FT/D/2025/0494/FPP - [2025] UKFTT 01246 (GRC)

Prior to the incident in the Appellant’s many years of being an ADI she had never made such an error or had points on her licence before and it was terrible mistake and lapse of judgment on her part.

On the days prior to the incident the Appellant’s mother-in-law had been unwell with her health deteriorating.

The Appellant on the day “could not think straight” with worry for her mother-in-law to whom she was very close after the death of her own mother 15 years ago. That day the Appellant was distressed and juggling calls from abroad, she told us that she felt emotionally overwhelmed.

As she came to a temporary stop in a line of traffic in the middle of the road (not near any junction) she received a text message. Her car is not equipped with bluetooth functionality and so the notification came from the phone itself that was sat loose on the passenger seat. The Appellant glanced at and then picked up the phone to swipe at it and read the message as she didn’t have her glasses on. Thinking it might relate to her mother-in-law.

Approximately 10 days later she received a letter concerning the offence with photographs and she accepted liability for it immediately. The Appellant knew what she did was wrong and accepted that she was guilty of this offence.

The Appellant feels that she has let herself, her family, her pupils and everyone down. To seek to ensure this doesn't happen again she has taken measures to prevent it such as by insisting phones are kept in the boot of the car now with scheduled breaks to check for messages. She has also developed special phone related training for her students in light of this event.

The Appellant recognises she made a terrible mistake on that day and that there is no excuse for it. The consequences will be very significant for her, her family and the wider community if she cannot continue to be an ADI. The implications terrify her, and she asks for mercy and compassion.

The Appellant said it was an oversight that she did not inform the DVSA of accepting the points on 17 February as she was required to. Unfortunately, her mother-in-law had passed away and she had to travel to Pakistan at that time. When the DVSA contacted her on 24 February she ensured she responded within hours.

When questioned about the various cases and legislation cited in the Appellant’s written submissions the Appellant was unable to provide any comment beyond stating that she thought the outcome should be proportionate and losing her ADI status would not be in this case. Beyond this the Appellant was unable to give any explanation as to what the Appellant sought to rely on these citations for, nor was she able to give any indication as to why and how the Appellant wanted the particular legislation and precedent case law cited to be applied in the specific context of this case.

The Registrar stands by the points made in the statement of case.

The Appellant having accepted 6 penalty points for a mobile phone driving offence is no longer able to satisfy the fit and proper person criteria.

The representations of the Appellant were considered but the holding and looking at a phone whilst driving is a significant distraction posing considerable danger to herself and others. As an ADI she should know this and the law. To have acted contrary nonetheless shows insufficient regard to the motoring laws and road safety.

In all the circumstances the decision of the Registrar was correct.