Anthony Powell v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction:

1. The Tribunal dismisses the appeal. The decision of the Registrar dated 29 July 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors is upheld. REASONS FOR DECISION Background:

2. The Appellant has been an Approved Driving Instructor since June 2018. Under section 125(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 , ADIs must undergo a test of continued ability and fitness when required by the Registrar. Although the statute requires only one test, the Registrar’s policy allows three attempts.

3. The Appellant failed three consecutive standards checks and was previously removed, though successfully appealed in case D/2023/0562 and was reinstated with further opportunities.

4. Following reinstatement, the Appellant was offered three further dates for a new standards check: 26 September 2024, 9 December 2024, and 11 March 2025. The first two were cancelled by him, and he failed to attend the third without explanation.

5. The Appellant's representations focused on an ongoing leg condition, lack of recent teaching time, and a request for more time. Chronology:

6. - June 2018: Entered on ADI register - January 2021: Standards Check 1 – fail - March 2023: Standards Check 2 – fail - 2023: Standards Check 3 – fail; removal; successful appeal (case 0562) - July 2024: New test required - September 2024: Cancelled by Appellant - December 2024: Cancelled; no evidence supplied - 11 March 2025: Non-attendance without contact - 2 May 2025: Invitation for representations - 29 May 2025: Appellant's representations - 29 July 2025: Registrar removes name The Law:

7. Section 123 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it unlawful to instruct for payment unless registered. Section 125(5) empowers the Registrar to require standards checks to assess continued ability and fitness. Section 128(6) allows removal if the Registrar is no longer satisfied as to ability or fitness.

8. The Registrar’s function is protective in nature, directed at road safety and consumer protection. The Tribunal’s task is to determine whether the Registrar’s decision was reasonable and supported by evidence. Issues:

9. Whether the Registrar was entitled to reach his conclusion; whether medical circumstances justified postponement; whether opportunities afforded were fair; and whether the decision was proportionate. Findings:

10. The Appellant failed three statutory tests and then failed to attend a further opportunity without explanation. The Registrar provided opportunities beyond statutory requirements.

11. No medical evidence was provided for cancellations. No material evidence was produced at the hearing before this Tribunal. In all the circumstances the Tribunal finds the Registrar was entitled to conclude that the Appellant had not demonstrated fitness to instruct.

12. The decision was rational, fair, and proportionate, having regard to road safety and consumer protection. a. The purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licenses is to afford applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavoring to achieve registration. The system of issuing licenses is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration. b. The licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. determination of his appeal. Conclusion:

13. The appeal is dismissed. The Registrar’s decision of 29 July 2025 is confirmed. Right to appeal:

14. The Parties can appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days. Brian Kennedy KC. 20 January 2026.