in the case of the MS90 offence, correspondence had gone to his previous address regarding another speeding incident and accordingly was never received, therefore depriving him the opportunity of going on a speed awareness course instead of receiving penalty points;b. his private life should not affect his teaching as an ADI and his driving should not come into question; andc. removing him from the Register was inconsistent with the fact that drivers were allowed to have twelve points on their licence, and there should be equality in applying the rules.The Registrar’s case
[6]The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s response to the appeal stated that they could not ignore that the Appellant had been convicted of two serious motoring offences which resulted in nine penalty points being endorsed on his driving licence (although the Registrar also acknowledged that the penalty points for the MS90 offence had subsequently been reduced from six to three after the Appellant appealed regarding that).[7]The Registrar stated that account had to be taken of the Appellant’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct, involving consideration of all material matters, including convictions, cautions and other relevant behaviour. The Registrar expressed concern that allowing the Appellant’s name to remain on the Register would diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public’s confidence in the Register.[8]The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to have their name in the Register.Mode of hearing
[9]The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel, 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.[10]There were some technical problems on occasion with Mr Raja’s connection to the hearing, including some instances of lag. However, these interruptions had no material adverse effect on proceedings and the Tribunal was satisfied that nothing had been missed during the hearing.The evidence and submissions
[11]The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle of evidence and pleadings.[12]We heard oral submissions from the Appellant and from Mr Raja on behalf of the Registrar.[13]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[14]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.[15]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).[16]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”.[17]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.[18]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.[19]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.[20]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.[21]Some of the factors in the preceding paragraph can also be relevant in cases involving motoring offences.The role and powers of the Tribunal
[22]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.[23]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.[24]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.[25]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
[26]During the hearing, the Appellant expanded on the points made in his grounds of appeal. Regarding the SP30 offence referred to in the Registrar’s Decision, the Appellant stated that he was driving over a flyover (dual carriageway) when a car ahead of him, but in the other lane, slammed on his brakes and then swerved over into his lane. The Appellant said that he took evasive action to avoid a collision with that car but in doing so his speed increased because there was a significant drop on the flyover. The Appellant stated that the incident occurred in a 30 mph zone and that he was caught speeding at 33 mph.[27]In respect of the MS90 offence referred to in the Registrar’s Decision, the Appellant stated that he was travelling at around 47 mph in a 40 mph zone. He said that he was leaving a 70 mph zone and had been slowing down towards traffic lights when he was caught speeding. The Appellant stated, in essence, that the MS90 offence came about because the notification of the speeding offence went to his old address and therefore the Appellant had not responded to it. The Appellant considered that if he had received the notification then he would have taken the option of a speed awareness course. Following an appeal process (as noted above), the Appellant had his six point penalty reduced to three points.[28]As to why the notification had gone to his old address, the Appellant explained that he owned five cars at the relevant time and had encountered difficulties trying to change his address details for those cars online when he had moved house. He stated that he had spoken with someone at the DVLA at the time, who explained that if there was some apparent discrepancies in information being entered then the system would not permit completion of the change of address notification online.[29]The Appellant submitted that the Registrar had not taken into account all of the circumstances when making the Registrar’s Decision, including the fact that the Appellant had not received the notification which resulted in the MS90 offence.[30]The Appellant also submitted that he had not ceased to be a ‘fit and proper’ person, simply because he received the penalty points he did. He also considered that there should be consistency and fairness, arguing that other drivers can accrue twelve points before losing their driving licence and would not lose their livelihood as a result of receiving six points on their licence.[31]Regarding the Appellant’s points in the preceding paragraph, 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.[32]Mr Raja submitted that the Appellant had been caught speeding on two occasions and that this was inconsistent with the standards to be expected of an ADI. He also submitted that the question before the Tribunal was not whether the removal of the Appellant’s name from the Register would cause hardship, but whether the Appellant was a ‘fit and proper’ person.[33]The Registrar’s response to the appeal cited statistics of injuries and deaths relating to driving offences. The Registrar also submitted that it would not be fair or reasonable to other ADIs and those currently going through the ADI qualification process, who have been scrupulous in their personal and professional standards, for them to ignore the inappropriate behaviour displayed by Appellant (in respect of the two offences referred to in the Registrar’s Decision).[34]We acknowledge Mr Raja’s point that the question in issue is whether the Appellant was a ‘fit and proper’ person. However, we think that it is appropriate to take into account all relevant circumstances in determining whether a person should have their name removed from the Register, as part of applying a proportionality assessment in considering whether the Registrar’s Decision was correct. We have therefore considered the effects of the potential loss of the Appellant’s ADI status, including the implications for his career or income.[35]However, in this case, part of the proportionality assessment has also included taking into account the Appellant’s two speeding offences, as well as his failure to supply details of his change of address (in respect of which we comment further below). We agree with the Registrar that the Appellant’s speeding on two sperate occasions is inconsistent with the standards to be expected of an ADI.[36]Whilst the Appellant may not have received notification of the speeding which resulted in the MS90 offence (and see our further comments below in that regard), nevertheless we consider that the Appellant would have (or at least should have) known that he was driving significantly in excess of the speed limit at the time.[37]Two weeks later, the Appellant was caught speeding again. Whilst we acknowledge the Appellant’s explanation of the circumstances of that offence, nevertheless we consider that an ADI should have the awareness and skills to be able to manage an incident such as the one in question and we do not accept that there were mitigating circumstances for the speed limit being exceeded.[38]With regard to the Appellant not having his correct address notified to the DVLA at the relevant time, we consider that there is no good reason for it. The Appellant was aware of the need to give notice of his change of address and also knew that there were problems with trying to do so online. The Appellant did not give any explanation as to why he did not take other steps to ensure that his correct details were notified to the DVLA, or to ensure that he could still receive or collect mail from his old address. We also consider that an ADI should recognise the importance of keeping their address details up-to-date with the DVLA.[39]We are also not convinced that the Appellant would have been given the opportunity to attend a speed awareness course in respect of the speeding incident in question but, in any event, the Appellant had nevertheless been caught speeding on two occasions.[40]We would also briefly comment on the Appellant’s arguments that he had not ceased to be a ‘fit and proper’ person simply because he received the penalty points he did, and that other drivers can accrue more points. The issue here is not analogous to drivers accruing points before losing a driving licence. Rather, the issue in question is about ADI status (and specifically whether the Appellant is a ‘fit and proper’ person to remain on the Register) and, as we have noted, this includes taking into account his character, behaviour and standards of conduct.[41]In our view, the Appellant’s arguments demonstrate that he lacks understanding and awareness of the standards required of ADIs and this reinforces our view that the Appellant is not a ‘fit and proper’ person to have his name in the Register.[42]For all of the reasons we have given, we find that the Appellant does not currently 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 the Registrar’s Decision was correct.[43]We therefore dismiss the appeal and we order that the Appellant’s name be removed from the Register. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 22 July 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal