Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKFTT 342 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0443
First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Transport
Heard by way of remote hearing using Cloud Video Platform
Heard on: 12 March 2025
Decision given on: 19 March 2025
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLAN
Between
SHAHEEN JAMIL
Appellant
and
REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: The Respondent is barred from taking any further part in the proceedings (see paragraph 3 below)
Decision: The appeal is ALLOWED
REASONS
Mode of Hearing
BACKGROUND
“….. 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 …..the maintenance of public confidence in the register is important. For that purpose the Registrar must be in a position to carry out his function of scrutiny effectively, including consideration of the implications of any convictions of an applicant or a registered ADI. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.”
10. Applicants to become driving instructors are notified that the DVSA is entitled to ask for information about spent convictions and as a result they lose the protection provided by s.4(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This arises in consequence of paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 as amended which states that “none of the provisions of s.4(2) of the Act shall apply in relation to … any question asked … in order to assess the suitability … of the person to whom the question relates for any office or employment specified in Part II of the said Schedule 1 … where the person questioned is informed at the time the question is asked that, by virtue of this Order, spent convictions are to be disclosed”. Paragraph 14 of Part II of Schedule 1 states that “offices, employment and work” include “any work which is work in a regulated position” and by Part IV of Schedule 1 “regulated position” is “a position which is a regulated position for the purposes of Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000”. Paragraph 36(c) of Part II of the latter Act provides that “the regulated positions for the purposes of this Part are … a position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children”; and by paragraph 42 of Part II “child” means a person under the age of 18. Since driving instructors may teach pupils aged 17 (or 16 if disabled) it follows that the DVSA is entitled to take spent convictions into account.
The Registrar’s decision
‘In our email of 21st March 2024 we advised you that the Registrar was considering the removal of your name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructor subject to any representations you made within 28 days.
No representations were received within the specified time and the Registrar has now decided that your name should be removed on the grounds that under Section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 you have ceased to be a fit and proper person to have your name entered in the Register. In accordance with Section 128(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I now give you formal notice of the Registrar's decision. He came to this conclusion because of the following:
• Fixed penalty notice dated 13 August 2023 for using a vehicle uninsured against third
party risks (IN10) resulting in 6 penalty points.
The Appellant’s notice of appeal
· She had not replied to the Registrar’s notification that he was considering the removal of her name from the Register as she had been in Pakistan at the time, and she had responded as soon as she could on her return and was remorseful that she had not been able to respond in the first instance.
· She thought that it was unfair that the full merits of her case had not been considered at the initial decision-making stage.
· Her driving record was unblemished for a period of 35 years and for the three years she had been a driving instructor.
· She recognized that high professional standards were expected from driving instructors and she had always endeavoured to uphold these.
· She apologized for what had happened, was remorseful and stated that she had leant ‘the lesson the hard way.’
· She had a passion for driving instruction and ‘… was an active and supportive member of the community of local driving instructors, offering advice and support and sharing recommendations. I am dedicated to continued professional development and have taken many courses over the years. I have enjoyed training instructors and am keen to develop skills to become an ORDIT trainer’.
· She had an excellent pass rate with her pupils many of were nervous of had learning difficulties. She had received very favourable comments from her pupils.
· She had no difficulty with the ‘facts’ but argued that there were mitigating factors.
· She made reference to several other cases where ADIs were permitted to remain on the Register despite have a conviction for having no insurance.
· She had health issues which had been ongoing at the time of the lapse of the insurance. Her health issues included stress. The Appellant attached hospital letters and medical reports relating to her health.
· She was having marital problems at the same time and had relied on her husband in the past to ensure that car insurance was renewed.
· As soon as the incident took place, she made arrangements for temporary insurance.
· She had made changes to her diary management systems involving ‘…logging all key dates for car insurance, tax and MOT.’ Her son had installed an app on her phone so that she would have reminders about these key dates. All of this meant that had control and did not have to reply on anyone else.
· She has participated in professional development courses to improve her standards.
· Removal from the Register would have a significant financial impact on her and her family.
· She attached links to reviews and character references.
· She made comparisons with other ADIs whose names remain on the Register despite having committed offences.
The remote oral hearing
REASONS
Kenneth Mullan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
19 March 2025