Abdullah Noor M Jan 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) . Appellant: Abdullah Noor M Jan. Offence: The offence referred to in paragraph 4 of this decision. 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 30 April 2025, to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register . Introduction - b ackground 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 six penalty points pursuant to a fixed penalty notice dated 10 January 2025 for breach of requirements as to control of a vehicle (in this case, using a mobile phone). T he Registrar a ccordingly considered that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register. The appeal The grounds of appeal

5. The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision, arguing that they were a fit and proper person. In summary, the Appellant’s appeal relied on the grounds that, in respect of the Offence: a. his phone had fallen from its holder; b. he was concerned that it would slide under the pedals; c. when putting the phone back on its holder, he had touched the screen of the phone and looked briefly at it, because he had been expecting a call (related to some difficult personal circumstances); d. the vehicle was stationary in traffic at the time, with the handbrake on; and e. this was an isolated incident.

6. In support of his appeal, the Appellant provided some references and some testimonials regarding his work. The Registrar’s case

7. 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. The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to have their name on the Register. Mode of hearing

8. The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform.

9. The Appellant participated in the hearing and was represented by Mr Johnson (the owner of the driving school for which the Appellant works). The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors was represented by Mr Russell.

10. The Tribunal Panel, the Appellant, Mr Johnson (on behalf of 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.

11. The Appellant had difficulties with his connection to the hearing; he could see and hear the other participants, who in turn could see the Appellant but could not hear him. After various attempts to reconnect without resolving those problems, ultimately a solution was reached whereby Mr Johnson phoned the Appellant so that the other participants could hear the Appellant speaking from the loudspeaker of Mr Johnson’s phone. The Tribunal was satisfied that this was appropriate in the circumstances, as it facilitated participation by the Appellant without the need to adjourn the appeal. The evidence and submission

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

13. We heard from the Appellant directly, as well as hearing oral submissions from Mr Johnson on the Appellant’s behalf and from Mr Russell on behalf of the Registrar .

14. 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

15. 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 issued under section 129 .

16. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require a person to be, and continue to be, a “fit and proper person” pursuant to section 125(3)(e) and section 127(3)(e).

17. A person’s name may therefore be removed from the Register under section 128(2)(e) if the Registrar considers that they have ceased to be a “fit and proper person”.

18. 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 have their name 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.

19. 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.

20. 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 (including those aged under 18) 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.

21. 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.

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

23. 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 takes 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.

24. 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 removal or the retention of the Appellant’s name in the Register, as it thinks fit.

25. 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.

26. Where the Tribunal makes an order for the removal of the Appellant’s name in the Register, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply to have their name entered in the Register for a period of up to four years. Discussion and findings

27. In this case, the Appellant was guilty of the Offence, using a handheld mobile phone while driving, for which he received six penalty points.

28. Mr Johnson stated that he does not make a habit of defending the instructors who work for him, but in this instance he felt the need to speak up for the Appellant. He considered the Appellant to be a fit and proper person who was good at his job, diligent in attending training courses and that the Offence was an isolated incident (involving the Appellant merely touching his phone for a brief moment) with mitigating circumstances.

29. Both Mr Johnson and the Appellant referred to Appellant’s role as an ADI being his only qualification and that he would have no other source of income to support his family if his name was removed from the Register. The financial consequences of being removed from the Register is not something which we take into account as whether or not someone is a ‘fit and proper person’.

30. As we have noted, the Appellant’s position in respect of the Offence was that his phone had fallen from its holder and he had touched the screen and looked briefly at it. We were referred to a screenshot in the bundle which Mr Johnson stated showed the location where the Offence took place. The Appellant’s case was that there were traffic lights at the location at the time because of roadworks (the screenshot showed the approach to a roundabout) and that traffic was not moving, so his vehicle was stationary at the time, with the handbrake on. We were not assisted by the screenshot because it did not shed any light on the incident in question.

31. The Appellant stated that he respects the standards required for ADIs but he was not in a ‘proper mindset’ at the time of the Offence due to various circumstances regarding various members of his family. He stated that he attended a driver awareness course about mobile phone use run by RoSPA after the Offence and was now more aware and alert to ensure that this situation would not happen again.

32. The Registrar cited statistics of injuries and deaths relating to driving offences. The Registrar considered that they 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’s name to remain on the Register could undermine the public’s confidence in it. They added that it would be unfair to other ADIs who had been scrupulous in observing the law to allow the Appellant’s name to remain on the Register.

33. We understand the Registrar’s concerns. However, all things considered, our view is that Offence involved a case of human error in respect of which the Appellant was contrite. The Appellant also adduced evidence in respect of the circumstances regarding his family (which we do not address here) and we accept that those circumstances were a contributing (and mitigating) factor to his lapse of judgment at the time of the Offence. We found the Appellant to be sincerely remorseful and we consider that he has ‘learned his lesson’ in respect of the Offence. We also take into account that the Appellant notified the Registrar within seven days of the Offence.

34. This was a finely balanced decision but, for all of the reasons we have given, we find that it would be disproportionate to conclude that the Appellant has failed to meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person to have their name retained in the Register. On balance, taking into account all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s Decision was incorrect. There is, in our view, no risk to the integrity of the Register by the retention of the Appellant’s name on it.

35. We therefore allow the appeal and we order that the Appellant’s name be retained in the Register.

36. We would ask the Appellant to note the following. Notwithstanding our finding that there were mitigating circumstances in respect of the Offence, the Appellant put other road users and pedestrians at risk. Following the endorsement of his driving licence with six points, he has come very close in this appeal to a determination that he is not a ‘fit and proper person’ and therefore very close to losing his job as an ADI. It should be self-evident that there are significant learning outcomes from this process and that any future transgressions could result in him losing his status as an ADI. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 23 February 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal