Qodsia Heydari v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1210 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 01210 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT.D.2026.0098

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Hearing Heard on: 21 July 2026

Date 21 August 2026

Transport

Heard by Cloud Video Platform

Before

JUDGE MCMAHON

JUDGE ARNELL

MEMBER ROANTREE

Between

QoDSIA HEYDARIAppellant

REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondent

Appeared in person. for Appellant

Mr Andrew Heard for Respondent

Decision: The Tribunal determines, by a majority, that the appeal is Allowed.

REASONS

Background

[1]This is an appeal against a Decision of the Respondent of 29 December 2025 to remove the Appellant from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”). The ground for the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had received six penalty points for a motoring offence. Accordingly, the Respondent considered the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”).

[2]The Appellant was first entered on the Register in March 2025. The Respondent received a notification from the DVLA that, on 15 August 2025 the Appellant was issued with a fixed penalty notice, which she accepted, for an offence of (CU80) breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle, such as using a mobile phone contrary to section 41D of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

[3]The Respondent wrote to the Appellant on 28 November 2025 to give notice that he was considering removing her name from the Register. The Appellant made Representations on 07 December 2025.

[4]On 29 December 2025, the Respondent notified the Appellant that he had concluded the Appellant’s name should be removed from the Register but that this would not take immediate effect.

[5]The hearing was conducted by Cloud Video Platform. All parties joined remotely. The Tribunal decided it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

The legal framework

[6]The legal framework References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of The Road Traffic Act 1988.

[7]Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of paid instruction in the driving of a motor car unless the name of the person giving instruction is entered in the Register, or they are the holder of a current licence issued under section 129.

[8]Entry and retention in the Register is subject to conditions. Most relevant in this appeal is the requirement for a person to be, and to continue to be, a “fit and proper person” pursuant to sections 125(3)(e) and 127(3)(e). The Respondent may therefore remove a person’s name from the Register pursuant to section 128(2)(e) if they have ceased to be a “fit and proper person”.

[9]The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). When making its decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Respondent and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions.

[10]The Respondent has the burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

[11]In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

[2010] EWCA Civ 808

at paragraph 30, the Court of Appeal described the “fit and proper person” condition as follows:

“..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…It seems to me that 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.”

The appeal

[12]The appeal The Appellant challenged the Respondent’s decision and submitted she remained a fit and proper person to remain on the Register. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal within her Notice of Appeal can be broadly summarised as follows:a. the commission of the offence was an isolated incident which occurred in unusual circumstances and her professional and personal conduct is otherwise unblemished;

b. receiving six penalty points for a single incident does not on its own demonstrate she is no longer a fit and proper person and removing her name from the Register is disproportionate;

c. although her first thought was the safety of her student and other road users, she recognises her lapse in judgement and understands how she could have reacted to the situation differently;

d. she has taken steps to ensure equipment cannot malfunction in a similar way going forward and she does not pose an ongoing risk; and

e. she is a single parent who has previously experienced domestic abuse and removal from the Register would have a big impact on her personally and financially.

[13]The Respondent provided a Response statement resisting the appeal. In summary he submitted:a. offences such as the one the Appellant committed present a significant risk to road users;

b. the use of Sat Nav devices is common practice and ADIs should have the knowledge and skill to manage such devices in a safe and legal way. ADIs are expected to develop their students’ skills in the use of such devices and committing the offence within the course of a lesson falls well short of the standard expected;

c. the assessment as to whether someone is a fit and proper person extends beyond instructional ability alone, ADIs are expected to demonstrate exemplary driving standards at all times and the Appellant has not demonstrated the level of commitment to road safety that would be expected; and

d. they are responsible for maintaining the Register and cannot condone motoring offences of this nature as it would effectively sanction such behaviour. It would be offensive to ADIs and those trying to qualify as ADIs if they ignored such offences.

The evidence

[14]Oral evidence and submissions were received from both parties.

[15]The Respondent provided a Bundle containing 42 numbered pages. All of the written and oral evidence and submissions of both parties was considered by the Tribunal.

Discussions and conclusions

[16]Discussions and conclusions In reaching our decision we have undertaken a proportionality assessment. The Respondent is required to maintain the integrity of the Register to protect the public and driving instruction pupils from ADIs who do not meet the statutory requirements and to maintain public confidence in the Register. As in the Appellant’s case, this includes removing from the Register, the names of those whom the Respondent assesses to have ceased to be ‘fit and proper’ persons. Removal of the name of an ADI from the Register is not mandatory and in determining whether to exercise their statutory powers to do so, the Respondent, and the Tribunal on appeal, must have due regard to any relevant circumstances or considerations.

[17]ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The Respondent has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing have their names entered onto or remain on the Register. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of motoring, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. A substantial level of trust is placed in ADIs by pupils, parents and the public in general. If an ADI who has not demonstrated a keen regard for road safety and compliance with the law is permitted to remain on the Register this may diminish the standing of the Register and public confidence in it.

[18]The Tribunal attached significant weight to the Respondent’s view as the expert regulator. At the hearing Mr Heard, on behalf of the Respondent, confirmed that five points on an ADI’s licence is considered to be the tipping point at which the Respondent needs to consider whether a person remains fit and proper to remain on the Register. The Respondent considers the fact that the offence took place during the course of a lesson to be a serious aggravating feature, as an ADI is supposed to demonstrate appropriate behaviour to students. We accept this submission.

[19]The Tribunal also accepts that safeguarding the integrity of the Register is of great importance and that the commission of motoring offences should not generally be seen to be condoned.

[20]When asked, Mr Heard agreed that the offence could be committed by adjusting or restabilising a device and did not seek to suggest that the Appellant had been using the device in any other way. He submitted however that the key point from the ADI’s code of practice is that if you need to do anything with equipment, you must do it parked in a safe and legal place. We accept that on this occasion the Appellant’s conduct fell short of what should be reasonably expected of an ADI.

[21]At the hearing the Appellant expanded on her evidence regarding the circumstances of the incident, the resulting interaction with the Police and her acceptance of the fixed penalty notice. The Respondent did not challenge the Appellant’s account and there is no evidence before us to undermine it. We found the Appellant’s evidence to be consistent and credible and accept her account. In summary we make the following findings from the Appellant’s evidence:a. at the relevant time the Appellant was with a student, in a dual control vehicle, on their way to a test centre on a road unfamiliar to the Appellant and the student;

b. the student was panicked by a lorry and reacted in a way which caused the vehicle to jolt, dislodging the Sat Nav from its position on the dashboard resulting in it falling into the Appellant’s footwell. The Appellant had equipment to secure the Sat Nav and the Appellant could not remember it malfunctioning before;

c. the Appellant panicked and was concerned that: the Sat Nav would go underneath the pedals; and that without the Sat Nav she would be unable to direct the student to the test centre;

d. the Appellant told the pupil to pull over at the next safe space but as they were on a dual carriageway, very close to the test centre, she did not specify where to pull over and did not know if there would be anywhere to pull over;

e. whilst the vehicle was still moving, the Appellant bent down to pick up the Sat Nav (and a mobile phone which had at the same time fallen out of the centre console where it was returned upon picking it up) then proceeded to reposition it on the dashboard. As the Appellant was doing this a police vehicle drove alongside them and directed the Appellant to stop;

f. at the roadside the Appellant said to the officer that she was “setting up” the Sat Nav. This was incorrect and she actually meant restabilising it leading to a misunderstanding between her and the officer. The Appellant was panicked and did not clarify this with the officer at the time;

g. the Appellant intended to contest the fixed penalty notice but was confused by the system and inadvertently accepted it. When she sought to withdraw her acceptance she was advised it was too late. This point is not accepted by the minority for the reasons explained within the minority view at paragraph 27; and

h. the Appellant’s student went on to pass their driving test that day.

[22]English is not the Appellant’s first language, and as a majority we find the explanation as to the misunderstanding between herself and the officer to be plausible. There has been no evidence before us to undermine the Appellant’s assertion that she is a person of good character. As a majority we therefore also accept the Appellant’s submissions that she did not seek to clarify or challenge this with the officer at the side of the road as she froze and was panicked. This we conclude is a totally plausible reaction.

[23]Although not raised within the Respondent’s Response statement, at the hearing Mr Heard submitted that the Appellant’s conduct was aggravated by a failure to report the offence to the Respondent within the required time frame. The Tribunal notes with concern that the Appellant did not report the offence to the Respondent. ADIs are expected to be familiar with and comply with the regulatory regime at all times and we have attached appropriate weight to this omission.

[24]The Tribunal accepts that offences of this nature are serious as reflected by the statutory endorsement of 6 penalty points. Whilst it is a factor which carries significant weight in favour of a finding that an ADI has ceased to be a fit and proper person, there is no rule that stipulates that the Respondent must remove an ADI upon that person accruing six penalty points. On this occasion, based on the account accepted above, whilst we stop short of going behind the conviction, as a majority we find that there was significant mitigation for the Appellant’s actions and that if this had been put to the officer at the side of the road or if the Appellant had challenged the fixed penalty notice it is possible there may have been a different outcome. Whilst the incident will have undoubtedly had an impact on the Appellant’s student and as above we have accepted this is an aggravating feature, as a majority we consider the Appellant erroneously considered her actions to be in the interests of safety.

[25]The Appellant was, at all material times, a newly qualified ADI. Dependant on circumstances this may be a factor which weighs on either side of an assessment of a person’s suitability to have their name remain on the Register. The Appellant accepted that she panicked due to inexperience and her actions fell short of what was required. The Tribunal was impressed with the Appellant’s honesty and apparent self-reflection. On this occasion as a majority we find that the Appellant’s relative inexperience to be a mitigating factor. We give weight to the fact that the Appellant was driving on unfamiliar roads and reacting to a situation she had not encountered previously. The Appellant has since taken steps to ensure all equipment is fully stable thus reducing the risk of further incidents in the future. The Appellant is more experienced now and as a majority we do not find that the Appellant presents an ongoing risk to students or the wider public.

[26]As a majority we concludes that, having proper regard to the specific circumstances, the commission of this offence was an isolated incident which arose through relative inexperience and human error. We do not consider public confidence in the Register would be undermined if the Appellant’s name were to remain on it. Whilst ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists we do not consider there is a public expectation of infallibility. Further the Appellant is the sole income earner for her family and as a majority we consider that to deprive the Appellant from continuing to pursue her career as an ADI in these specific circumstances would have a disproportionate impact on her and her family.

[27]The minority would have dismissed the appeal. On considering all of the evidence before the minority concludes, as accepted by the Tribunal as a whole, that ADIs are held to a higher standard and must lead by example when teaching as to how handle any situation which may arise safely and keeping at all times within the law. The minority found that the Appellant’s actions had not demonstrated the expected standard and whilst acknowledging that the consequences of removal are draconian, considered removal from the Register to be the appropriate outcome. The minority also noted with concern that the Appellant also holding a mobile phone at the time of the incident was not raised by the Appellant until her oral evidence. Further the minority did not accept the Appellant’s account of mistakenly accepting the fixed penalty notice when intending to dispute it and concluded that had this occurred due to confusion and/or lack of IT skill, contact should have been made with the central ticket office. Finally, whilst accepting the Appellant made attempts to obtain one, the minority gave weight to the fact the Appellant did not provide a statement from the student in the vehicle at the time of the offence.

[28]Therefore, whilst this was a finely balanced decision, for the reasons given above the majority view of the Tribunal concludes that the Appellant has not ceased to be a ‘fit and proper’ person and on balance find it would be disproportionate to remove her name from the Register. We therefore allow the appeal and order that the Appellant’s name be retained on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

[29]The Appellant should note that our decision in this appeal is an exceptional one arising from the balancing of the specific circumstances around the commission of this single offence. The Appellant should endeavour to demonstrate exemplary conduct going forward, as it is highly unlikely any Tribunal would conclude it would be appropriate for her to remain on the Register should she commit further offences. Signed Judge Arnell Date: 16 August 2026