Neil Baldock v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1214 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 01214 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT/D/2026/0292

First-tier Tribunal

General Regulatory Chamber

Transport

Determined at an oral hearing

on 13 th August 2026

Decision given on:24 August 2026

Before

HHJ DAVID DIXON

GARY ROANTREE

Richard FRY

Between

NEIL BALDOCKAppellant

THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVEDRespondent

DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondent

Decision: The appeal is dismissed with immediate effect.

REASONS

Date 2026-08-24

Background to Appeal

[1]This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 18th 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 removal, in summary, were that the Appellant had sent messages that were deemed inappropriate. The Registrar took the view the inappropriate communication was serious and allowing the Appellant 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, undated, indicates he believes removal is too severe a sanction. He has never had any complaints, cautions or convictions. He has learnt that the messaging could result in misunderstandings and he will find training courses to deal with that type of behaviour.

[5]He argues a formal warning or similar is more appropriate as a punishment.

[6]In a formal reply he stated that certain aspects of the complainant’s account were simply untrue, and he indicated that the complainant was at times volatile to the degree he had to consider if a lesson should take place. He denied knowing all about her as she alleged. He denied hugging her or acting inappropriately towards her.

[7]The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that as a result of complaints the witness was interviewed and provided a statement. She said the Appellant had said she could pay for her lessons in ”other ways.” He took pictures of her whilst driving. He asked to meet up with her outside of lessons.

[8]The Appellant was given permission to add a further 15 pages of messages and 2 pages of personal information. Part of the information revealed the full exchange of note which reads:

“Appellant (A) – I will come and you can drive Tia (T) – but I haven’t paid for a lesson ?? A - Bhere are other ways (laughing emoji x2) T – What do you mean? T – What other ways? A – I am joking (laughing emoji) T - I’m so confused A – Don’t worry I will see when I am free.”

Tia (T) – but I haven’t paid for a lesson ?? A - Bhere are other ways (laughing emoji x2) T – What do you mean? T – What other ways? A – I am joking (laughing emoji) T - I’m so confused A – Don’t worry I will see when I am free.”

T - I’m so confused

[9]In a separate document he indicated that he had previously been a police officer and received commendations for his public service. He said he had worked with the police for a long time and had worked with young people in that role for many years.

Mode of Determination

[10]Mode of Determination The case was listed for oral hearing, and heard via the CVP system.

[11]The Appellant attended and was unrepresented.

[12]The Respondent was represented by Mr Raja of the DVSA Appeals team.

[13]The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 54 pages, plus additional materials provided by the Appellant subsequently.

Evidence

[14]Evidence Mr Raja said the Respondent’s position was as per the Response. He indicated that there were factual differences between the complainant account and the Appellant’s and it may be that a further review by the Registrar might assist.

[15]The Appellant indicated he wished the hearing to continue.

[16]The Tribunal took a short break and determined that there was sufficient material to proceed fairly and appropriately and continued accordingly.

[17]The Appellant said that there was never any inappropriate contact with her. There has never been any with any students. He said that at the first lesson he makes it clear to all students that there may be some contact if for example he had to grab the wheel to avoid a collision etc, but it was never any more than that.

[18]He said that as far as the communications were concerned with Tia he was not the best with technology, he didn’t like messaging services, and at 60 didn’t do the sort of checks that he believes younger people do. He accepted having re-read the messages that there were inappropriate and could imply a sexual intent. He was adamant that there was no such intent, but his lack of checking his messages and the lackadaisical way that he dealt with the same had put him in this position. His wife and children had explained to him that his messaging generally was inappropriate and that he should not be talking to students outside the scope of teaching.

[19]The Tribunal asked if the messages where he referred to going for a Burger King were flirtatious and he denied that they were or that they were sexually intended. He said he accepted with hindsight that they could be read that way now, but it was just a failure to express things properly. He accepted he should have known better but it simply wasn’t sinister.

[20]He said the “other ways” comment referred to him giving her lessons for free to help him improve his teaching whilst giving her extra tuition. He said that he had made a diary entry to confirm this position. He agreed that he hadn’t mentioned these free lessons initially and nothing in the text messages gave that impression. 21. He was asked about a message that he sent which seemed to suggest that he was teaching and messaging at the same time. He said this was just a way of trying to stop people messaging him, but was not actually what was happening, i.e. he would send the message from home, Costa Coffee or similar saying he was teaching to tell pupils he couldn’t talk to them. He was asked if it gave the impression he was teaching and texting and he agreed it did and accepted that was inappropriate. 22. It is worth noting that at the material time the Appellant was not formally teaching the complainant, she saying she couldn’t afford to continue at the moment. The suggestion made under such circumstances carried more concern. His continued contact was also of concern. Whilst he said it was always the complainant that initiated the conversations, he had continue to engage in a way that as unprofessional. 23. He was asked about some of the allegation made in Tia’s statement:a. He had never hugged her or anyone else, he had been hugged by students that had passed their tests but never the other way;

b. He had not photographed her in the car as she alleged;

c. He said that the suggestion she was scared of him didn’t fit with the way she communicated with him and indeed that the communication was said to have continued after the allegations were made. He suggested the statement or parts of it were fabricated as a result of her not being able to take a test when she wanted and holding him responsible for that. 24. The Appellant described that as a police officer he had seen a number of young people in conflict with their parents, as Tia seemed to be. He had stepped in many times as a former officer to divert young people to a better position. He said a lot of the contact with Tia was of that nature, him simply trying to help out a young woman in need. He denied anything improper was afoot. 25. He gave examples of her volatility and of how he had done things to assist her on different occasions. The Burger King “banter” came from one such situation where she said she hadn’t eaten, was not herself and he had very reluctantly agreed to have a burger with her to ensure she ate, and was then able to concentrate on her driving lesson.

The Law

[26]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 .

[27]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.

[28]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”.

[29]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

[30]Conclusion The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.

[31]Here the Appellant has communicated with what the Appellant acknowledges was a vulnerable young woman. He has said in plain language that she can pay for lessons in other ways. The clear implication was a sexual motivation. The Appellant accepts potential interpretation but seeks to explain that wasn’t the position. The Tribunal had the gravest concerns that this simply was the Appellant seeking sexual gratification. The Appellant’s stance simply didn’t fit with the text messages (including emojis, that he explained he didn’t really understand) nor the lack of explanation/response to the complainant at the time. The Tribunal finds on the balance of probabilities, on the evidence that it heard, that there was a sexual motivation. The Appellant’s account simply did not stand up to scrutiny. The idea that a former officer, with specialist training, could believe that such a comment was appropriate is nonsensical.

[32]If the Tribunal is wrong about the sexual motivation, the simple fact that the Appellant (with his years of experience) communicated in such a way, and has been told by his wife and children that his communication with students is inappropriate, raises simple issues of unprofessional conduct that would render him unfit. Communicating with former students is one thing, where a shared interest in football is being discussed for example, but asking about partners, offering drives and burgers is crossing a line from acceptable to inappropriate teacher/student relationships.

[33]Further to that, in terms of character generally his lies to students indicating he was teaching when he wasn’t, that created the false impression that he was teaching and texting was again a failing on the Appellant’s behalf. Giving the impression that you can use a mobile phone in a car whilst you are in partial control is simply wrong and of course unlawful.

[34]The Tribunal gave anxious consideration to the allegations made by Tia, but as it hadn’t heard from her, and therefore been able to assess her personally, it felt restricted in making findings of fact against the Appellant. He asserted certain factual differences with her position, and indeed some aspects of the chronology at face value had issues, such that the Tribunal noted the allegations but placed no weight on them in terms of this decision.

[35]Allowing an instructor who has behaved as the Appellant has towards Tia to remain on the Register sends out the wrong message. ADIs have the responsibility to ensure that young and vulnerable people are safe and learn to drive. They are not to be put in a position where conduct towards them makes them feel at least confused if not scared. Allowing the Appellant to remain on the Register would send out all the wrong signals.

[36]The Tribunal bears in mind that the Appellant says he has learnt from this episode and has adapted his behaviour and indeed his language. However, this is not enough in the scheme of the behaviour noted.

[37]In every fit and proper case the Tribunal has to balance the wrongdoing against the effect of the consequences 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. This is one such case.

[38]Having come to the view that the wrongdoing is serious and revocation was necessary the Tribunal then steps back and 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.

[39]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. 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. The Appellant is not so suitable. To allow the Appellant to appear on the Register would be to condone the behaviour.

[40]Looking at the circumstances here the Tribunal comes to the view that the Appellant is no longer fit and proper.

[41]The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. HHJ David Dixon Gary Roantree Richard Fry Date: 13th August 2026