FT/D/2025/0386/FPP - [2025] UKFTT 01264 (GRC)

Tribunal's review

Our role is defined by the Act and in the relevant legal authorities such as Harris and Hope and Glory. Our starting point is therefore to consider and give due regard to the view of and the Decision made by the Registrar.

We accept the Registrar's position as set out in this appeal in particular noting the harm caused by excessive speed. ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary drivers. The public expects the Registrar to work to ensure that ADIs are FPP in the wider Harris sense and has the right to expect ADIs to adhere to the highest standards of motoring. It is right for the Registrar to be concerned about a person with 6 points for speeding offences potentially being on the Register. We also noted the content of the Guidance and the Code on speeding and the FPP status.

The Guidance also refers to the need for penalty points to be notified to the Registrar and that when the Appellant made his application for renewal in November 2022 in the form he stated that he understood this.

As a result of the above, and noting the Appellant's long experience, we found it difficult to accept that the failure to notify was caused by ignorance of the need to do so. However this was the Appellant's position and we did accept it but in doing so had cause to doubt the Appellant's attention to the details of the responsibilities of an ADI.

While the focus of the Decision was about the 2 specific speeding offences and the relevant 6 points we also kept in mind that prior to the first set of points the Appellant had also been on a speed awareness course due again to speeding. In his appeal he referred to his "clean legal and professional record " and said:-

"aside from these minor speed- related incidents I have never been convicted of any criminal offences that would call my professional conduct into question."

We accept that these words are accurate notwithstanding the offence that led to the speed awareness course. However the fact that the Appellant had been on a course makes the failure to adhere to the speed limit in June 2024 and then again in November 2024 more surprising.

As regards the offences they were not challenged in court but were accepted with the resultant points. While the speed reductions were relatively new there was no suggestion that the signage was missing or inaccurate. We would expect an ADI to be able to comply with changing speed limits.

We noted what the Appellant said about his honesty, the lessons learnt and his commitment to continued professional development.

We were sympathetic to the personal issues raised such as the financial impact if not able to be an ADI. This is something we would expect would be of great concern to almost all in this situation. However in our view, while we review all the circumstances and have taken it into account, we do not consider the likely financial impact to be a particularly relevant consideration for a decision about whether an ADI is a FPP. Again the need to maintain the integrity of and public trust in the Register is likely always to be greater than the needs of an individual appellant and we gave this point very little weight.

We accept that the Appellant has been a successful ADI for many years. He was supported by a wide range of helpful references all of which spoke highly of his capabilities.