FT/D/2025/0491/FPP - [2025] UKFTT 01285 (GRC)

The Appellant is the only person working in his household and both his wife and daughter have medical issues. He has two children and a large part of the reason he works as a trainee driving instructor is because of the freedom it offers to set his working times around school pickups etc. The Appellant previously worked in a kitchen but had to give that work up due to a medical condition.

The Appellant accepts and apologises for the mistake and that prior to that point he had never had any points on his licence or any other criticism of his driving. He had never been involved with the Police or a Court before and always obeyed by all the laws since he arrived in the UK in 2010.

That the incident took place as set out in the ‘Relevant Facts’ section of this judgment, and that because he had been a friend of Mr Bandara for many years “I could not ask him to get out of the car” and so “I had to jump in the car and help him” to move the car out of the middle of the road. No one had any reason to suspect this would happen outside his house nor that the impact with the scooter would take place.

The Appellant accepted that he had a choice when he returned to finding Mr Bandara driving his car, and that he could have refused to enter the car but did not do so.

The Appellant set out that in his written submissions there was evidence of previous times when he ensured that others had obtained temporary insurance for use of his vehicle, but clarified that on each of these occasions he was not in the car as these were times others borrowed the car to take a test in it.

That the court date was the day he chose to submit his application for entry to the Register (before he knew the outcome of his appearance).

That all the character references relating to former pupils are from pupils from the period between 2021 and April 2023, some time prior to the date of the conviction. He was able to contact them because he remained on friendly terms with them and would call at holiday periods and alike.

The incident that led to the conviction was as set out in the ‘Relevant Facts’ section of this judgment. I was not a qualified driver but still a learner.

I had seen how the Appellant had easily parallel parked his vehicle and as that is something I had trouble with I decided to try and practice that skill while I waited for the Appellant to return from his house.

I was in the middle of the road when the Appellant returned having panicked and stalled the car when I heard sirens approaching. The Appellant saw me and immediately jumped into the car to guide me to safely park the vehicle. Unfortunately, the scooter and the police vehicle chasing it appeared and there was a minor collision with the scooter. If the Appellant had not jumped in the car it could have been a disaster but instead there was no injuries and only a very small scratch to the car.

The Appellant at the time of the offence was a trainee driving instructor in the middle of completing the three-part test to become an ADI. They should therefore have been acutely aware of the high standard of driving and respect for the laws of the road that is expected of an ADI.

Allowing a person who the Appellant knew was not qualified to drive and who he knew was not insured, to drive a vehicle of the Appellant’s does not demonstrate those required high standards. Especially when the conduct relates to actively assisting the uninsured driver to drive by entering the car and providing instruction on how to complete the manoeuvre.

Additionally, the holding of a six points on the Appellant’s driving licence itself alone demonstrates that the Appellant does not meet the required quality of being a fit and proper person to be an ADI.

In those circumstances as the Registrar is charged with maintaining the Register and ensuring that all persons named on it meet the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria it is not appropriate to enter the Appellant’s name on the Register.