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

That he wished to adopt the contents of his written submissions, save that when questioned about the various cases and legislation cited in his written submissions the Appellant was unable to provide any comment. He was unable to give any explanation as to the points he sought to rely on them for, nor was he able to give any indication as to why and how the particular legislation and precedent case law his written submissions cited should be applied in the specific context of his case. He appeared somewhat unaware that his written submissions sought to rely on such caselaw and legislation.

On the day of the relevant offence he had reason to suspect he may receive a phone call from the hospital about his wife, and he was as a consequence in an anxious, stressed and worried state from the very start of the day. The Appellant chose to go to work that day despite being under considerable stress and without ability to concentrate. This was because he needed to work to earn money for his family and so could not afford a day off as his children are still in education,

Aware of the potential call he informed his student that day that if a call came in during the lesson they will have to pull over somewhere safe and pause the lesson so that he could take the call.

The Appellant ensures that his vehicles always have a bluetooth system and he only ever uses that system to answer calls. But for his wife’s health and the expected hospital call he would not usually answer a call whilst in a lesson.

That he had worked for his current firm for 10 years and never had any previous complaints from students or as regards mobile phone use.

The Appellant accepts what he did was against the law and that he shouldn’t have held the phone nor taken the call whilst holding it. He only reached down to get the phone and cradle after it fell because of the dangers it posed to the dual controls.

When questioned as to why he did not carry out the plan he raised with the student before the lesson of pulling over to take the call he said that he knew he had made a mistake and should not have done it and even though he answered the call by pressing the car’s bluetooth screen and not simply pressing the button on the phone, he realises he still should not have done it.

That since the incident the Appellant has made alternate arrangements so that the phone is not in a cradle but is locked in a glove box with alternate contact details given to the hospital etc.

The written submisisons must be incorrect as the incident took place on Station Road in Waltham Cross not Station Road in Chingford.

The Police must have seen the phone screen lit when they overtook the car just immediately after the pedestrian had walked out into the street and caused the emergency stop.

The representative of the Registrar set out in summary: