Dhanish Ali v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. T he Appellant's name is on the register of approved driving instructors ("the Register"). This appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(1) (c) Road Traffic Act 1988 (" the Act "). It relates to a decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 26 February 2025 ("the Decision") to remove his name from the Register on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person ("FPP") because he had accepted 6 penalty points for mobile phone use while instructing.

2. What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference by us to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered. Preliminary issue

3. In his case management questionnaire of 8 August 2025 the Appellant said:- "I intend to make an application for a disclosure order if the Registrar does not provide a full and detailed explanation, along with supporting documentation, justifying the decision to remove me from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. This information is critical for me to understand the case against me and to prepare a proper defence. I have not submitted this application yet because I am waiting for the Registrar to respond to my initial request for disclosure. If the response is inadequate or not forthcoming within a reasonable timeframe, I will promptly file the appropriate application using form GRC5."

4. At the appeal the Appellant said that there had been some confusion but he did not wish to pursue this issue. Relevant law

5. A person may only provide paid driving instruction if his name is on the Register ( section 123(1) of the Act ) or if he holds a licence by section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. Section 128 of the Act provides that the Registrar may may remove the name of a person from the Register if he is satisfied " that he ceased, apart from fulfilment of any of the preceding conditions, to be a fit and proper person to have his name included in the register."

6. The FPP test was considered in Harris -v- Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 in which Richards LJ held at para 30:- ".....I do not accept that the scope of the "fit and proper person" condition is as narrow as Mr Leviseur contended. Of course, a central question is an applicant's fitness to be a driving instructor – that he has the requisite instructional ability and driving ability and that he does not pose a risk in any respect to his pupils or other users of the road. The "fit and proper person" condition has obvious relevance to that issue, though the more technical aspects are covered by other, more specific conditions relating to tests, driving licence and the like. But 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: those registered are known as "Driving Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructors" Guidance and the Code

7. The DVSA has issued Guidance which an ADI is required to declare they have read when applying to become an ADI. It states:- "When you’re giving driving lessons, you’re responsible for your own safety, that of your pupil and other road users. You have to show a:... professional approach to your customers responsible attitude to your pupils and profession ADIs are in a position of considerable trust. The ADI Registrar protects the image of the register and maintains the public’s confidence in the ADI industry. The law says you must be a ‘fit and proper’ person, but does not define what it means. The ADI Registrar interprets it as the personal and professional standards, conduct or behaviour that could be unacceptable in the eyes of the public and other ADIs. "It’s not possible to be definitive about what’s classed as ‘fit and proper’. There has to be some discretion to take into account the circumstances of each case. The ADI Registrar makes an assessment of the risk you’re likely to pose to the public." "It’s also unlikely that you’ll be classed as a ‘fit and proper’ person if you’ve been found guilty of: driving while using a hand-held mobile phone."

8. Additionally a Code has been agreed between the DVSA and the National Associations Strategic Partnership, which is a steering group for approved driving instructor associations. The Guidance states that "I t is a framework within which all instructors should operate." The DVSA also says that it gives "a summary of the conduct and behaviours that DVSA and the public expect from an ADI ." It says for example that the instructor agrees not to use "... mobile devices like phones when driving or supervising client’s driving and only when parked in a safe and legal place." Role of the Tribunal

9. Section 131(1) of the Act provides that "A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar...(c)to remove his name from the register...may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal."

10. Section 131 (3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:- "( a)for the grant or refusal of the application or, (b)for the removal or the retention of the name in the register, or the revocation or continuation of the licence, (as the case may be) as it thinks fit."

11. In considering the appeal the Tribunal must give appropriate weight to the Registrar's view. The Court of Appeal in Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011) held that the answer to " How much weight was the district judge entitled to give to the decision of the licensing authority?" was:- "45...the proper conclusion....can only be stated in very general terms. It is right in all cases that the magistrates' court should pay careful attention to the reasons given by the licensing authority for arriving at the decision under appeal, bearing in mind that Parliament has chosen to place responsibility for making such decisions on local authorities. The weight which the magistrates should ultimately attach to those reasons must be a matter for their judgment in all the circumstances, taking into account the fullness and clarity of the reasons, the nature of the issues and the evidence given on the appeal."

12. 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 the relevant legislation with making such decisions. It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision-making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances. Our decision is reached on the balance of probabilities. Evidence and matters considered

13. The Appellant attended the appeal. Mr Russell represented the Registrar. There was no bundle.

14. Parts of the GRC1 were missing or unable to be seen. We also did not have a copy of the Appellant's letter of representations. During the appeal the missing element of the GRC1 and the letter of representations were read out to us. During the hearing further information was added by the Appellant including five tax returns, an email from the Appellant's accountant, an email from the Appellant and letters of support. The Registrar was happy to proceed on this basis. Chronology

15. In summary:- (a) the Appellant's name was first entered into the Register in April 2010. (b) on 16 December 2024 the Appellant accepted a fixed penalty notice and 6 penalty points. (c) on 22 January 2025 the DVLA informed the Registrar about the Appellant's points. (d) on 28 January 2025 the Registrar gave notice to the Appellant that he was considering the removal of the Appellant's name from the Register and invited representations. (e) on 30 January 2025 the Appellant made representations. (f) on 26 February 2025 the Registrar notified the Appellant of the Decision namely to remove his name from the Register because he had ceased to be a FPP. The Registrar also directed that the Decision would not take immediate effect. Appeal

16. This appeal is against the Decision. The Registrar provided a short response dated 8 April 2025. The Appellant's case

17. As allowed, since the Decision and pending the outcome of the appeal, the Appellant has continued in his role as an ADI. He told us he is a FPP to be an ADI.

18. As regards the incident itself the Appellant said that the use of the mobile phone was "momentary " while the car was stationary and in neutral at a red light in "a quiet area with no pedestrians or moving traffic". It was early in the morning and he was instructing at the time but he said that "the learner driver had full control of the vehicle, with over 55 hours of training and prior test experience" .

19. The mobile was on the side-panel dash and paired to the car. He had the functionality available to answer calls without holding the mobile device itself using an inbuilt microphone and speaker. On the car display the Appellant could see he had two missed calls (not five as had been said previously) and who they were from. He then could see a third call being made from the same number and picked the mobile device up physically (ie he did not use the hands-free functionality) holding it to his ear. He said that he did this because of the missed calls. He told us that getting calls is unusual and he was concerned about a "potential emergency" or that there might be "something wrong" .

20. His actions were seen by a police officer in a car which was in the lane to the left by the Appellant's side of his car. They told him to stop at a safe place. When stationary the police officer spoke to the Appellant about the mobile phone use during a lesson. He told us that, when later he was sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution, he did not challenge it because "it was a mistake I made...so there was no point challenging it".

21. He said that he deeply regretted the mistake he made which he said was an " isolated lapse" but in his view "no danger was posed" and the Decision was "disproportionate" because of:- (a) the absence of risk. (b) his 13-year exemplary record. (c) the exceptional personal, professional and financial hardship that would be caused.

22. He referred (in the GRC1 in March 2025) to serious damage to his home that needed urgent repairs but did confirm that these had now been completed.

23. He also referred to the efforts that had gone into building up his business for over a decade and said:- " I implore the DVSA to balance accountability with compassion and permit me to continue contributing to road safety through fair, proportionate measures. Doing so would not only uphold the integrity of the profession but also safeguard my ability to rebuild my home and support my learners."

24. He read to us the part of the GRC1 we could not see in which he said that loss of his ADI status would "devastate " his livelihood. He said that he has no alternative career and he relies entirely on the ADI profession. His family is financially reliant on him. He was also concerned about his test-ready students. He said he took full responsibility and had taken steps to prevent a reoccurrence of the mobile phone use. He suggested a final written warning, training and monitoring as a solution.

25. In his letter of representations (read out by Mr Russell) the Appellant apologised for not informing the Registrar about the points. This letter also set out the financial implications of losing his ADI registration including that the sudden loss of income from being an ADI would severely impact his ability to meet essential obligations such as rent, household expenses and supporting his dependants. He said that this situation had caused significant distress. It is not, he said, just a job but his passion and the way he provides for his family. The thought of losing his status as an ADI due to this mistake is "overwhelming ". He set out his commitment to road safety and how this incident was out of character. He told us of the steps he had taken to ensure this would never happen again. He referred to his remorse and his otherwise long and incident-free time as an ADI.

26. The Appellant also referred to his email sent to the GRC with letters in support. These were located and sent to the Tribunal. They were from:- (a) a representative of the Association of ADIs in Bradford who said:- "We are aware of the current proceedings involving Mr Ali regarding an allegation of phone use during a driving lesson. While we understand the seriousness of such matters, we believe this isolated incident should be viewed in the broader context of an otherwise exemplary career." "We respectively ask that the tribunal consider his many years of service, his contributions to the community and his long-standing record of professionalism and good character when making its decision". (b) a parent of a recent pupil who said the Appellant provided "excellent instruction and guidance" and is a "dedicated, trustworthy and highly professional instructor..." The Registrar's position

27. The Registrar's short response said:- "Fixed penalty received on the 16 December 2024 for CU80 – breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle (includes mobile phone offences that carry a mandatory 6 penalty points) resulting in 6 penalty points."

28. At the appeal Mr Russell said that " CU80" was the only the information he had. He went on to say that the Registrar takes the view that it is even more serious for an ADI to be using a mobile phone while supervising because, in that role, a person is not only supervising but also needs to be keeping as alert as if they were the driver. In his view, potentially being distracted by using a mobile phone while supervising, is a serious offence. In addition, he said, it sends completely the wrong message to the learner driver.

29. Mr Russell also confirmed that, apart from the issue of a written warning, the Registrar had no power to require such things as re-training or monitoring. He confirmed that the Registrar was not taking issue in this appeal about the Appellant not notifying him about the points. Tribunal's review

30. We considered all the circumstances presented to us. Our role is defined by the Act and in the relevant legal authorities such as Harris and Hope and Glory. Our starting point is therefore to consider and give due regard to the view of, and the Decision made by, the Registrar as the person who has the statutory role to maintain the Register. We took no account of the issue of the lack of notification of the offence and penalty imposed.

31. ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary drivers. The public expects the Registrar to work to ensure that ADIs are FPP in the wider Harris sense and has the right to expect ADIs to adhere to the highest standards of motoring. It is right for the Registrar to be concerned about a person with 6 points for mobile phone use potentially being on the Register.

32. The references were useful and we accept that he is considered to be a long-standing good technical instructor. We noted in particular what was said by the head of the Bradford ADIs association.

33. The Appellant says he was worried that the calls received indicated that there was an emergency. He could have, but did not, use the hands-free functionality available. The relevant Regulations do set out the emergency circumstances in which use of a mobile phone while driving (or supervising) is lawful but in this case the Appellant, when presented with a Notice of Intended Prosecution, did not seek to challenge it or present mitigation in court but accepted the penalty notice and 6 points.

34. We accept the Registrar's view about the seriousness of an ADI using a mobile phone when instructing not just because that risks distracting him from his supervisory role but also because of the bad example that gives to the leaner driver. We accept what is said about the dangers of mobile phone use and its role in preventable deaths and injuries. It is an issue specifically referred to in both the Guidance and the Code.

35. We were sympathetic to the personal issues raised. However they did not satisfy us that the Registrar's Decision was made in error because the need to maintain the integrity of, and public trust in, the Register is likely always to be greater than the needs of any individual appellant.

36. In the same way we were sympathetic to the representations made by the Appellant about the financial impact to him and his business if he were not able to continue as an ADI. We noted what was said by his accountant about this in his letter of 26 September 2025. This is something we expect would be of concern to almost all in this situation. However in our view, while we review all the circumstances and have taken it into account, we do not consider the possible financial implications to be a particularly impactful consideration for a decision about whether an ADI is a FPP. Again the need to maintain the integrity of, and public trust in, the Register is likely always to be greater than the needs of an individual appellant. Decision

37. We accept that the Appellant has been an ADI for over a decade. However, despite the Guidance and Code he took a call on his mobile phone while supervising a pupil and then accepted 6 penalty points. We rejected the Appellant's description of the incident in his GRC1 as being one with a "complete absence of risk."

38. The Appellant has not persuaded us that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Signed Judge Heald Date: 29 Octo ber 2025.