FT/D/2025/0277/FPP - [2025] UKFTT 01245 (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 and other matters of responsibility and trustworthiness.

We have assessed the facts on the basis that it is imperative that the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs is maintained, given the substantial level of trust that is placed on ADIs by pupils, parents and other ADIs as well as road users, the public and the DVSA. It is expected an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist.

The Approved Driving Instructor Code of Practice provides a helpful reference point for the standard of behaviour expected of an ADI. We note that section 1 on personal conduct refers to complying with legislative requirements including consumer regulations. Section 2 on business dealing says that the instructor agrees to “safeguard and account for any monies paid in advance by the client in respect of driving lessons, test fees or for any other purpose and make the details available to the client on request”. The Appellant’s actions in taking advance payment for lessons, failing to provide booked lessons and failing to communicate effectively do not comply with this Code.

The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, that those who are on it understand their responsibilities, and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. This would be undermined if the Appellant was allowed to remain on the Register. It seems to the Tribunal that it would undermine confidence if the Appellant was allowed to remain. He has repeatedly failed to meet the necessary professional and business standards in his dealings with pupils.

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’s name from the Register as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.