Zeeshan Ali v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 217 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 00217 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Hearing Heard on: 3 December 2025Date 17 February 2026
Transport
Appeal Reference: FT/D/2025/0674/FPP
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLANTRIBUNAL MEMBER RICHARD FRYTRIBUNAL MEMBER DR PHEBE MANNHeard by way of remote hearing using Cloud Video Platform
Between
zeeshan aliAppellantREGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentDecision: The appeal is REFUSED

DECISION AND REASONS

[1]The proceedings were held using CVP. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing this way.[2]The hearing was conducted by a Judge and two Tribunal Members in Chambers.[3]In section 10 of his completed Notice of Appeal, the Appellant ticked a box to indicate that he wanted his appeal to be decided with a hearing. Accordingly, a remote oral hearing was arranged for 10.00 a.m. on 3 December 2025. At the scheduled time, the Appellant had not joined the hearing and the clerk to the Tribunal confirmed that there did not appear to have been any attempts to join. The clerk also informed the Tribunal the Appellant had not left any message with the Tribunal staff either to explain his absence or to request an adjournment. The Tribunal allowed a further ten minutes beyond the scheduled time for the remote oral hearing to accommodate any delay on the part of the Appellant in gaining access to the hearing.[4]The Tribunal, in Chambers, then gave consideration as to whether an adjournment of the remote oral hearing was appropriate. We were satisfied that the Appellant had received notification of the date, time, and mode of hearing by the office of the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) of the First-tier Tribunal in line with the relevant procedural rules. Having considered the overriding objective, we were satisfied that it was appropriate to proceed in the Appellant’s absence[5]The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors was represented by Mr Russell after he had been invited to join the remote oral hearing.

General Background

[6]The appeal is against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (ADIs) that the Appellant could not satisfy the statutory requirement to be a “fit and proper person”, with the result that the application for a licence enabling him to give instruction, paid for, by or in respect of the pupil, in driving motor cars was refused under s.125(3)(e) and 129(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 [“the Act”]. The burden of proving that an Appellant is not a fit and proper person is on the Registrar.[7]Conditions for entry or retention on the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant be a fit and proper person. As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s 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.[8]Given that many pupils are just 17 years of age and the scheme as a whole relies upon the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs, it is clear that substantial trust will be placed in ADIs by pupils, parents, other ADIs and road users, the public and the Agency. It is the Registrar’s function to ensure that the persons whose names appear in the Register are worthy of that trust and are fit and proper persons to have their names entered therein.[9]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 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.[10]Additionally, in cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the Register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence 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. Indeed, it would be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.[11]In the Registrar’s Statement of Case, he points out that registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is ‘Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor’, [“ADI”]. Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct. In view of this, he expressed concern that the good name of the Register would be tarnished and the public’s confidence undermined if it was generally known that he had allowed the Appellant’s name to be re-entered on the Register when he had been convicted of an offence. He added that it would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law to ignore this offence. The Registrar’s approach was approved by the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (2010 EWCA Civ 808), in which Richards LJ said:- “….. 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. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.”[12]Applicants to become driving instructors are notified that the DVSA is entitled to ask for information about spent convictions and as a result they lose the protection provided by s.4(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This arises in consequence of paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 as amended which states that “none of the provisions of s.4(2) of the Act shall apply in relation to … any question asked … in order to assess the suitability … of the person to whom the question relates for any office or employment specified in Part II of the said Schedule 1 … where the person questioned is informed at the time the question is asked that, by virtue of this Order, spent convictions are to be disclosed”. Paragraph 14 of Part II of Schedule 1 states that “offices, employment and work” include “any work which is work in a regulated position” and by Part IV of Schedule 1 “regulated position” is “a position which is a regulated position for the purposes of Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000”. Paragraph 36(c) of Part II of the latter Act provides that “the regulated positions for the purposes of this Part are … a position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children”; and by paragraph 42 of Part II “child” means a person under the age of 18. Since driving instructors may teach pupils aged 17 (or 16 if disabled) it follows that the DVSA is entitled to take spent convictions into account.

Factual background

[13]The background to this appeal is that the Appellant’s name, as at the date of the decision under appeal, was not then, and up until then, on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.[14]On 27 May 2025, the Appellant submitted an application for a licence under Section 129 of the Act for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars.[15]In the application, the Appellant was asked whether he had been convicted or cautioned for any motoring or non-motoring offences, and, in clear terms, ticked a box to answer ‘no’.[16]In his Statement of Case, the Registrar has stated:
‘A routine check of the DVLA Swansea database to confirm this statement provided me with an undeclared conviction for breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle, such as using a mobile phone, on the 19 April 2024 resulting in his driving licence endorsed with 6 penalty points. He failed to notify me of his conviction within 7 days which is a clear breach of the declaration he made on his application to commence the qualification process submitted on-line on the 15 December 2023. Regrettably, I am unable to provide a copy of the application but provide the standard declaration contained at the end of the application process.’
[17]By way of email correspondence dated 28 May 2025, the Registrar gave the Appellant notice that he, the Registrar, was considering the refusal of the application for a licence to give instruction on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in it. The Registrar invited the Appellant to make representations to the Registrar within 14 days which the Registrar submitted would be taken into consideration by the Registrar before reaching a decision.[18]In email correspondence dated 29 May 2025, the Appellant made representations. Those representations are set out in more detail below.[19]In the Statement of Case, the Registrar has stated that he carefully considered these representations and added:
‘… whilst I am empathetic to his personal circumstances, by his own admittance he was holding a mobile phone whilst in control of the vehicle. I cannot ignore the fact that his driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points which he failed to declare to me compounded by the fact he made a false declaration on his application.’
[20]The Appellant was notified of the Registrar's decision on 11 June 2025.[21]A notice of appeal against the decision of the Registrar dated was subsequently received in the office of the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) of the First-tier Tribunal. The submissions of the parties The Registrar

The submissions of the parties

[22]At the remote oral hearing, Mr Russell appeared on behalf of the Registrar. He outlined the Registrar’s case, summarising the background to the Registrar’s decision to revoke the Appellant’s to give instruction. That background was set out in more detail in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Statement of Case. Mr Russell also summarised the reasons for the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. These were:(a) The appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having been convicted of the offence of breach of the requirements as to control of the vehicle such as using a mobile phone. He failed to notify me of this offence within 7 days, furthermore he made a false declaration on his application. The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. As such, account is taken of a person's character, behaviour and standard of conduct Anyone who is an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. In committing this offence, I do not believe that the appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that I would expect to see from a potential ADI.(b) The Government increased the payment levels for serious road safety offences such as speeding, the requirement to control a vehicle (including mobile phone use), passing red traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and wearing a seatbelt. These offences contribute to a significant number of casualties. For example, in 2020 excessive speed contributed to 219 deaths, 1,674 serious injuries and 4,666 minor injuries, using a mobile phone contributed to 17 deaths, 119 serious injuries and 308 minor injuries; and careless driving, reckless, or in a hurry contributed to 204 deaths, 3, 487 serious injuries and 11,126 minor injuries.(c) As an officer of the Secretary of State charged with compiling and maintaining the register on his behalf, I do not consider that I can condone motoring offences of this nature. To do so would effectively sanction such behaviour, if those who transgress were allowed a licence to teach others.(d) To allow the appellant a licence would be unfair to others who had been scrupulous in observing the law and could undermine the public's confidence in the registration system.’ The Appellant The written representations

The Appellant

[23]In the written representations forwarded to the office of the Registrar, the Appellant made the following submissions:
‘First of all I whole heartedly apologise for this confusion or misunderstanding on my side. What I believed was your department do have full access to my driving records and you are aware of the penalty points of my licence. As we lives in tech world and everything is almost computerised and available online for law and civil authorities. Here is my explanation. This offence happened on 9th June 2023 afternoon time. I was putting my phone on charging which was held in magnetic cradle and my phone was bearly alive less than 10%. I was on a t junction at … (junction with …) my car was stationary but engine was running. The police car spotted me. they ask me to stop and I followed up by stopping on safe road side parking a few yards away making sure I'm not blocked any road user. The police officer came up to me and asked me were I using my phone which I said I was putting it on charging it is almost dead and I was waiting for an imported call my sister had sudden upper chest pain issue and she was in hospital. (I will explain below why I was scared) I was on my way to home and I didn't want my phone die in case to receive any call from my sister. They gave me the ticket and advice me not to use phone while driving which I totally acknowledged but my circumstances were different. Basically I was emotionally very much damaged asl lost my father and my uncle and my sister all 3 within 20 days in 2020 because of covid and most recently lost my mother on 17th may2023 (23 days before the mobile phone offence). see attached her death certificate She died because of heart attack followed by unsuccessful open heart surgery. This was a big emotional damage to me and it took me a good few months to settle with reality. Now my sister was in hospital with pain in chest issue and I was really scared like what's gonna happen kinda feeling. I decided to go to court and explain my situation although the Judge did show a great level of sympathy with me but she said it is not in her hand to do any changes to the outcome. And I accepted the 6 penalty point and a £40 fine which I paid right away. I can provide you the death certificate or my mother and father and sister and uncle (my father brother) . I would also like to further explain. I applied for my DBS aprox date September 2023 and I received my PRN on 18th December 2023 while the conviction date by court was 19th Feb 2024 (see letter attached almost 2 months after I received MY PRN. Below is the breakdown of date of offence and removal date. Offence date: 9th June 2023. Conviction date: 19th Feb 2024 Points expiry date: 9 June 2026. Points removal date: 9 June 2027. And further more my adi part 1 expiry date is 1st may 2026. By God if I knew my this points gonna make it harder to get my PADI badge I would not be spending the big money on my this new source of bread and butter I would have waited until they come off. So far I have spend almost 6000£ for lessons and I already bought the car and daul controls (see attachment). if I knew I would not be risking my hard earned money I have saved this in last 2 years .it's a misunderstanding rather than dishonesty . I would also say I'm a struggling single father of twin daughters age 9 their mother was abusive and court has granted me full time custody they are living with me since 26 August 2020. I have attached screen shot of court decision but I can not disclose the names or other details about my children I'm currently a hgv class one driver and I finds it very difficult for me to spend time with my fast growing daughter as hgv jobs are least 12 hours per shift per day. This is main reason I'm switching to teach driving because I will have more flexibility and I can spend more time with my children. I will request you please consider my driving record which has been absolutely clean these are the only penalty point I ever received in last 10 years. I consider myself a good taw abiding driver not only for sake of law but for my own and other road user's safety. And again I says this was a misunderstanding on my side I failed to declare this on my pink badge application form because I wrongly assumed your department have the full access to my driving record. Please accept my pardon for this. Me and my daughters will be grateful to you if you grant me this badge as they are aware of my training and they keep asking dad when will you be able to pick us up from school (atm nursery picks them bcoz of my work as truck driver). Finally I will say what ever I have stated above is best of my knowledge and I forgot to declare my driving offence not because of dishonest but misunderstanding on my side. I have attached the share code my driving licence I can also provide you the death certificate of my deceased beloveds and I can provide you the court order which make me sole custodian of my daughters. Please consider my circumstances and thank you for reading this long email. If there is anything more you need which can further assist my application please ask me I wit be more than happy to assist.’

The grounds of appeal

[24]In section 9 of the Notice of Appeal, the section which asks about the outcome which the Appellant is seeking from his appeal, the Appellant stated the following:
‘I wish court to look in my details and make a decision considering my explanation such it was a genuine human error rather than dishonesty and allow me to have pink PADI badge. Thanks’
[25]In his completed Notice of Appeal, the Appellant set out the following grounds of appeal:
‘My PADI pink badge was refused as I forgot to mention my driving conviction which came after I received my DBS. The DVSA has failed to address a genuine human error. I have explained to them I had completely forgotten. It was an unintentional human error. I have clean record and never been dishonest. I have spent over £7000.00 of my savings for this badge. I see no reason not to tell them about my conviction but I had forgotten in my pink badge form.’

Analysis

[26]We have reminded ourselves of the benchmarks which are expected of PDIs and ADIs, their character, behaviour, general standards of conduct including as drivers themselves, the requirement to have standards of driving above that of the ordinary motorist and the need for ADIs to promote high standards of driving while instructing their pupils and to ensure public safety. To repeat what was stated at paragraph 6 above:
‘6. 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 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.’
[27]We cannot ignore that the offence is a serious one and we have noted the statistics on road safety which the Registrar has set out in paragraph 6(c) of his Statement of Case. We have also noted the Registrar’s assertion that he did ‘… not believe that the appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that I would expect to see from a potential ADI.’[28]Further, the Registrar highlighted his role and function in compiling and maintaining the Register and the unfairness to others who had been scrupulous in observing the law and the potential undermining the public’s confidence in the Register. We have significant concerns about the messages which conduct of this nature would send out to learners and novice drivers and the standards expected of them and others, such as the Appellant, seeking to aspire to become an ADI.[29]We have also observed that the Appellant failed to notify the Registrar of the offence within 7 days, which was a clear breach of the declaration which he had made on his application, dated 27 May 2025, to have his name entered in the Register.[30]The Appellant has stated in both his written representations to the Registrar that he had assumed that the office of the Registrar would have access to his driving records and, as such, misunderstood his requirement to notify the Registrar of the offence in line with the regulatory requirements. We are of the view that the Appellant was not entitled to make such assumptions. At the very least, and following his conviction, he should have contacted the office of the Registrar to clarify what the disclosure requirements were and then comply with them. More significantly, the question which the Appellant was asked to answer on the application for a licence under Section 129 of the Act for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars was in the plain terms. As noted above, the question whether he had been convicted or cautioned for any motoring or non-motoring offences, and, in clear terms, ticked a box to answer ‘no’. In doing so, he knew that this answer was incorrect. Once again, he could and should have contacted the office of the Registrar to clarify what the disclosure requirements were.[31]The grounds of appeal, as set out in the Notice of Appeal, are predicated on what the Appellant has mistakenly assumed are the primary reasons for the refusal of the licence application. He has asserted that the main reason was that he had failed to declare the conviction, thereby ignoring the offence itself and its context for the professional requirement to satisfy the ‘fit and proper person’ requirement.[32]The Appellant has asserted that the battery levels on his mobile telephone were ‘critically’ low and that he was waiting for a telephone call from his sister who was in hospital. In those circumstances, and while we empathise with the Appellant’s concern for his sister’s welfare, we find it difficult to understand why he had not checked the battery levels earlier in his journey and/or made use of an ancillary power ‘bank.’ At the very least, he could have found a safe place to park, as he did when stopped by the police, to reattach his telephone in a lawful manner.[33]Given all of that, the argument for the revocation of the Appellant’s licence is a powerful one.[34]Against that, we are required to consider the other factors which the Appellant has raised in mitigation. Until the recent offence, the Appellant had a clean driving record. We have noted that the Appellant has had difficult family circumstances including bereavement during the Covid crisis and in the period before the offence was committed. We have already noted that on the day of the offence he was anxious about his sister’s health. It is natural that all of that would have, as he has submitted, an effect on his emotional well-being. He has also made submissions in connection with his immediate family and the fact that he now has full-time custody of his daughters after court proceedings and his desire to have a career as a professional ADI which would be more conducive to family life as an alternative to his present work as a HGV driver. He has also signalled the significant financial outlay which he has made in pursuit of ADI registration. We have observed that the Appellant went to court to argue his case and has stated that while sympathy was expressed by the judge for his situation, she confirmed the endorsement of his licence. We have expressed parallel empathy but have determined, on balance, that the appeal must be refused.[35]We are asked to determine whether the Appellant has failed the statutory test to be a fit and proper person, and accordingly, that the decision to refuse his application for a licence under Section 129 of the Act for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars should be upheld. On balance, we find that the Appellant has failed that test and that the Registrar’s decision is correct.

Disposal

[36]For the reasons which are set out above, the appeal is REFUSED. Kenneth Mullan Judge of the Upper Tribunal 11 February 2026