[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Rasoly v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 319 (GRC) (13 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/319.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 319 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER
(TRANSPORT)

		Heard by Cloud Video Platform On: 24 February 2024
		Decision Given On: 13 March 2025

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. The Decision of the Respondent made on 7 March 2024 is confirmed.

REASONS

1. This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 25 February 2025 as directed by the GRC Registrar. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence. Oral submissions were made by the Appellant's solicitor.
2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 7 March 2024 to refuse the Appellant's application to have his name entered onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ('the Register'), on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to have his name entered onto the Register, pursuant to s.125(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ('the Act'), due to him having been convicted of a motoring offence on 8 January 2024 for an offence committed on 17 August 2023, namely, a failure to give information as to the identity of a driver, etc., for which he received an endorsement on his driving licence of 6 penalty points and a fine of £660.00.
3. The Appellant submitted an appeal on 13 August 2024, against the Respondent's said decision on the following grounds, in terms:

- that he had informed the Magistrates' Court on 22 March 2024 that he had been the victim of identity fraud on numerous occasions;

• that the 'offending vehicle' was not, and had never been, owned by him;

• that he had asked the Magistrates' Court to address this matter by him making a Statutory Declaration but that this had been refused by the police.

4. The Tribunal had been furnished with an email dated 14 June 2024 from the Magistrates' Court to the Appellant asking the Appellant whether he wished to apply to re-open the case and noting that the prosecution was not minded to withdraw the matter.
5. The Tribunal was also furnished with an email dated 25 March 2024 from Essex police (where the facts giving rise to the said motoring offence had occurred) to the Magistrates' Court noting that while the letter from Warwickshire police did refer to the allegation of identity fraud, it made no reference to that being investigated or confirmed and, further, was in relation to a different vehicle than that in which the matters in Essex, giving rise to the said conviction of the Appellant for the said motoring offence; that, at present, they were 'not minded' to a re-opening and withdrawal of the said conviction, but that it was open to the Appellant to request that the case be re-opened or that a Statutory Declaration process be invoked or that the Appellant provide further information to allow the matter to be reviewed.
6. Finally, the Tribunal was also furnished with a letter dated 12 December 2023 from Warwickshire police to the Appellant's solicitor, sent by the solicitor to the Magistrates' Court, that stated that 3 Notices concerning a vehicle, Reg. No. WN06GUU, had been cancelled due to staffing shortages and that no further action was required by the police, but expressing regret that the Appellant had been a victim of identity fraud. (The alleged offences, giving rise to the said conviction of the Appellant did not, of course, arise in Warwickshire, but in Essex. The said email dated 25 March 2024 from Essex Police weighed heavily, from a probative perspective, with the Tribunal in determining this appeal).
7. The Appellant's solicitor had sent a so-called 'hearing bundle' to GRC on Saturday, 22 February 2025. This appeal was heard and determined by the Tribunal on 24 February 2025. This said 'hearing bundle' from the Appellant's solicitor was not sent to me until Wednesday, 26 February 2025. It was not sent to my two Tribunal colleagues. The Appellant's solicitor made no reference to this 'hearing bundle' in the course of the hearing. The 'hearing bundle' did contain some additional documentation from Warwickshire Police and other sources, referring to the issue of alleged identity fraud. Since this 'hearing bundle' was not before the Tribunal upon the hearing of this appeal, it did not, and could not, play any part in the Tribunal's determination of this appeal.
8. While all of this evidence, and every other piece of evidence and submissions, both written and oral from, and on behalf of the parties, save the so-called 'hearing bundle' sent to GRC by the Appellant's solicitor on Saturday, 22 February 2025 in respect of the hearing of this appeal on Monday, 24 February 2025 at 10.00, was considered by the Tribunal, it did not alter the Tribunal's decision to dismiss this appeal as the written and oral evidence and submissions that were actually before the Tribunal were not of sufficient persuasive value to do otherwise.
9. The Appellant made representations on 8 and 13 February 2024. These were taken into account by the Respondent prior to the decision under appeal being made by it.
10. In his said representations, the Appellant stated he had lost his driving licence and that someone had been using it for 'this illegal driving'.
11. The basis of the Respondent's decision was that the Appellant did not fulfil the
    criteria to be a 'fit and proper person', as required by s.125(3)(e) of the Act by reason of his conviction for the said motoring offence.
    
12. Conditions require that an applicant for entry onto the Register (the Appellant in this case) to be a 'fit and proper person'. This requires account to be taken of an applicant's character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including convictions, and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate.
13. In oral submissions, the Appellant's solicitor stated that the Appellant did not own, and had never owed the 'offending vehicle' but that the Magistrates' Court had refused to grant a Statutory Declaration. The Appellant confirmed in oral evidence that he had never owned the 'offending vehicle'.
14. The Appellant's representative, in response to queries from the Tribunal, stated that the Appellant only became aware of the issue when he applied to have his name entered onto the Register. The Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, declined to accept this evidence since the Appellant was shown on DVLA records to have been the keeper of the vehicle and he had never responded to correspondence asking him to identify the driver. His solicitor stated that no attempts had been made to rectify the conviction as he, the Appellant, had been in hospital and had a disabled child. He accepted the Appellant did not react as he should have done. He stated

that he had 'spoken to someone on the phone' and that, depending on the outcome of the instant appeal to the Tribunal, he would go back to the Magistrates' Court. The Appellant's solicitor repeated that a Statutory Declaration had been requested but was not done.

15. The Appellant confirmed he had nothing further to add but that the decision under appeal was affecting his life, referring again to his disabled child, and that he had not been convicted of any other motoring offence in 20 years.
16. The Appellant's solicitor confirmed that the said conviction had not been appealed to the Crown Court [the forum in which to appeal a criminal conviction] due to the considerable expense involved.
17. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent's decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent's reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Respondent's decision-making process.
18. The Respondent, in its Response dated 26 November 2024, referred to the fact of the motoring offence committed by the Appellant as a result of which it found the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to be entered onto the Register; that an ADI was expected to have higher standards of driving and behaviour than those expected of an ordinary motorist; that driving instruction was a responsible and demanding task, something that was not shown by the Appellant's commission of the said offence; that the Appellant's behaviour leading to the said conviction could not be condoned as., to do so, would effectively, sanction such behaviour; that the consequences of the commission of an offence of this nature contributed to a significant number of road traffic casualties and that it was offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, to ignore the motoring offence committed by the Appellant.
19. As a matter of law, the standing of the Respondent could be substantially diminished, and the public's confidence undermined, if it were known that a person whose name was included in the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours or been convicted in relation to an offence, substantially material to the question of fitness. This can be in respect of behaviour pertaining to motoring matters and other matters of responsibility, trustworthiness and prudence; 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. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving
    Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 confirmed that -
    

"..... 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 Approved Driving Instructor. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements."

21. In reaching the Decision, the Tribunal took into account all of the evidence and submissions received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.
22. The Tribunal must bear in mind the significant importance which attaches to the integrity of the Register. For the public to have trust in it, the Respondent must act in a way that encourages belief that those on it have high standards. Allowing those who do not meet those standards would undermine the trust placed in it with serious consequences for those who do maintain the necessary high standards. These are matters of wider, and public interest, which attract significant weight even where, as in this case, being refused entry onto the Register, potentially may have significant consequences for the Appellant.
23. The Tribunal particularly considered the question of whether it was proportionate to dismiss this appeal. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal concluded that, in view of the gravity of the particular said motoring offence, dictated that refusal to enter the Appellant's name onto the ADI Register was entirely proportionate in all the circumstances.
24. Taking all these factors into account and, noting that the Tribunal needs to maintain public trust in the Register and to prioritise consumer protection over the interests of the Appellant as an individual driving instructor, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant, at the time of this appeal, was not a fit and proper person to have his name entered onto the Register.
25. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Signed: Damien McMahon,

Tribunal Judge

Date: 11 March 2025