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

The Appellant asks the Tribunal to consider this appeal with compassion, proportionality, and fairness based on the Appellant’s good character, unblemished professional record and the exceptional and isolated nature of the incident in question and the severe personal impact removal will cause.

The Appellant fully acknowledges the seriousness of the fixed penalty notice.

The Appellant states that the fixed penalty notice arose during a moment of crisis, because her mother-in-law was critically ill and suffered a stroke and was rushed to hospital in Pakistan on that day 30 December 2024. The Appellant was her primary carer. The Appellant further states that they glanced at their phone whilst the vehicle was stationary to check a message about the condition of their mother-in-law. That this was a one-off circumstantial incident with no intent to breach the law. The Appellant states that the motivation was one based on care for the Mother-in-law not recklessness.

The Appellant denies this was a case of distracted driving as she asserts the car was stationary and the Appellant asserts that they were not on the phone, nor using the phone for communication, texting or any interactive function. The Appellant states they momentarily touched the phone to check the message.

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.

In the Appellant’s opinion, by informing the DVSA on the 25 February 2025 whilst the Appellant was in Pakistan this demonstrates transparency and by complying and responding around the funeral of her mother-in-law should demonstrate the Appellant’s honesty, integrity and good character.

The Appellant has been an ADI for over a decade and losing ADI status would have a profound effect on the Appellant both professionally and personally.

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 mother-in-law had various health issues that worsened in late December 2024 but nonetheless had travelled to Pakistan prior to suffering a stroke on 30 December 2024. The Appellant monitored the mother-in-law's condition from afar suffering considerable stress as her health deteriorated till unfortunately the mother-in-law passed away on 14 February 2025 causing considerable grief to the whole family. The Appellant’s mental health has been significantly impacted and they have sought help accordingly.

The Appellant asserts that they have been fully transparent in engaging with the DVSA and fulfilling their duty to disclose relevant circumstances to them.

That prior to this incident the Appellant had no penalty points on their licence, and they had previously maintained an exemplary driving and professional record.

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”.

That the number of character references provided demonstrate the Appellant has the professionalism and personal responsibility of an ADI and the incident in question was out of character.

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 setting it to do not disturb. Additionally, the Appellant has used the experience as a learning point and has developed training specifically on this point for their students.

That the principle of proportionality must be considered as regards in particular the cases of R (P) v SoS Justice 2019 UKSC 3 and R (L) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKSC 3.

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 admits to using her phone to view a message. As an ADI well aware of the rules on mobile phone use this is not acceptable behaviour.

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

The Appellant failed to notify the Registrar within 7 days as required, only responding following a notification from the Registrar on the 24 February 2025.

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.

Mobile phone use offences are serious road safety offences and give rise to significant numbers of casualties and accidents.

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.