Arif Habib v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1147 (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: Arif Habib. Complainant: The person who made the Complaint. Complaint: The complaint referred to in the Registrar’s Decision (as further described in paragraph 5 and later 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 7 January 2026 The letter was actually erroneously dated 7 January 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 a complaint had been made against the Appellant andaccordinglythe 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 details of that complaint had been set out in a letter from the Registrar via email on 9 December 2025.[5]The Registrar’s letter on 9 December 2025 set out particulars of the complaint. In summary, the material aspects of the complaint alleged that:a. the Appellant had touched the skin on the Complainant’s right thigh, through a hole in her ripped jeans; andb. the Appellant had made suggestive remarks via WhatsApp, including a message stating that he “liked” the Complainant. The appealThe Appellant’s grounds of appeal and subsequent arguments
[6]The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision, submitting that the Registrar was wrong to conclude that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person.[7]The Appellant subsequently elaborated on his grounds of appeal, submitting in his reply to the Registrar’s Statement of Case that:a. whilst the Appellant accepted the facts of contents of the WhatsApp messages referred to in the Complaint, he did not accept that there was any adverse intention, sexual connotation, or predatory behaviour; andb. the Appellant denied that there was any inappropriate touching, and that if any touching did occur then it was inadvertent and accidental.The Registrar’s case
[8]The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s response to the appeal referred to the Complaint.[9]The Registrar accepted that the Appellant had not been convicted of any offence, but stated that (in respect of the matters raised in the Complaint) the Appellant had behaved in a manner contrary to that set out in the ADI Code of Practice which, amongst other things, states that ADIs must:a. avoid inappropriate physical contact with clients,b. avoid the use of inappropriate language to clients; andc. avoid circumstances and situations which are or could be perceived to be of an inappropriate nature.[10]The Registrar submitted that they could not condone unprofessional behaviour of that nature and that allowing “those who transgress” to remain on the Register would effectively sanction such behaviour. The Registrar stated that it would not be fair or reasonable to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in their professional conduct, for the Registrar to ignore this unprofessional behaviour.[11]The Registrar also submitted that their responsibility extends beyond the interests of the Appellant as an individual and includes maintaining public confidence in the Register and the standards expected of those whose names are entered in it. The Registrar stated that the reputation and integrity of the Register are matters of legitimate public concern.[12]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
[13]The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel, the Appellant, Mr Clarke (on behalf of the Appellant) and Mr Raja (on behalf of the Registrar) joined remotely. The Appellant joined by telephone, after encountering some technical problems trying to join the hearing by video. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.[14]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
[15]The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle of evidence and pleadings. We also had a written witness statement from the Appellant (together with an Annex of documents referred to in it) and a separate written skeleton argument on behalf of the Appellant.[16]We heard from the Appellant directly, as well as hearing oral submissions from Mr Clarke on behalf of the Appellant and from Mr Raja on behalf of the Registrar.[17]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[18]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.[19]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).[20]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”.[21]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.[22]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.[23]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.[24]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.[25]Some of the factors in the preceding paragraph can also be relevant in cases involving motoring offences.The role and powers of the Tribunal
[26]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.[27]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.[28]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.[29]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
[30]We start by noting, incidentally, that we agree with the Appellant’s submissions that the Registrar’s Decision did not forward any rationale for the decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register, other than the bare fact that that the Complaint had been made. As the Appellant submitted, the Registrar’s Decision did not refer to protection of the integrity of, nor public confidence in, the Register.[31]As we have noted, there were two material aspects to the Complaint, involving the content of certain WhatsApp messages and alleged touching of the Complainant’s leg. We comment on those further below, in turn.[32]A statement of the Complainant, in respect of the Complaint, was included in the bundle and, as we have noted, there was statement from the Appellant in respect of the appeal, in which he addressed the Complaint.[33]In respect of the alleged touching incident, the Complainant stated that she had been wearing ripped jeans when in the car with the Appellant and he had commented on the jeans and then poked her skin on her right thigh where there was a rip.[34]There was also an exchange of WhatsApp messages between the Appellant and the Complainant, which culminated in messages which were the particular focus of the Complaint. The relevant messages were included in the bundle. The messages in question were sent after a driving lesson had taken place and, in summary, the Appellant stated that he was sitting outside the Complainant’s flat, was thinking about her, that she was nice and he liked her. The Complainant replied stating that she liked the Appellant too, to which he replied “so what we gonna do about that”.[35]The Appellant gave evidence to the effect that:a. the Complainant had expressed that she was generally anxious about driving and often became stressed;b. on the date of the alleged touching incident, he had given a driving lesson to the Complainant which was to be a ‘mock test’ and shortly after starting that she had made several serious and dangerous errors, including making directional changes without looking both sides of the road, forcing him to intervene by using the dual controls and taking control of the steering wheel;c. it was concluded that the Complainant was not in the right frame of mind to drive, so he ended the ‘mock test’ lesson and then drove the Complainant home;d. the Complainant was emotional following the problems with the ‘mock test’ and therefore the atmosphere in the car was tense;e. the Appellant therefore attempted to lighten the mood through casual conversation; he had noticed that the Complainant was wearing ripped jeans and he made a comment regarding them and how people of his generation did not understand ripped jeans and how holes in jeans made him feel like he wanted to poke them;f. in making that comment, he made a brief gesture towards the ripped area where he briefly grazed her skin accidentally, for a milli-second;g. there was no sexual or malicious intent in this contact, it was brief and isolated and he did not intend to create any discomfort;h. he advised the Complainant to postpone her driving test, which was approximately four weeks away at the time, because he considered that she was not ‘test ready’ and he also suggested that they find an alternative driving instructor for her;i. the Complainant therefore became very defensive and concerned about the cost of future lessons and she questioned whether the Appellant “liked her”; the Complainant was “teary” and distressed and she left the car upset;j. he stayed in the car briefly to reflect on what had happened and then sent a WhatsApp message to the Complainant, to reassure her that he liked her as a person and that he thought she was a nice girl.[36]The Appellant further commented that the WhatsApp messages were sent as follow-up messages directly related to his conversation with the Complainant in the car. He stated that they were sent in continuation of his attempts to calm her and because whilst in the car she had said that he did not like her. The Appellant stated that the messages were sent to reassure her that this was not the case.[37]The App also stated that, in respect of the message saying “so what we gonna do about that”, this was intended to refer to arrangements to swap the Complainant’s driving test date. Approximately two and a half hours after that message, he messaged her regarding making those arrangements.[38]The Registrar maintained that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper’ person to have his name retained in the Register. The Registrar’s position was that that the Appellant should not have touched the Complainant as he did and that he should not have sent inappropriate messages to her. Essentially, the Registrar considered that the Appellant had demonstrated behaviours which were not appropriate for an ADI. The Registrar referred to the ADI register guide and to the code of practice agreed between the National Associations Strategic Partnership and the DVSA.[39]There was, clearly, some dispute between the Appellant and the Complainant regarding the meaning or intent behind the matters giving rise to the Complaint. There was also some discrepancy between their accounts on other details. For example, regarding the date of the alleged touching incident, the Complainant stated that this happened about a month or so before she stopped taking lessons with the Appellant, but the Appellant stated that this was the same date as the WhatsApp messages (and in respect of the latter, both parties accepted that there was no further contact between them from the day after that).[40]We are mindful that it was not open to us to explore matters with the Complainant and therefore we had no opportunity to fully test the conflicting evidence given by the Complainant and the Appellant.[41]However, we note that the Complainant had stated, regarding the alleged touching incident, that in that moment she thought that the Appellant was just trying to joke with her and she didn’t think too much of this (albeit she was uncomfortable that it was her personal space).[42]This was a majority decision, but we found the Appellant’s evidence to be credible and sincere. We accept his evidence regarding the circumstances giving rise to the Complaint and we consider that there was nothing untoward about his intentions regarding those circumstances.[43]We also found the Appellant to be contrite and we consider that he has ‘learned his lesson’ following the Complaint and will alter his behaviours going forward.[44]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.[45]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.[46]We have therefore taken into account that, on the information before us, there have been no other complaints made against the Appellant (both prior to or after the Complaint) and the Appellant has no previous convictions or cautions.[47]In this case, whilst we understand the Registrar’s concerns about the Appellant’s behaviours in question, we consider that the Complaint is an isolated one, in respect of which the Appellant has given plausible explanations that those behaviours were innocently intended. On balance, we find that it would be disproportionate to remove his name from the Register as a result of the Complaint.[48]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.[49]We therefore allow the appeal and we order that the Appellant’s name be retained in the Register.[50]As we have noted, we consider that the Appellant has learned his lesson regarding the circumstances giving rise to the Complaint and he should ensure that he maintains appropriate levels of behaviour expected of an ADI going forward. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 6 August 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal