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

Tribunal's review

We considered all the circumstances presented to us. Our role is defined by the Act and in the relevant legal authorities such as Harris and Hope and Glory. Our starting point is therefore to consider and give due regard to the view of, and the Decision made by, the Registrar as the person who has the statutory role to maintain the Register. We took no account of the issue of the lack of notification of the offence and penalty imposed.

ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary drivers. The public expects the Registrar to work to ensure that ADIs are FPP in the wider Harris sense and has the right to expect ADIs to adhere to the highest standards of motoring. It is right for the Registrar to be concerned about a person with 6 points for mobile phone use potentially being on the Register.

The references were useful and we accept that he is considered to be a long-standing good technical instructor. We noted in particular what was said by the head of the Bradford ADIs association.

The Appellant says he was worried that the calls received indicated that there was an emergency. He could have, but did not, use the hands-free functionality available. The relevant Regulations do set out the emergency circumstances in which use of a mobile phone while driving (or supervising) is lawful but in this case the Appellant, when presented with a Notice of Intended Prosecution, did not seek to challenge it or present mitigation in court but accepted the penalty notice and 6 points.

We accept the Registrar's view about the seriousness of an ADI using a mobile phone when instructing not just because that risks distracting him from his supervisory role but also because of the bad example that gives to the leaner driver. We accept what is said about the dangers of mobile phone use and its role in preventable deaths and injuries. It is an issue specifically referred to in both the Guidance and the Code.

We were sympathetic to the personal issues raised. However they did not satisfy us that the Registrar's Decision was made in error because the need to maintain the integrity of, and public trust in, the Register is likely always to be greater than the needs of any individual appellant.

In the same way we were sympathetic to the representations made by the Appellant about the financial impact to him and his business if he were not able to continue as an ADI. We noted what was said by his accountant about this in his letter of 26 September 2025. This is something we expect would be of concern to almost all in this situation. However in our view, while we review all the circumstances and have taken it into account, we do not consider the possible financial implications to be a particularly impactful consideration for a decision about whether an ADI is a FPP. Again the need to maintain the integrity of, and public trust in, the Register is likely always to be greater than the needs of an individual appellant.