First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 378 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0751

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER

(TRANSPORT)

 

Heard by Cloud Video Platform

On: 24 March 2025

Decision given on: 31 March 2025

Before

 

JUDGE DAMIEN MCMAHON

SPECIALIST TRIBUNAL MEMBER SARAH BOOTH

SPECIALIST TRIBUNAL MEMBER GARY ROANTREE

 

 

Between

 

BRIAN TRISTAN GRIFFITHS

Appellant

-and-

 

REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr. P. Harvey.

For the Respondent: Mr. D. Russell.

 

 

Decision:                        The appeal is Dismissed. The Decision of the Respondent made    on 2 August 2024 is confirmed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

REASONS

1.    This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 24 March 2025 as directed by the GRC Legal Officer. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence. He was represented. Oral submissions were made by his representative. Oral evidence and submissions were given on behalf of the Respondent by its representative.

 

2.    The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 2 August 2024  to remove the Appellant's name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ('the Register'), pursuant to section 125(2)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ('the Act'), having taken account of representations made by the Appellant by email on 30 July 2024, on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to have his name entered onto the Register due to him having been convicted of two motoring offences - speeding on 27 September 2021 (dealt with by way of a Fixed Penalty Notice, receiving three penalty points) and driving a motor vehicle on 28 February 2024 while having no third party insurance (dealt with by a court conviction on 25 June 2024, receiving 6 penalty points and a fine of £660.00), making a total of 9 penalty points.

 

3.    The Appellant submitted an appeal on 29 August 2024 against the Respondent's said decision on the following grounds, in terms:

 

-     that he apologised for his lack of judgement and that it was not in his character to make such a 'mistake' [albeit he had made a similar 'mistake' twice];

 

-       that he had been experiencing a number of problems in his personal life for a number of years;

 

-       that when he had purchased a new vehicle, he was not asked about insurance by the dealer and assumed the dealer would have put temporary insurance in place;

 

-       that he was stopped by the police as he was driving the vehicle (with his young son in the vehicle) home from the dealer, the vehicle seized and his licence ultimately endorsed with 6 penalty points and a £660.00 fine, following conviction;

 

-       that he thought he was insured;

 

-       that the decision under appeal, if upheld, would lead to a loss of his livelihood and have huge family repercussions;

 

-       that he had notified the Respondent in advance of the decision under appeal being made and did not try to hide anything;

 

-       that he undertook described voluntary work and activity;

 

-       that he 'would not be caught out like this again when changing cars and wanted to stay on the Register;

 

4.    While all of this evidence, and every other piece of evidence and submissions, both written and oral from, and on behalf of the parties, was fully 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 before the Tribunal were not of sufficient persuasive value to do otherwise.

 

5.    In his said representations to the Respondent before it made the decision under appeal, the Appellant explained the circumstances of his being convicted of both offences; that he had been an ADI for 9 years, driving a manual car, having an above average pass rate and having received many recommendations and positive feedback; that the question of having no insurance was a 'genuine misunderstanding' and that he then had more than 20 pupils, many of whom had tests approaching.

 

6.    The Appellant, and his representative, following oral evidence and submissions made by the Respondent's representative, submitted that the references submitted indicated the Appellant's behaviour generally; that he had notified the Respondent in advance of the Decision under appeal being made of the 'No Insurance' conviction; that both convictions were mistakes and out of character. The Appellant agreed that he should have checked with the dealer concerning insurance'. He accepted that higher standards of driving and behaviour were expected of ADIs and accepted that government had increased penalties for motoring offences of this nature due to their contribution to a significant number of casualties.  He confirmed he had not spoken to his own insurers in advance of his planned purchase of the new vehicle and that the police did not give him an opportunity to arrange insurance on the roadside when they stopped him. The Appellant was somewhat unclear as to the circumstances of his conviction for 'No Insurance' and any additional costs such as a surcharge that may have been imposed on him when he could have argued 'special reasons' that his licence should not be endorsed with penalty points. The Appellant's representative submitted that when the Appellant went to collect the vehicle, he thought it would have been temporarily insured by the dealer. He submitted that while there was no excuse, there was nothing deliberate in the actions of the Appellant and he would not take a risk with his son.

 

7.    The Respondent's representative had no questions for the Appellant and had no further submissions to make.

 

8.    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.128(2)(e) of the Act by reason of his said convictions for motoring offences.

9.    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.

 

10. 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.

 

11. The Respondent, in its Response document, confirmed that the Appellant's name had first been entered onto the Register in August 2015 and would, therefore, ordinarily expire on 31 January 2028; that the Appellant had advised the Respondent on 8 April 2024 of the 'No Insurance' offence only but a search of the DVLA database showed both offences that had resulted to a total of 9 penalty points.  The Response document confirmed that representations had been made by the Appellant before the decision under appeal was issued (set out in paragraph 5), where he provided an explanation of the circumstances surrounding both offences. The Respondent refused the application by reason of those convictions and penalties finding that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the Register. The Respondent submitted that conditions for entry onto the Register extended beyond instructional ability and required an applicant to be a fit and proper person, taking account of his character, behaviour and standard of conduct, an ADI being expected to have higher standards of driving and character than those of an ordinary motorist; that driving instruction was a responsible and demanding task that should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety - something not displayed by the Appellant; that government had increased the penalties for motoring offences as they contribute to a significant number of casualties; that the Respondent could not condone motoring offences of this nature as, to do so, would, effectively, sanction such behaviour by someone, who by being on the Register, is allowed to provide driving tuition to others that  it would be offensive to other ADIs and aspiring ADIs who had been scrupulous in observing the law to ignore these motoring offences.

 

12. In his oral evidence and submissions, the Respondent's representative, confirmed the contents of the Respondent's Response document. He confirmed that the three penalty points for the first motoring offence of speeding no longer counted under 'totting-up', but, nevertheless, the Appellant had received a total of 9 penalty points. He emphasised that the 'No Insurance' conviction was critical. He submitted that the Appellant showed a lack of regard for motoring laws and that an ADI was held to higher standards of driving and behaviour than that of an ordinary motorist.

 

13. The Respondent's representative confirmed that representations had been invited from the Appellant in respect of both offences. He confirmed, too, that while the Appellant had notified DVSA on 8 April 2024, a routine check discovered the existence of both offences having been committed before notification. The representative that the Appellant's representations were more concerned with the 'No Insurance' conviction. He confirmed, too, that the Respondent will always consider character references, but pointed out that the decision under appeal was grounded not on the Appellant's personal character but on his commission of motoring offences.

 

14. The Appellant's representative had no questions for the Respondent's representative.

 

15. 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, indeed, be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.

 

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

17. 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.

 

18. 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.

 

19. The Tribunal had no hesitation in dismissing this appeal and found it proportionate to do so.

 

20. 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.

 

21. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.                                                                         

 

Signed: Damien McMahon,

              Tribunal Judge                                                     Date: 27 March 2025