Zareena Hussain v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1106 (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: Zareena Hussain. Investigation: The investigation referred to in the Registrar’s Decision (which is more particularly described in paragraph 5 below). 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 2 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 given in the Registrar’s Decision were, in summary, that there had been an investigation carried out into driving test fraud allegedly involving the Appellant – 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 Registrar’s Decision stated that more details of that investigation had been set out in a letter from the Registrar dated 3 September 2025.[5]The Registrar’s letter dated 3 September 2025 stated that the investigation related to concerns that the Appellant travelled from West Yorkshire to Southall Driving Test Centre on 21 August 2021 where the Appellant’s daughter and sister-in-law’s driving tests were conducted by a driving examiner who was related to the Appellant. It also stated that two further tests were conducted using the Appellant’s vehicle by another examiner also known to the Appellant and that, as a result of the investigation, all four candidates had their driving licences revoked. The appealThe grounds of appeal
[6]The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision, submitting (in essence) that the Registrar’s conclusions regarding the Investigation were unfounded. The Appellant denied any knowledge of, or any connection with, the two individuals which were the subject of the Investigation. The Appellant stated that she was a law abiding and responsible citizen, had never been involved with the Police or had any criminal record, and had never even received a parking ticket.[7]The Appellant stated that the assertion that she was not a ‘fit and proper’ person, and accordingly the decision to remove her name from the Register, was without any basis or foundation.[8]The Appellant provided two references which attested to her good character, including with reference to her honesty and integrity.The Registrar’s case
[9]The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s response to the appeal referred to the Investigation. The Registrar stated that:a. on 1 September 2025, they received a report from a DVSA Investigator which concluded that the Appellant had been involved in fraudulent activity surrounding a number of driving tests which had been conducted at Southall Driving Test Centre;b. the report summarised that the Appellant had travelled from West Yorkshire to Southall in order for the driving tests to be conducted by an examiner related to the Appellant; andc. the Investigation resulted in four driving licences being revoked as their respective tests had been conducted fraudulently.[10]The Registrar stated that, in light of the information regarding the Investigation, they considered whether the Appellant ceased to be a ‘fit and proper’ person to have her name in the Register and accordingly provided her with the opportunity to make representations.[11]The Registrar further stated that:a. they considered the representations made by the Appellant, but were concerned by the lack of detail in her response and that it was not consistent with her responses when she was interviewed regarding the Investigation; andb. considering all the information available, they believed that the Appellant did travel to Southall Driving Test Centre in order to benefit from knowing the examiner involved.[12]The Registrar submitted that the good name of the Register would be tarnished and the public's confidence undermined if it was generally known that they had allowed the Appellant's name to be retained in the Register. They added that it would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing professional behaviour, for me to ignore the Appellant’s conduct.[13]The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant had ceased to be a ‘fit and proper person’ to have their name in the Register.Mode of hearing
[14]The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel, the Appellant, Mr Arif (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.[15]There were occasionally some instances of lag with Mr Raja’s connection to the hearing. However, these had no material adverse effect on proceedings and the Tribunal was satisfied that nothing had been missed during the hearing.The evidence and submissions
[16]The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle of evidence and pleadings. This included a written witness statement (“Statement of Truth”) from the Appellant.[17]We heard from the Appellant directly, as well as hearing oral submissions from Mr Arif on behalf of the Appellant and from Mr Raja on behalf of the Registrar.[18]All of the contents of the bundle were taken into account, as well as the evidence of the Appellant and the submissions of the parties during the hearing, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant legal principles[19]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.[20]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).[21]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”.[22]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.[23]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.[24]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.[25]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.[26]Some of the factors in the preceding paragraph can also be relevant in cases involving motoring offences.The role and powers of the Tribunal
[27]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.[28]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.[29]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.[30]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
[31]As we have noted, the Registrar stated that they were concerned by the lack of detail in the Appellant’s response to their request for submissions and that it was not consistent with her responses when she was interviewed regarding the Investigation. The Registrar also submitted that the Appellant had provided no reasonable explanation as to why she travelled a considerable distance, passing many other driving test centres, to present certain candidates for test at Southall Driving Test Centre. The Registrar also did not accept the Appellant’s explanation that after arriving at Southall Driving Test Centre, she was asked to allow another person to use her vehicle.[32]The Registrar submitted that the Appellant’s representations were very brief, where she denied the allegations against her but gave no detail to support her version of events.[33]The Registrar accepted that the Appellant had not been convicted of any offence in connection with the Investigation, but stated that the Appellant had pursued a course of conduct which is not appropriate for an ADI. The Registrar also referred to the code of practice agreed between the National Associations Strategic Partnership and the DVSA, which they stated was voluntary but which clearly sets out the standards of conduct and behaviour expected from an ADI.[34]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.[35]We therefore understand the Registrar’s concerns about the Investigation. 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.[36]In this case, the Appellant did provide an explanation as to why they had travelled to Southall Driving Test Centre, which was that during the Covid period it was difficult to get driving tests locally and that it was sensible and practical for her to book a test in London because her daughter was about to get married in London and then live there. The Appellant accepted that she did allow one other person to use her vehicle at the test centre, at the request of her daughter, having been told that that person’s driving instructor had not turned up.[37]Consequently, we consider that the Appellant has provided an explanation of circumstances relevant to the Investigation and that such explanation was not implausible.[38]The Appellant also denied knowing the individuals involved at Southall Driving Test Centre, or the person she had allowed to use her vehicle, and she stated that her daughter and sister in law’s driving licences had not been revoked.[39]There was no evidence before us which countered the Appellant’s version of events. Moreover, the Registrar was not able to provide any further details of the current status of the Investigation, including any potential further evidence which may have come to light as a result of the Investigation.[40]Essentially, whilst we can appreciate why the Registrar had suspicions regarding the Appellant’s version of events, there was no evidence to support the Registrar’s case that the Appellant was involved in any wrongdoing in respect of the Investigation. In short, there was no evidence to support the view that the Appellant had ceased to be ‘fit and proper’ person to have their name in the Register.[41]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.[42]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