Nicholas Skaliotis v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 7 March 2024 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Register”). The decision was taken on the grounds that the Appellant had failed to pass the test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction to continue as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). The Registrar directed that the decision would not take immediate effect.

2. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The Appellant joined by telephone and confirmed that he could clearly hear the proceedings. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The Appeal

3. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 18 March 2024 relies on the grounds that: (a) The Registrar has decided to remove his name from the Register due to the DVSA being inflexible over appointment times for people with childcare responsibilities. (b) The Appellant is a lone parent with two children. The DVSA allotted 3 January 2023 [sic] for the standards test, which was during school holidays. The Appellant did not have childcare cover and could not afford to employ someone for the day. (c) Evidence was supplied to DVSA for school term time. It was clearly ignored by the person in charge of booking. (d) The Appellant wishes to attend and pass the standards test at a mutually agreed time, after 11am and during school term time.

4. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 25 July 2024 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that: (a) On two occasions the Appellant failed to reach the required standard in tests of continued ability and fitness to give instruction. On a third occasion, the Appellant failed to make himself available with no explanation on 3 January 2024. (b) The Registrar considered that the Appellant had been given adequate opportunity to pass the test but failed to do so. In the interests of road safety and consumer protection the Registrar felt obliged to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register. The Appellant had failed to satisfy the Registrar that their ability to give driving instruction was of a satisfactory standard. The Law

5. Entry of a person’s name in the Register is subject to the conditions set out in section 125(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ the Act ”). Under section 128 of the Act the Registrar may remove the name of a person from the Register if satisfied that they do not fulfil the relevant conditions. One of those conditions, at section 128(2) (d), is that they have failed to pass a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction. Under section 125(5) (a)(i), a person whose name is in the Register must submit to a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction in the driving of motor cars, if required at any time to do so by the Registrar.

6. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act . The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit ( section 131(3) ). The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions (in accordance with R. (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 ). The Evidence

7. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 27 pages along with the oral submissions made at the hearing. The bundle includes the feedback reports from the Examiner on 29 November 2022 and 29 March 2023. Submissions

8. Both the Appellant and the Registrar made submissions at the hearing.

9. The Registrar summarised his statement of case. He added that the Act provides that an ADI must undertake a test (often referred to as a “standards check”) when required to do so. The law only requires one attempt at the standards check, but it is the usual practice of the Registrar to allow 3 attempts. If a person cannot make a date, the Registrar will sometimes ask for evidence otherwise a “few attempts” will be made to rearrange the date. Public confidence in the system would be undermined if those who had failed to demonstrate that they remained of the required standard were allowed to remain on the Register.

10. The Appellant accepted that he had failed the standards check on two occasions but submitted that he has one “lifeline” remaining. He was unable to get childcare and had given the DVSA evidence of his child’s term time to show why he could not attend. The Appellant feels discriminated against as a responsible parent of two children. He is willing to do another standards check at a mutually agreed time. This would need to be during term time and between 11am to 3pm. If the Appellant fails a third standards check then he will accept the decision.

11. The Appellant explained that he does not instruct on public roads and so there is no risk to public safety. He does not instruct learner drivers. He needs either a trainee licence or to be an ADI for automotive jobs involving off-road experiences that are all undertaken on private land. The Appellant had worked in Europe and secured childcare having had plenty of advance notice. Relevant Facts

12. The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in November 2018. In the normal course of events his current certificate of registration is due to expire on 30 November 2026.

13. The Appellant has failed the test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction on two consecutive occasions on 29 November 2022 and 29 March 2023.

14. Following each test, the Appellant was notified of the Examiner’s findings during a debrief conducted at the end of the assessment. On each occasion the Appellant was advised to consider further personal development.

15. The Appellant’s test history shows that he cancelled 7 standards checks before his first failed attempt on 29 November 2022. He then cancelled two more standards checks before his second failed attempt on 29 March 2023. When asked by the Tribunal, the Appellant did not give his reasons for cancellation.

16. The Appellant then cancelled 4 further standards checks. A check booked for 29 June 2023 was rearranged as the Appellant emailed the Registrar to say he was away with work. A check booked for 24 July 2023 was rearranged because the Appellant said he was unable to attend as his child’s school broke up the following day and he was the primary carer. A test booked for 9 October 2023 was rearranged because the Appellant emailed the Registrar to say he had received notice to attend jury service. A test booked for 11 December 2023 was rearranged because the Appellant had influenza (medical evidence was provided).

17. By letter dated 12 December 2023 sent by email, the Appellant was informed that he was required to take a standards check on 3 January 2024. The Appellant received the notification but did not take the test.

18. By letter dated 15 January 2024, the Registrar advised the Appellant that he was considering removing the Appellant’s name from the Register because he could no longer be satisfied that his ability to give driving instruction was of a satisfactory standard. The Appellant was given 28 days to make representations.

19. The Appellant made representations by email on 10 February 2024. In summary: (a) Standards checks were allocated on days which clashed with other life factors or urgent situations, such as lack of childcare during school holidays. As a single parent it is impossible to resolve these situations if no-one can provide cover. (b) Evidence was supplied for other occasions such as a jury summons. (c) The Appellant is not a practising ADI. Therefore, obtaining access to students and vehicle with insurance can be difficult at times. He is required to keep the ADI badge for event work such as under 17’s and track instruction. (d) The Appellant requested a mutually agreed date to complete the standards check as a random date and time can be difficult for him. Conclusions

20. The Registrar says that the Appellant failed to attend his standards check on 3 January 2024 without advising the DVSA that he would not attend. This triggered the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register. The Appellant maintains that he definitely emailed the Registrar in advance to advise that he could not attend. A copy of the email has not been provided in the bundle. The Registrar said he had could not trace any email. Without evidence, we cannot be satisfied that the Appellant had sought to cancel the standards check on that occasion. However, the point is not pivotal to our decision.

21. There were 9 other cancellations by the Appellant between 2019 and March 2023, which the Appellant could not account for. There followed 4 more cancellations for which reasons were given.

22. Whilst it is the practice of the Registrar to allow three attempts at the standards check, there is no such requirement in law. Section 125(5) of the Act requires an ADI “ if at any time required to do so by the Registrar, submit himself for (i) such test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction …as may be prescribed ”. Under section 128 of the Act , the Registrar may remove a person’s name from the Register if “ he failed to pass such a [emphasis added] test ”, singular. Thus, the legal requirement is for the Appellant to submit himself for the test at any time required. The Registrar has applied the requirement reasonably by operating a practice of allowing 3 attempts and has shown flexibility in altering the dates on multiple occasions.

23. On the Appellant’s own evidence, it was just the once that he sent the Registrar a screenshot of the school term time before receiving the 3 January 2024 appointment. Even then he did not say that he needed the test to be concluded by 3pm. The Registrar cannot be criticised for allocating dates and times that did not accord with the Appellant’s requirements for after 11am during term time, especially when it was not communicated in writing until late in the process.

24. We acknowledge the importance of the Appellant’s parental responsibilities and that he has difficulties obtaining childcare. Nevertheless, the Appellant has been given an extraordinary number of opportunities to take and pass the standards check over a prolonged period of time between December 2019 and January 2024. For a test of such importance and with so much at stake, it is surprising that the Appellant could not make any necessary arrangements to allow him to attend just one of those cancelled dates.

25. Having cancelled the standards check on so many occasions in the past, there can be little confidence that the Appellant will submit to the standards check without further cancellations. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant was given more than reasonable opportunity to undertake the test. There is no entitlement to a third and final attempt.

26. We find that the Appellant has not met the condition of retention on the Register at section 128(2) (d) of the Act by failing to pass a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction, as required by the Registrar under section 125(5) (a)(i) of the Act . In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register was correct. We dismiss this appeal. Signed: Judge Saward Date: 12 January 2026