Darran Phoenix v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1105 (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). Allegations: The allegations which resulted in the charge referred to in the Registrar’s Decision. Appellant: Darran Phoenix. Complainant: The person who made the Allegations. 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 June 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 given in the Registrar’s Decision were that the Crown Prosecution Service had authorised a charge of sexual assault relating to a 17 year-old female student which the Appellant was teaching to drive. 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. he denied the Allegations;b. the Allegations had not been proven;c. he anticipated being found not guilty of the offence he had been charged with but, in any event, he considered that the decision to remove his name from the Register should not have been made until the matter had been to trial;d. as there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the Registrar’s Decision being made before the outcome of the trial seemed prejudicial.[6]The Appellant also stated that he had sought various character references. These were subsequently included in the bundle.The Registrar’s case
[7]The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar accepted that, at the time of the Registrar’s Decision, the Appellant had not been convicted of the offence he was charged with - but the Registrar maintained that the Appellant’s admitted behaviours (see below) were inconsistent with the behaviours expected of an ADI. The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to have their name in the Register.[8]The Registrar’s view was that, given the Appellant’s behaviours, allowing his name to be retained in the Register would undermine the public’s confidence in it.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. The Appellant also encountered some brief connection problems and at one point had to reconnect to the hearing. 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 from the Appellant directly, as well as hearing oral submissions 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]Prior to the hearing of the appeal, the Tribunal received notification from the Appellant (as well as confirmation from the Registrar) that the Appellant’s trial had taken place and that he was found not guilty of the offence he was charged with as referred to in the Registrar’s Decision.[27]The Registrar maintained that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper’ person to have their name retained in the Register. Mr Raja reiterated the Registrar’s concerns about the Appellant’s admitted behaviours falling below the standards expected of an ADI, and he submitted that the Appellant should have observed the requirements of the code of practice agreed between the National Associations Strategic Partnership and the DVSA.[28]In connection with the Allegations, the Appellant accepted that:a. he had tapped the Complainant’s left knee with a marker pen in order to prompt the release and depression of the clutch pedal for gear changes; andb. he had commented to the Complainant that she had the same colour eyes as his daughter.[29]However, the Appellant stated in respect of the above (respectively) that, in essence:a. the tapping of the Complainant’s knee with the marker pen had been done with her prior permission and this simply reflected a style of teaching which he had been taught;b. the comment was an innocent remark which had been made in the context of confirming to the Complainant that she had correctly adjusted the interior mirror, when the Appellant commented that he knew the adjustment was correct because he could see the Complainant’s eyes in the mirror.[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, which involves consideration of various factors including an individual’s behaviour.[31]We therefore understand the Registrar’s concerns about the Appellant’s behaviours in question. However, 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.[32]We also note, incidentally, that the Registrar’s Decision did not specify that the reasons for it were based on the Appellant’s behaviour (as subsequently submitted by the Registrar in respect of the appeal) but simply because the Appellant had been charged following the Allegations.[33]In any event, however, we found the Appellant’s evidence to be credible and sincere and we consider that there was nothing untoward about his intentions regarding the circumstances of the Allegations. We are also mindful that Appellant has since been found not guilty of the offence for which he was charged following the Allegations.[34]We also found the Appellant to be contrite and we consider that he has ‘learned his lesson’ following the Allegations. The approach of ‘tapping the knee’ for gear changes is an old-fashioned teaching method (which we understand used to be acceptable) and we consider that the Appellant has recognised that this practice is no longer acceptable. The Appellant also stated that he had since installed CCTV in his car, as an additional safeguarding measure.[35]For all of the reasons we have given, we find that the Appellant has not 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 the Registrar’s Decision was incorrect. There is, in our view, no risk to the integrity of the Register by the retention of the Appellant’s name on it.[36]We therefore allow the appeal and we order that the Appellant’s name be retained in the Register. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 29 July 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal