Duncan Henry v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Preliminary matters

1. References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of T he Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. In this decision, we use the following terms to denote the meanings shown: ADIs: Approved Driving Instructors (those whose name appear on the Register) - and “ADI” means an Approved Driving Instructor. Appellant: Duncan Henry. Application: The Appellant’s application to the Registrar for the grant of a Licence. Licence: A licence issued under section 129 to give paid instruction in the driving of a motor car. Register: The Register of Approved Driving Instructors maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Registrar: The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Respondent). Registrar’s Decision: The decision of the Registrar, by way of letter to the Appellant dated 6 June 2025, to refuse the Application . Introduction - background to the appeal

3. This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

4. The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision were, in summary, that the Appellant had accrued penalty points for two motoring offences – namely, a fixed penalty of three penalty points on 21 December 2023 for speeding and a conviction on 29 April 2025 for speeding resulting in three penalty points - and accordingly the Registrar considered that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to become an ADI. The appeal The grounds of appeal

5. The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision, arguing that the Registrar’s conclusion that he was not a fit and proper person was not transparent or objectively justified. The Appellant’s appeal relied, in summary, on the grounds that: a. There was a lack of clear criteria regarding what was meant by “fit and proper” and so he could not meaningfully address the Registrar’s concerns. b. Other applicants had been granted a Licence despite comparable driving offences, so there was inconsistent treatment which had not been clearly explained. c. He was not prosecuted for the second speeding offence referred to; rather he opted to plead guilty but had not understood that doing so would still result in a conviction. d. The second speeding offence was “that of a very low speed” and his wider driving history was clean and “demonstrates safe, responsible conduct”. The Registrar’s case

6. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s Statement of Case maintained that the Appellant’s driving licence being endorsed with six penalty points cannot be ignored and that the second speeding offence was committed whilst progressing though the qualification process. The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a Licence. Mode of hearing

7. The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel, the Appellant and Mr Russell (on behalf of the Registrar) joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. There were no interruptions of note during the hearing. The evidence and submission

8. The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle of evidence and pleadings.

9. We heard oral submissions from Mr Russell on behalf of the Registrar and from the Appellant .

10. All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant legal principles

11. Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor’s name is entered in the Register, or they are the holder of a current Licence.

12. Conditions for the grant of a Licence include that a person is, and continues to be, a “fit and proper person” pursuant to section 129(2)(b), which refers to the requirements in section 125(3)(e).

13. The Registrar may therefore refuse to issue a Licence under section 129(2) if the Registrar considers that the person applying for a Licence is not a “fit and proper person”.

14. The requirement to be a “fit and proper person” is not simply that the person is a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor, but that they are a fit and proper person to become an ADI (meaning that their name will be entered in the Register). Accordingly, the requirement to be a “fit and proper person” extends beyond instructional ability alone and, in assessing whether someone is a “fit and proper person”, account has to be taken of their 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.

15. The entry of a person’s name on the Register carries with it an ‘official seal of approval’ and consequently maintenance of public confidence in the Register is important. The Registrar therefore has the duty of ensuring that ADIs are ‘fit and proper’ persons to have their names entered in the Register. As part of that, the Registrar exercises functions of scrutiny and that is why there are stringent disclosure requirements expected of ADIs and those wishing to become an ADI.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Some of the factors in the preceding paragraph can also be relevant in cases involving motoring offences. The role and powers of the Tribunal

19. An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and take a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

20. The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the grant or refusal of the Application, as it thinks fit.

21. However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for him to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

22. Where the Tribunal makes an order for the refusal of the Application, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply for a Licence for a period of up to four years. Discussion and findings

23. As we have noted, the Registrar has the duty of ensuring that those who wish to have Licence are ‘fit and proper’ persons to do so. Part of this is ensuring that those who wish to be granted a Licence understand their responsibilities and can show that they not only know the rules but follow them.

24. In this case, the Appellant explained that he had also previously been an ADI. He confirmed that he was aware that accruing 5 or 6 points on his driving licence could preclude him from being granted a Licence. However, the Appellant considered that the system was opaque and that there was no consistency or clear threshold in that regard. He expressed frustration about the application process, having tried to obtain clarification on this point from PADI before he continued with the Application. As we mentioned during the hearing, though, each case is dependent on its facts (including peoples’ personal circumstances).

25. The Appellant stated during the hearing that he had been on a speed awareness course, linked to an earlier speeding transgression (in addition to the two offences we have referred to).

26. Accordingly, the Appellant was aware of the high standards required of ADIs, having previously been an ADI and having been notified of the required standards in connection with the Application. He also has attended a speed awareness course but nevertheless has since been guilty of two speeding offences. The fact that the Appellant was convicted, rather than accepting a fixed penalty, for the second speeding offence we referred to is immaterial to our decision.

27. The Appellant stated during the hearing that, in effect, he had learned from the experience of his speeding offences and had made deliberate changes to improve his driving. We are not persuaded by those arguments. We consider that someone who has previously been an ADI and was in the process of seeking a Licence, after already attending a speed awareness course, should already have been fully aware of the need to comply with speed limits and the high standards expected of those seeking to instruct others. In other words, if the Appellant had not already ‘learnt his lesson’ from two previous speeding transgressions and still committed a further speeding offence then we consider that this is a matter of concern.

28. The Appellant explained the circumstances of his latest speeding offence. We don’t reiterate them here but, in summary, due to pressures connected with his work, the Appellant stated that he got “frustrated” and “distracted”, resulting in him driving at 36 mph in a 30 mph zone. Again, we find that to be indicative of someone who has not ‘learnt their lesson’ despite the earlier speed awareness course and the previous speeding offence. We also consider it an aggravating factor that, as the Registrar pointed out, this speeding offence was committed whilst the Appellant was progressing though the ADI qualification process.

29. The Registrar cited statistics of injuries and deaths relating to driving offences. The Registrar considered that he could not condone motoring offences such as those which the Appellant had been found guilty of. The Registrar’s view was that allowing the Appellant to have a Licence could undermine the public’s confidence in the ADI registration system. They added that it would be unfair to other applicants who had been scrupulous in observing the law to allow the Appellant to have a Licence.

30. We consider those arguments of the Registrar to have some force in the circumstances of this appeal. We do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances which would justify allowing the Appellant to hold a Licence.

31. For all of the reasons we have given, we find that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person to be granted a Licence. On balance, taking into account all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s Decision was correct.

32. We therefore dismiss the appeal and we order that the Application is refused. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 17 December 2025 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal