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

That the Appellant understands the seriousness of the offence they respectfully disagree that this single incident demonstrates that they are no longer a fit and proper person.

The Appellant deeply regrets the circumstances that led to this situation and takes full responsibility for their actions, they had no intent to act in a way that could jeopardise their position as an ADI or reflect negatively on their professionalism and integrity.

The Appellant has been a dedicated driving instructor for nearly 20 years and it is their only source of financial stability.

The Appellant asserts that s.19 of the Equality Act 2010 concerning indirect discrimination state that decisions must not disproportionately disadvantage an individual unless there is a strong justification, and the Appellant believes similar cases have resulted in the ADI remaining on the Register.

The Appellant raises various points relating to an administrative law challenge of the DVSA decision on the basis of fairness and proportionality. The Appellant raises the cases of R v SoS for the Home Department ex parte Daly 2001 UKHL 26 and R v Ghosh 1982 in this regard.

The Appellant states that removal of their registration as an ADI would have a devastating impact on their livelihood and on their family more generally. The Appellant asserts that under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 decisions affecting personal and family life “must be proportionate and justifiable”. The Appellant further asserts that the case of AA vs UK 2011 establishes that “decisions impacting a person ability to sustain themselves must balance public safety and individual rights”.

The Appellant states that the incident arose when they were on a lesson with a pupil. The pupil saw an individual step into the road and was forced to carry out a sudden stop. That dislodged the Appellant’s mobile phone and the cradle it sat in from the dashboard to the floor by their feet near the dual controls. Concerned that the phone or cradle could obstruct the dual controls if another incident arose the Appellant looked for the phone and cradle. The Appellant asserts there was no safe place to park up as the road had double yellow lines. Having picked up the phone but not the cradle, the phone then rang. The Appellant noticed the number on the car’s bluetooth screen as looking like the number of the hospital where their wife was receiving treatment. The Appellant touched the bluetooth screen and answered the call whilst the phone was in their hand. A police officer saw this and pulled the car over.

The Appellant is aware of the risks of mobile phone usage given they have previously had penalty points imposed for this offence and so have always used cars with bluetooth systems since then.

The Appellant is the sole carer for their wife who has had a serious medical condition for a number of years. The Appellant was at the time of the incident anxiously expecting an update from the hospital about her condition.

The Appellant seeks another chance but recognises it is not acceptable to have the mobile phone in hand and as an ADI it is important to demonstrate a high regard for all aspects of road safety.

That the Appellant has taken preventative measures to prevent such an issue arising again such as by placing the phone in a glove box and providing alternate contact numbers for the hospital.

That the Appellant does not dispute the facts but has nothing but remorse.

That the offence was a lapse of judgement as the Appellant was under considerable distress. The Appellant asserts that in administrative and employment law personal mitigating circumstances must be considered when assessing professional fitness as identified in R (McCarthy) v Visitors to the Inns of Court [2015] EWHC 960 (Admin).

The Appellant’s representations were carefully reviewed and whilst there is considerable empathy with the personal circumstances of the Appellant, it remains the case that the Appellant a) was previously warned in 2016 about this specific offence when they received penalty points for it previously and b) the Appellant admits to using their phone.

The Appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having accepted a fixed penalty notice and this cannot be ignored.

The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Anyone who is an ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task which should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. The Appellant is not believed to have displayed the required level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that is expected from an ADI.

Registration represents official approval, it would be inappropriate to condone motoring offences of this nature as it would effectively sanction such behaviour if transgressors are allowed entry on to the register to teach others.

It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as such, who have scrupulously observed the law for this recent relevant conviction to be ignored.