BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Voakes v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 688 (GRC) (11 June 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/688.html
Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 688 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKFTT 688 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0351

First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)

Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Heard on: 14 April 2025
Decision Given On: 11 June 2025

B e f o r e :

JUDGE PERI MORNINGTON
MEMBER DAVID RAWSTHORN
MEMBER RICHARD FRY

____________________

Between:
NICHOLAS VOAKES
Appellant
- and -

REGISTRAR FOR APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent

____________________

Representation:
For the Appellant: In Person
For the Respondent: Mr Russell

____________________

HTML VERSION OF DECISION
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. The Registrar's decision of 14 March 2024 is upheld.

    REASONS
  1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Registrar") made on 14 March 2024 to remove the Appellant's name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the "Register") on the grounds that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI").
  2. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). All parties joined remotely although Mr Russel for the Respondent was only able to join the hearing for the last 5 minutes due to other commitments. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.
  3. The Appeal

  4. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 8 April 2024 relies on the grounds that:
  5. (a) The Appellant disputes that the complainant's daughter was vulnerable and considers that the Registrar has made his decision solely based on the complainant's assertion that her daughter was vulnerable;

    (b) He was never made aware of any vulnerability prior to the lessons commencing;

    (c) Errors in the DVSA's handling of the complaint left the Appellant unsure as to whether their correspondence was legitimate and caused him to lose faith in the process;

    (d) The Appellant's relationship with the complainant's daughter was consensual, outside of lesson time and did not impact the lessons.

  6. The Registrar's Statement of Case dated 5 March 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar maintains that the Appellant overstepped the professional boundary between a pupil and instructor, that he has ceased to be a fit and proper person, and that the Appellant's name should be removed from the Register.
  7. The law

  8. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to be and continue to be a "fit and proper person" to have his name on the Register – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the "Act").
  9. The Registrar can remove a person's name from the Register if they have ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name on the Register (section 125(2)(e) of the Act). The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. The Registrar has the burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
  10. 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).
  11. 8. In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808, the Court of Appeal described the "fit and proper person" condition as follows: "..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…It seems to me that 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. This is why there are stringent disclosure requirements." (paragraph 30).

    The evidence

  12. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 64 pages. This includes evidence of the original submissions provided to the Registrar by the Appellant. We heard submissions from the Appellant and the representative for the Registrar.
  13. The relevant facts

  14. The Appellant's name was first entered in the Register in April 2018. On 25 July 2023, DVSA received a complaint from the mother of a pupil taught by the Appellant in relation the Appellant's conduct in engaging in a sexual relationship with her daughter, aged 18 who had since passed away. The Registrar received the complaint with a report from a DVSA investigator which contained a statement and text messages between the Appellant and the pupil in which the Appellant had admitted to having a relationship with the pupil whilst he was still providing her with driving lessons. On 13 February 2024 the Registrar gave the Appellant 28 days to make representations before a decision was made about removal of his name from the Register. The letter referred to the complaint and the relationship between the Appellant and the pupil.
  15. By way of email dated 11 March 2024, the Appellant provided written representations. In support of his representations, the Appellant sent copies of further messages between himself and the pupil's family, reviews of his services from other pupils and his statement. Within his statement, the Appellant admitted to wrongdoing and accepted that he should not have engaged in a relationship with a pupil whilst still providing lessons. However, he maintained that the lessons remained entirely professional and that the relationship was both consensual and outside of lesson time. The Appellant took issue with the pupil's mother making the complaint and not making him aware of any vulnerability before this stage. The Appellant does not accept that the pupil was 'vulnerable'. The Appellant stated that whilst he accepted wrongdoing, he is committed to being more professional and ensuring nothing of this nature would happen again.
  16. On 14 March 2024 the Registrar confirmed that the Appellant's name should be removed from the Register as he had ceased to be a fit and proper person. The letter says that the Registrar came to this conclusion because of the complaint made against the Appellant by the pupil's mother.
  17. Submissions

  18. In submissions, the Appellant told the Tribunal that he understood he was in breach of the Approved Driving Instructor Code of Practice in that he had engaged in a sexual and romantic relationship with his pupil but maintained that this relationship only took place outside of working hours and that lessons remained entirely professional. He confirmed that the relationship started because he had become 'too familiar' during lessons and recognised that he had broken a rule, but that the relationship did not impact any lessons with the pupil.
  19. The Appellant raised the issue of the Code of Practice being a voluntary code which he had not signed up to. However, the Appellant went on to say that until the time of the complaint, he thought that he had in fact signed the Code and moreover, would sign the Code now if offered the opportunity.
  20. Conclusions

  21. If an ADI's name is allowed to remain on the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public's confidence in the Register. This includes behaviour relating to relationships with pupils.
  22. ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs will not form relationships with pupils outside of the normal instructor/pupil relationship. Indeed, the Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) Code of Practice provides that "Driver trainers will be professional, comply with the law, keep clients safe and treat them with respect". Irrespective of the Code of Practice, an Approved Driving Instructor is a regulated authority and accordingly, those holding the profession are held to a standard higher than other professions. The public must have confidence in the profession and the expectation that young pupils particularly are safeguarded and that instructors will avoid circumstances and situations which are or could be perceived to be of an inappropriate nature.
  23. 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.
  24. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities and can show they not only know the rules but follow them.
  25. We find that this would be undermined if the Appellant was allowed to remain on the Register. The conduct of the Appellant is unacceptable given his role as an Approved Driving Instructor. As a regulated profession, it is important that instructors remain professional with pupils at all times, whether that be during, or outside of lesson time. It is not appropriate for an Approved Driving Instructor to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship with a pupil, the law, the Registrar and this Tribunal treat conduct of this nature very seriously.
  26. The Tribunal finds that the Registrar correctly applied the 'Fit and Proper Person' test in deciding that an intimate relationship between an Approved Driving Instructor and a pupil is inappropriate whatever the circumstances and therefore the Appellant fails the Fit and Proper Person test. The Code of Conduct makes clear the standards of behaviour required.
  27. The suggestion by the Appellant that he was not made aware that the pupil was vulnerable either prior or during their lessons is irrelevant to the Tribunal's decision. However, the Tribunal considers that this assertion casts further doubt on his suitability to be an Approved Driving Instructor as the implication from the Appellant is that if he had known that the pupil was vulnerable, he would not have engaged in the relationship. The Appellant does not appear to recognise that the intimate relationship was inappropriate whether the pupil was a vulnerable person or not.
  28. The Tribunal acknowledges the errors in communication from the DVSA and Registrar. However, whilst unfortunate and of concern, these errors do not alter the fundamental issue for the Tribunal to consider, which is, was the 'Fit and Proper Person' test correctly applied, was the Appellant's behaviour inappropriate and accordingly, did the Appellant fail the test.
  29. We have considered all of the arguments made by the Appellant. However, we do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances which would justify allowing the Appellant to remain on the Register after engaging in conduct of this nature.
  30. We therefore find that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar's decision to remove the Appellant's name from the Register as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.
  31. Signed: Judge Peri Mornington

    Dated: 11 June 2025

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010