LEWIS ATKINSAppellantTHE REGISTRAR OF APPROVEDRespondentDRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentDecision: The appeal is dismissed with immediate effect.REASONSDate 2026-08-21
Background to Appeal
[1]This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 23rd February 2026 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register, as he was no longer fit and proper to be on the same.[2]The Registrar’s reasons for refusal, in summary, were that the Appellant had accrued 6 points for using a mobile phone whilst driving a motor vehicle. The Registrar took the view the offending was serious and allowing his name to remain on the Register would undermine confidence in it, so determined the Appellant must be removed.[3]The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.
Appeal to the Tribunal
[4]Appeal to the Tribunal The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 22nd March 2026, indicates he dropped a student off at home and was driving to the next pupil when he heard a vibrating noise under his seat. He looked under the seat whilst stopped in traffic and found it was a phone belonging to another. He accepted answering the phone when it kept ringing. As the call was from “nan” and was being repeated the Appellant said he believed it was important and that was why he answered the call. He accepts the offence but maintains he would not have acted that way if a pupil had been in the car or whilst in motion.[5]The Appellant argues that the Registrar has not considered the human side of the potential position with calls coming to the phone from “Nan” and it could have been an emergency situation. The call was short lived. He indicated the fact that another person in a nearby car videoing him breaking the law as “abhorrent and…a form of bullying.”[6]He indicates if he loses his status he will have financial difficulties and this will impact upon his children who were at university.[7]Various Trustpilot reviews were provided indicated the Appellant was well thought of as an ADI.[8]The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the offence was serious,. Being responsible for teaching often young people came with particular responsibilities and abiding by the rules of the road was central to them. Here using a mobile phone could not be overlooked, and removal was appropriate. The Registrar must send out a clear message that such offending will not be tolerated.
Mode of Determination
[9]Mode of Determination The case was listed for oral hearing, and heard via the CVP system.[10]The Appellant attended and was unrepresented.[11]The Respondent was represented by Ahtiq Raja of the DVSA Appeals team.[12]The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 35 pages.
Evidence
[13]Evidence Mr Raja said the Respondent’s position was as per the Response. Mr Raja said in reaching the decision to remove there was a proportionate balancing act always undertaken considering the offence against the effect on the Appellant.[14]The Appellant said he had a few lessons on the relevant day. After finishing one lesson he heard a vibration which he initially thought was a speaker issue. He looked around in the car and found a phone that wasn’t his in the footwell. He left it until it kept ringing. On the screen it said Nan, and because of that thought it might be serious. He said on the 4th time of ringing whilst sat at traffic lights he picked up the phone and answered the call. It turned out to be the former pupil, and the Appellant agreed to return the phone as soon as he could. The call lasted about a minute. He said he continued the call after it started by putting it on the passenger seat. He said the call log showed it lasted 1 min 30 seconds, but the call wasn’t active for that long. He accepted the phone was in his hand long enough for the person that video recorded him had had the chance to see that he was on the phone, get their device and then to start recording him, but suggested the relevant person was ready and waiting to catch someone.[15]He said that a different pupil had sent him a copy of the video that showed him on the phone. The video was circulating publicly on the social media site TikTok.[16]He described having apple play in his car, but doesn’t use his phone or allow others during driving to use their phones.[17]He said that he had had no issues in 24/25 years and his driving record has been impeccable. He accepted that the act of answering the phone was wrong, but it was instinctive in the moment upon seeing the word “Nan” and the repeated calls.[18]If removed, financially he would be affected, being half way through the franchise term with BSM, and remaining liable for the franchise term payments, something like £5500 to pay. He said that he had a mortgage and kids, albeit they had finished university now. He said his son was going on to complete a Masters degree and the lack of registration would affect his ability to contribute towards his education. He pointed out that he obviously had other bills and the like and life would be difficult without his registration.[19]He accepted that with his driving licence he could find work, but he had worked hard to be an ADI and was good at it.[20]He said he felt harshly done by, as he had a good driving record and he asked for the benefit of the doubt.[21]The Appellant accepts that some offences are so serious that revocation is appropriate and the use of a mobile phone was one such offence. He asked that the Tribunal took a different view of this offending because he was acting in the best interests of what he honestly thought was an elderly lady potentially in trouble.
The Law
[22]The Law Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the Applicant to be and continue to be a “fit and proper person” to have his name on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors – see s. 125 (3) and s. 127 (3) (e) Road Traffic Act 1988 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/V/crossheading/registration .[23]The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. The burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory criteria rests with the Registrar.[24]In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 http:/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/808.html , the Court of Appeal described the “fit and proper person” condition thus: “..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. This is why there are stringent disclosure requirements”.[25]An appeal to this Tribunal against the Registrar’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing i.e. the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and take a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as is considered appropriate to the Registrar’s reasons See R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/31.html. Approved by the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2016] UKSC 60 at paragraph 45 – see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0126-judgment.pdf. as the Registrar is the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process.
Conclusion
[26]Conclusion The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.[27]Here the Appellant used a mobile phone whilst in traffic. It was a clear breach of the law and the Appellant accepts that. An instructor must know that such behaviour cannot be tolerated. His complaint that a third party video recorded him and may have received payment is irrelevant, as put simply he was caught committing a crime.[28]Allowing an instructor who has such an offence on their antecedents to remain on the Register sends out the wrong message. An instructor must be able to say to pupils you must not do this, without fear that the pupil could say, “well you did.” The hypocrisy of such a stance undermines the whole Register. The fact that this Appellant remains, it seems, on a public website breaking the law is of real concern.[29]In every fit and proper case the Tribunal has to balance the wrongdoing, its impact on the Register and to put that against the effect upon the Appellant. In some cases the wrongdoing, even as a one off, is so serious that revocation is entirely appropriate. There are classes of actions that might be felt to fall within that category, such as assaults upon pupils, outright dishonesty, serious motoring offences etc. The Tribunal notes that Parliament has over time increased the penalties for driving a motor vehicle and using a mobile phone, reflecting that such activity is viewed as being particularly dangerous. The Tribunal takes the view using a phone is particularly serious. The short lived notice of the event is noted, but all mobile offences tend to be. The severity of the offence is that it can only take a moment for a fatality to occur.[30]Having come to the view that the wrongdoing is serious and revocation was a possible sanction, as accepted by the Appellant, the Tribunal then reflects upon the effect of such a penalty on the Appellant. Here the Appellant suggests that it will have a serious impact upon him and his family. He argues that it was an isolated incident and one he has learnt from. Good character reference have been provided. The Tribunal notes he will not be unemployable as he has good driving skills.[31]The Tribunal gives careful attention to the seriousness of the offending and the consequences of revocation but comes to the view that the Registrar had no option but to remove the Appellant. There is always a balancing to take place but the Registrar must ensure that the public has faith in the Register and the only way to do so is to ensure that only those suitable to instruct are on it. To allow this Appellant to appear on the Register would be to condone this particular offending. The Tribunal comes to the clear view that revocation was entirely proportionate.[32]Looking at the circumstances here the Tribunal comes to the view that the Appellant is no longer fit and proper.[33]The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. HHJ David Dixon Gary Roantree Richard Fry Date: 13th August 2026