FT/D/2025/0445/FPP - [2025] UKFTT 01247 (GRC)

The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.

ADIs are rightly held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs will act professionally, reliably, and with integrity. ADIs must 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.

Use of a mobile phone while driving is a very serious driving offence, such activity can and frequently does cause serious accidents. It endangers the lives of other road users, pedestrians and the driver themselves, or risks causing serious injury. The level of sentence imposed reflects the severity of the risk such behaviour poses, and the mandatory imposition of 6 penalty points will often result in an ADI being justifiably removed from the Register.

This offence is not conduct which can be permitted, condoned or excused at any time. The fact that the Appellant committed this offence in front of a student of his and during a lesson is a considerable aggravating factor. As is the fact that this is not the first time the Appellant has been convicted of this offence.

The Registrar has a duty to ensure that only those of appropriate standing are allowed to remain on the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities to not only know the rules but to scrupulously follow them as well. These are matters of wider public importance which attract significant weight even where removal from the Register may have serious consequences for an individual.

While the Appellant has offered explanations and expressed regret, we do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances in what was presented. Whilst the Tribunal has considerable sympathy in relation to the unfortunate position the Appellant found himself in on the day of the incident (given the health of his wife). The fact is that there were many different opportunities and approaches that reasonably could have been taken that would have entirely avoided the ultimate outcome here. Indeed, had after his previous conviction for this offence, the Appellant adopted the approach he told us he does now (i.e. locking his phone in the glovebox whenever he is driving) this incident would never have happened.

In all the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that removal of the Appellant’s name from the Register is fair, proportionate and justifiable even taking into account the personal circumstances and individual rights of the Appellant.

We therefore find that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. 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 unanimously dismiss this appeal.

Finally, the Tribunal notes that this was one of a number of recent appeals of this kind where the written submissions of the Appellant contained a number of sections that were drafted in a manner that bears an exceptional level of similarity to sections of the written submissions of other entirely unconnected appeals. The relevant sections generally focus on legal principles and caselaw that is not immediately connected with Fit and Proper Person cases (in terms of either the factual circumstances or the Road Traffic Act legal framework applicable). So, it is generally not obvious from the written submissions alone as to the point the Appellant is trying to make in the relevant sections and how it applies to the facts of the Appellant’s specific case.

In such circumstances the Tribunal will try to assist by making particular enquiries of the Appellant during the hearing, in line with its duty to support litigants in person to ensure they stand on an equal footing with other parties and can participate fully in the proceedings. This to ensure that cases are dealt with justly in accordance with the overriding objective.

However, in this case (and as is usual in these circumstances) when the Tribunal asked the Appellant to expand upon and explain the aim of the relevant sections of the written submissions, the Appellant effectively declined to do so leaving the Tribunal and Respondent uncertain as to the relevance and purpose of those sections of the Appellant’s written submissions.

Where a point has a purpose and relevance to the proceedings the Tribunal will always consider it carefully, and the Tribunal will (if necessary) support litigants in person in this regard to ensure they are able to stand on an equal footing.

However, the inclusion of make-weight, irrelevant, overly generic or otherwise inappropriate points in submissions actively undermines the overriding objective in that it prevents the case being dealt with expeditiously. It also necessarily means that the case takes more than appropriate amount of tribunal resources, thereby denying other cases that additional resource. Furthermore, even from the perspective of an Appellant it is unhelpful in that the inclusion of such material tends to negatively affect both the clarity and impact of their case.

The overriding objective is multi-faceted, and it is equally important that cases are dealt with expeditiously and fairly, including by ensuring that any case is allotted an appropriate share of the tribunal’s resources. Appellants (and those who assist them) must bear this in mind when preparing their submissions so as to ensure points made have both a relevance and a purpose in the context of the facts of the particular appeal. It is also critical that the points are such that they can be explained in plain English by the Appellant so the Tribunal can (if need be) assist the Appellant.