Aishah Mohamed v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 352 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 00352 (GRC)

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Hearing Heard on: 3 December 2025

Date 12 March 2026

Transport

Appeal Reference: FT/D/2025/0679/FPP

Before

TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLAN

TRIBUNAL MEMBER RICHARD FRY

TRIBUNAL MEMBER DR PHEBE MANN

Heard by way of remote hearing using Cloud Video Platform

Between

AISHAH MOHAMEDAppellant

REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondent

Decision: 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]The Appellant participated in the remote oral hearing. The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors was represented by Mr Heard.

Post hearing

[4]As will be noted in more detail below, the decision under appeal to the Tribunal is a decision of the Respondent dated 6 June 2005 in which the Respondent decided:

‘The Registrar has considered the representations made in your email received on the 29th May 2025 but, has now decided that your name should be removed on the grounds that under Section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 you have ceased to be a fit and proper person to have your name entered in the Register. In accordance with Section 128(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I now give you formal notice of the Registrar’s decision. He came to this conclusion because of the following: • Conviction dated 6 May 2025 for breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle (includes mobile phone offences that carry a mandatory 6 penalty points) (CU8O) on 5 November 2024 resulting in 6 penalty points.’

[5]As will be noted in more detail below, in her written representations to the Registrar, the Appellant made the following submission: ‘My student … confirms that I remained focused throughout the lesson and did not use my phone at any point. The timestamped messages in the chat (last message at 14:13) and the Itemised phone bill (attached) confirm no call, text, or message activity during the lesson. The police dashcam footage also supports this.

[6]The emphasis here is our own.

[7]Prior to the remote oral hearing Tribunal Member Fry noted the Appellant’s submission and observed that there was no police dashcam footage in the electronic bundle which had been forwarded to the Tribunal Members. Accordingly, he asked a clerk in the office of the General regulatory Chamber (GRC) whether the relevant evidence was available. The reply was that it was not available.

[8]During the remote oral hearing, the Appellant and Mr Heard were asked about the relevant dashcam footage and its source.

[9]Mr Heard indicated that the office of the Respondent had ‘no knowledge whatsoever’ about the source of the dashcam footage and that it had not been received in the office. He observed that the evidence was a matter for the police and the courts.

[10]The Appellant stated that she had received a copy of the dashcam footage in a digital format as part of the papers for the court case. She had received the papers by email. She stated that she would search for the dashcam footage in her emails and would forward this to the office of the GRC when she had uncovered it.

[11]Accordingly, the Tribunal agreed to issue the following Case Management Direction (CMD) after the conclusion of the remote oral hearing: DIRECTION This CMD is to be issued by the office of the GRC at the earliest opportunity. Within SEVEN DAYS of the issue of this CMD, the Appellant is to confirm to the office of the GRC whether she has uncovered the relevant police dashcam footage, and, if so, she is to forward it to the office. She may make representations about the content of the footage and its relevance to the issues arising in the appeal. If the Appellant has not uncovered the relevant police dashcam footage, then she should confirm this to the office within the period noted above. On receipt of a reply to from the Appellant, the office of the GRC is to forward same to the office of the Respondent who may have a period of SEVEN DAYS to forward a reply. All replies must be forward to the Tribunal Members on their receipt.

[12]The CMD was issued on 10 December 2025.

[13]The following reply was received in the office of the GRC on 10 December 2025: ‘Good evening, I have attached the link requested, however the video on the link is no longer available. Please see link below for your reference. https://mps.box.com/s/tk8yk6rz2gakuheezlbzontkqsy4mxj0 Kind regards, Aishah Mohamed

[14]The response was shared with the office of the Registrar. An attempt to access the link came up with the following Response:

‘This shared file or folder link has been removed or is unavailable to you.’

General Background

[15]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 that the Appellant’s name was removed from the Register under s. 128(2)(e) 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.

[16]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.

[17]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.

[18]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.

[19]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.

[20]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.”

[21]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

[22]The background to this appeal is that the Appellant’s name, in the Register in May 2023 and, in the normal course of events, her certificate of registration will expire on the last day of May 2027.

[23]On 7 May 2025, the Registrar received an email from the Appellant stating:

‘I am writing to inform you that I have recently received six penalty points on my driver's licence for an offence related to handling a phone while driving. I am truly sorry for my actions and accept full responsibility. This has been a valuable lesson and I assure you that it will never happen again.’

[24]In his Statement of Case, the Registrar has stated that his office obtained a copy of the DVLA printout to confirm the details which were:

‘On the 06 May 2025 the appellant was convicted of breach requirements as to control of the vehicle (includes mobile phone offences) resulting in her driving licence endorsed with 6 penalty points. The offence (was) committed on the 05 November 2024.’

In the light of this conviction, I considered that the appellant was not a fit and proper person to have her name retained in the register.’

[25]By way of email correspondence dated 8 May 2025, the Registrar gave the Appellant notice that he, the Registrar, was considering removing her name from the Register on the grounds that she had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in it. The Registrar invited the Appellant to make representations to the Registrar within 28 days which the Registrar submitted would be taken into consideration by the Registrar before reaching a decision.

[26]In email correspondence dated 29 May 2025, the Appellant made representations. Those representations are set out in more detail below.

[27]In the Statement of Case, the Registrar has stated that he carefully considered these representations and added:

‘… whilst I am empathetic to her personal circumstances,this does not excuse her from using her mobile phone whilst supervising a learner driver. She states several times in her representations that she was not using her phone, yet the information documented by the police officer in the notice of financial penalty is damning and contradicts the explanation offered by the appellant and her pupil. In the circumstances, I cannot ignore the fact that the appellant's licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having been convicted for breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle (includes mobile phone offences). I consider that she cannot fulfil Section 128 (1) (e) that she ceased, apart from fulfilment of any of the preceding conditions to be a fit and proper person to have her name Included in tile register.’

[28]The Appellant was notified of the Registrar's decision on 6 June 2025.

[29]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

[30]At the remote oral hearing, Mr Heard 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 Heard 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 (includes mobile phone offences). 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 202 deaths, 1,300 serious injuries and 1386 minor injuries, using a mobile phone contributed to 17 deaths, 92 serious injuries and 97 minor injuries; and careless driving, reckless, or in a hurry contributed to 193 deaths, 2842 serious injuries and 3062 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) It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, for me to ignore this recent relevant conviction..’ The Appellant The written representations

The Appellant

[31]In the written representations forwarded to the office of the Registrar, the Appellant made the following submissions:• . The Appellant notes that she has have been on the ADI Register ‘for around 3 years and worked hard to gain the qualification by passing the various tests, a job which I enjoy’.

• . She asks the Registrar to ‘take her case on its merits’ and recognises that ‘… as a driving instructor it is important to demonstrate a high regard for all aspects of road safety and therefore cannot excuse myself for the offence’.

• . She has always tried to maintain high standards and encourage her students to ‘… adopt safe driving for life … by complying with the law.’

• . She is remorseful and regretful for her lack of judgment and has learnt from her mistake.

• . She has a ‘passion’ for her career, is an active and supportive member of her community and other driving instructors. She offers advice and shares recommendations, is dedicated to continued professional development and has taken courses. She is a good instructor as evidenced by her overall pass rate of 50% which is ‘well’ above the national average of 47%.

• . She has many referrals from nervous drivers and students with learning difficulties. She takes great pride in her work.

• . She states ‘I do not dispute the facts and have nothing but remorse and regret for these actions. I am ashamed of having let down myself and my profession in this way. The grounds are no dispute with the findings but rather that the events on which they are based do not give a true reflection of my professionalism, ethics and my respect for my work.’

• . She set out the following personal mitigating circumstances: ◦ At the time, I was under significant stress due to my daughter's medical condition, which required urgent attention. ◦ I also care for my mother, a widowed cancer patient, and I attend all her appointments. ◦ Being an ADI gives me the flexibility to meet these responsivities, something I could not do in my previous job as a teacher. ◦ This offence is my first and only driving conviction in over 12 years of driving. and I have always upheld high professional standards.

• . She asserts that she was holding her mobile phone while supervising a pupil during her driving lesson.

• . At the court ◦ Her driving licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points ◦ She was fined £153 and paid courts costs of £85 and a surcharge of £61

• . She accepts ‘… full responsibility for the action’.

• . She was waiting for an urgent call from the GP in relation to her daughter’s medical condition (severe rash and fever). She only had the phone in her hand for the purpose of the call and did not make or receive any calls or send or receive messages. She attached evidence from her WhatsApp account, an itemised phone bill, a summary of call records and a witness statement from her pupil. The police dashcam footage also supported this.

• . She has never been banned from driving and has not been convicted of a serious criminal offence.

• . She provided a detailed description of her daughter’s medical condition together with photographs of her symptoms. Despite her daughter’s worsening condition, she felt that she had a professional obligation to continue with her pre-booked lessons. She had childcare arrangements with the child’s grandmother but could not rely on the grandmother to communicate with the GP surgery.

• . She provided a detailed description of her mother’s medical condition and treatment, stating that she was actively involved with her care and recovery, including attending all hospital appointments, assisting with post-surgical recovery and activities and coordinating treatment logistics with clinical teams. Her role is vital as her siblings live several hours away and are unable to provide regular support. Her role as a self-employed ADI gives her flexibility and autonomy to balance work commitments with her caring responsibilities.

• . She has introduced measures to ensure the incident does not happen again, including placing her phone in the glovebox during lessons, enabling "Do Not Disturb While Driving" mode, nominating her husband as a secondary contact for medical emergencies. and booked CPD workshops to further educate herself on mobile phone legislation and improve her professional standards in this area.

• . She had notified the Registrar within the seven-day requirement. She set out her views on the proper approach to be taken in the application of the ‘fit and proper person’ test.

• . The Appellant submitted that she was wholly committed to the profession. She had abided by the rules and ‘… not (painted) a misleading picture of the circumstances.’ She enjoyed working with people and helping them to become independent by passing their driving test.

• . She summarised and attached character references from students and family members attesting to the Appellant's professionalism, dedication, and responsible behaviour. She also provided testimonials from students praising her teaching style, patience, and commitment to road safety.

• . The Appellant explains the significant personal and professional impact of losing her ADI registration, including the inability to care for her mother and daughter due to the loss of flexibility in her work schedule.

• . She stresses the devastating consequences of losing her career.

• . The Appellant requests the Registrar to consider her mitigating circumstances, professional integrity, and the steps she has taken to prevent future incidents.

• . She argues that the incident does not reflect her overall character or professionalism.

• . She asserts that she knows of other ADIs and driving examiners who have had their licences endorsed for the same reasons and who remain on the Register or are still carrying out driving examinations.

[32]Attached to the written representations were the supporting items of documentary evidence referred to above, a Driving Test Data Report and, importantly, the Notice of Financial Penalty from the Magistrates’ Court.

The grounds of appeal

[33]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: ‘Accept my appeal and continue working as an Approved Driving Instructor for DVSA.

[34]In her completed Notice of Appeal, the Appellant set out the following grounds of appeal:

‘I respectfully feel that the reason given in the decision letter does not fairly reflect the strength and clarity of the evidence I provided in my appeal. I presented detailed and compelling information surrounding the day of the incident, along with a thorough explanation of the ongoing consequences it has had on both my professional and personal life. The decision letter, however, offered no meaningful insight into the rationale behind the refusal, nor did it dearly explain why my name will potentially be removed from the driving instructors’ register. This lack of transparency has left me feeling disheartened, especially given the level of dedication, passion, and integrity I have consistently shown throughout my career. I sincerely ask that my appeal be reconsidered, with full attention given to the evidence already submitted, which outlines not only my professional commitment but also the significant personal impact this decision has caused. I am more than willing to provide any additional documents or further explanation to support my case, should it be needed. Thank you for taking the time to review my request with compassion and fairness.’

The remote oral hearing

[35]At the remote oral hearing, the Appellant gave evidence and made submissions which were parallel to those set out in her written representations to the Registrar and in her Notice of Appeal.

The Notice of Financial Penalty from the Magistrates’ Court

[36]The Notice of Financial Penalty from the Magistrates’ Court contains details of the offence and the penalties imposed and includes the following statement:

‘On 05/11/2024 at … in the Borough of … drove a motor vehicle, namely … index … on a road, namely … when you were using a hand-held device, other than a two-way radio, which was capable of transmitting and receiving data, whether or not those capabilities were enabled, namely the device was being held in their right hand/s to the front, in front of themselves. The driving instructor was so engrossed with his mobile phone head down it gave me time to stop my vehicle and exit the car in the middle of the road to see her still holding her phone with the screen illuminated. Contrary to regulation 110(1) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, section 410 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.’

[37]The Notice of Financial Penalty from the Magistrates’ Court was supplied by the Appellant with her written representations to the Registrar. We are wholly satisfied that turns on the use by the police officer of the word ‘his’ in the written narrative.

Analysis

[38]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.’

[39]We cannot ignore that the offence is a serious one, evidenced in the penalties imposed by the court, and we have noted the statistics on road safety which the Registrar has set out in paragraph 6(c) of his Statement of Case 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.

[40]The offence took place while the Appellant was supervising a pupil during her driving lesson. We return to the context of that circumstance below. For the moment, we observe this failure to adhere to the proper standards while conducting driving instruction provides a poor example to a student having the potential to lead to an assumption that it is also possible to disregard safety standards while driving.

[41]We have also noted that while the Registrar was empathetic to the mitigating circumstances set out by the Appellant in her detailed written representations and her Notice of Appeal, he could not ignore that the Appellant’s assertions as to what was happening in connection with her mobile telephone when she was observed by the police officer were wholly contradicted by the evidence of that police office as set out in Notice of Financial Penalty. We return to that issue below.

[42]Given all of that, the argument for the revocation of the Appellant’s licence is a powerful one. We address below the Appellant’s submission that the Registrar’s decision was inadequate in its reasoning.

[43]We turn to the case for the Appellant.

[44]We begin with the Appellant’s stated commitment to her profession and her career, her dedication to the highest professional standards and conduct, the provision of appropriate example to her pupils her morse and regret at what had happened and an assurance to learning from her mistake.

[45]We observe that the Appellant has been on the Register as an ADI since May 2023, a period of two years before the commission of the offence which gave rise to the Registrar’s decision. It is evident to us that the commission of a serious driving offence within such a short period of registration is not reflective of the Appellant’s asserted dedication to the highest possible standards and conduct.

[46]We are also of the view that the Appellant fails to comprehend the meaning of the term ‘fit and proper person’ in the context of the relevant legislation. This is represented by her attitude to the serious driving offence which occurred and the omission to adhere to the enhanced standards of driving and conduct which are expected of professional ADIs. In this regard, the Register’s submission is that it would be offensive and cause unfairness to others who had been scrupulous in observing the law and the potential undermining the public’s confidence in the Register. There are many ADIs who have a lengthy professional career without committing driving offences or otherwise coming to the attention of the Registrar.

[47]We have found it telling that the Appellant has set out a narrative concerning what was happening in connection with her holding her mobile telephone at the relevant time when, as was noted above, that narrative is wholly inconsistent with the evidence of the police officer, as set out in the Notice of Financial Penalty, who witnessed what the Appellant was the Appellant was doing at the time of the commission of the offence. The evidence of the police officer was not challenged by the Appellant in court and, further, the Appellant has not deviated from her own personal account before the Registrar and before the Tribunal. We have observed that the Appellant has provided documentary evidence in connection with her mobile telephone accounts but so far as is necessary, we accept and prefer the evidence of the police officer.

[48]Having heard from and seen the Appellant, we have found her evidence to display a degree of vehemence that was inconsistent with the remining evidence which is before us and was reflective of an indifferent attitude. In our view, this renders her own evidence to be unreliable. We have noted the statement within her written representations that had abided by the rules and ‘… not (painted) a misleading picture of the circumstances.’ It is clear to us that the submitted picture by the Appellant of the circumstances i.e. what was happening at the time of the incident, was misleading. We have observed that in her written observations that the Appellant has stated that ‘I do not dispute the facts … The grounds are no dispute with the findings.’ That the Appellant is disputing the findings in her strict adherence to her narrative which, she claimed would be corroborated by the dashcam footage and, as we have already observed, is wholly contrary to the police officer’s evidence.

[49]At the remote oral hearing, the Appellant asserted that there was dashcam footage which supported her own submissions as to what was happening at the relevant time. We have dealt with the issue of the dashcam footage at paragraphs 4 to 14 above and say no more about it.

[50]We cannot ignore that the offence was committed while the Appellant was supervising a pupil during a driving lesson. In this regard it is telling that in her written representations to the Registrar, the Appellant submitted that she ‘has always tried to maintain high standards and encourage her students to ‘… adopt safe driving for life … by complying with the law’.

[51]Even if we accept that the Appellant was doing nothing more than holding her mobile telephone, while anticipating a call from her family or GP in connection with her daughter’s medical condition, we observed that this behaviour, in itself, amounts to a failure to adhere to the proper standards while conducting driving instruction and provides a poor example to a student having the potential to lead to an assumption that it is also possible to disregard safety standards while driving. In these circumstances, there was always the possibility that the Appellant would answer the anticipated telephone call, if same had been made, thereby transgressing further the relevant standards of driving supervision.

[52]Further, while it is axiomatic that we empathise with the Appellant’s concerns about her daughter and what was described as her deteriorating medical condition, we cannot ignore that she chose to continue with conduct of the particular driving lesson (and, perhaps, others). It occurs to us that she could have made alternative arrangements, as she asserts that she has introduced as part of the learning process, for the care of her daughter or for another family member to be available to take a message from the GP and act upon it. The Appellant has asserted that she did proceed with the driving lesson(s) as she did not want to inconvenience her pupil(s), but it occurs to us that any pupil would be understanding about any cancellation or curtailment of the lesson(s). We also observe that there are forms of technology which negate the requirement to be holding a mobile telephone in order to be alerted to the receipt of a call and given that Appellant’s submissions that she needs has caring responsibilities for her daughter and her mother (which we don’t doubt), we wonder why she has not introduced such technology to her own working environment.

[53]The Appellant has submitted that she has learned from her experience and has introduced new working practices to ensure that there is no repetition of the circumstances giving rise to the offence. As noted above, these include placing her phone in the glovebox during lessons, enabling "Do Not Disturb While Driving" mode, nominating her husband as a secondary contact for medical emergencies. and booked CPD workshops to further educate herself on mobile phone legislation and improve her professional standards in this area. We observe that these ‘new’ arrangements represent nothing more than what a professional ADI would introduce at the start and would review throughout their working career.

[54]The same principles apply to the statement, introduced by the Appellant as part of her mitigating circumstances, that she notified the Registrar of the offence within the relevant time period. That is a professional obligation for any ADI. So too is the basic necessity to adhere to the requirements of the law.

[55]As part of the process of weighing the factors in this case, we have considered the character references from students and family members attesting to the appellant's professionalism, dedication, and responsible behaviour, the testimonials from students praising her teaching style, patience, and commitment to road safety and her Driving Testa Data Report.

[56]The Appellant has explained the significant personal and professional impact of losing her ADI registration, including the inability to care for her mother and daughter due to the loss of flexibility in her work schedule. She has stressed the devastating consequences of losing her career. We do not doubt the Appellant’s personal circumstances but we are, however, obliged to(a) determine the issues in dispute; by

(b) an accurate application of the relevant law; to

(d) a procedure that satisfies general standards of fairness. If the consequences of the dismissal of her appeal, is as is described by the Appellant, then that is unfortunate.

[57]We turn to the Appellant’s submission that knows of other ADIs and driving examiners who have had their licences endorsed for the same reasons and who remain on the Register or are still carrying out driving examinations. Our response is that each case turns its own individual facts and circumstances and a decision in one discrete case cannot bind the Registrar and cannot bind this Tribunal.

[58]The Appellant has asserted that the content of the decision letter is inadequate to explain to her how and why the Registrar has decided that her name will be removed from the Register. Having considered the decision-making process undertaken by the Registrar and the submissions made by him in connection with the appeal, we are satisfied that, read as a whole, the Registrar provides an explanation of the basis on which he arrived at his conclusions on the issues before him.

[59]We are asked to determine, on the balance of probability, whether the Appellant has failed the statutory test to be a fit and proper person, and accordingly, that the decision to remove her name from the Register under section 128(e) of the Act should be upheld. On balance, we find that the Appellant has failed that test and that the Registrar’s decision is correct.

Disposal

[60]For the reasons which are set out above, the appeal is REFUSED. Kenneth Mullan Judge of the Upper Tribunal 5 March 2026