FT/D/2024/0824/FPP - [2025] UKFTT 01240 (GRC)

Conclusions

If an ADI’s name is allowed to be put on or 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 driving.

ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of motoring, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. 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.

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. What the Appellant did may not seem to be a serious offence, but the law treats it very seriously. It is essential that ADIs follow the law that they are supposed to be teaching to often young and impressionable pupils. We are aware that the Registrar consistently views six points on a driving licence as a serious matter which means someone is not a fit and proper person.

We do have sympathy for the Appellant’s position. He has made one serious driving mistake which has affected his ability to pursue a career as an ADI while he has six points on his licence. We accept that he was dealing with a difficult situation at the time of the offence. But he was fully aware of the right thing to do and instead chose to continue driving while holding his phone. 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 committing an offence of this nature. We did not consider that the Appellant’s arguments demonstrate that he understood the gravity of the offence on the public perception of ADIs. We were also concerned that he disagreed with the fact of the offence being made out, as it does not appear that he understands the offence is a strict liability one where holding or touching the phone is sufficient to establish culpability. A mobile phone is a continuous communication device and thus distinguishable from other objects such as a water bottle.

We find on the balance of probabilities 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 from the Register as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.