FT/D/2025/0388 - [2025] UKFTT 01277 (GRC)

The Appellant's case

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.

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".

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".

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".

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:-

the absence of risk.

his 13-year exemplary record.

the exceptional personal, professional and financial hardship that would be caused.

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.

He also referred to the efforts that had gone into building up his business for over a decade and said:-

"Iimplore 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."

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.

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.

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 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".

a parent of a recent pupil who said the Appellant provided "excellent instruction and guidance" and is a "dedicated, trustworthy and highly professional instructor..."