FT/D/2025/0424 - [2025] UKFTT 01170 (GRC)

The Appellant’s name is not now and has never been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

On 7 March 2025, the Appellant submitted an online application for a licence to give paid instruction in the driving of motor cars (a trainee licence). At this point, the Appellant did not disclose that there were any endorsements on her driving licence. After completing a standard search of the DVLA database, the Registrar was made aware of an undisclosed fixed penalty notice offence committed on 24 January 2024 for the use of a mobile phone whilst in control of a vehicle, resulting in 6 penalty points being endorse on the Appellant’s licence.

On 11 March 2025 the Registrar gave the Appellant 14 days to make representations before a decision was made about the refusal to grant her application for a trainee licence. The Appellant did not make any representations within the permitted timeframe, and the Registrar made the decision to refuse the application on 1 April 2025.

The Appellant maintains that she did not receive the letter of 11 March 2025.

In submissions, the Appellant told the Tribunal that she is aware that her conduct in using the mobile phone whilst in control of her vehicle was an offence. She stated that she used the phone in an emergency situation since she had found herself in standstill traffic due to a road accident ahead and was due to be late to collect her daughter from school. The Appellant confirmed that her daughter is in Year 10 in secondary school and that she usually collects her daughter at the end of the day.

The Appellant went on to say that, in her view, the emergency was such that she made calls to her daughter several times, she attempted to telephone the school and also the parents of her daughter’s friends. She has attempted to obtain telephone records to support this without success.

The Appellant confirmed that she does have hands free facilities within her vehicle and also that there was no opportunity for her to pull over and stop the vehicle to allow her to make the calls since there was no hard shoulder on the road.

If a person is granted a trainee ADI licence when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of, and undermine the public’s confidence in the registration system.

ADIs and trainee ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs will not commit motoring offences of this nature.

Teaching people of all ages to drive safely, carefully, and competently is a professional vocation requiring a significant degree of responsibility. Such a demanding task should only be entrusted to those with high personal and professional standards and who themselves have demonstrated a keen regard for road safety and compliance with the law.

The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. I find that this would be undermined if the Appellant was permitted to have a trainee licence with a view to being on the Register. The actions of the Appellant may not seem to some to be an overly serious offence particularly since her vehicle was in stationary traffic, however, the law, the Registrar and this Tribunal treat offences of this nature very seriously. It is essential that ADIs follow the law given they are teaching to follow the same laws of the road.

I have considered all the arguments made by the Appellant. However, the fact that the Appellant did not disclose the offence to the Registrar at the outset, coupled with her admission of using the phone on several occasions to telephone multiple parties, leads me to find that allowing a trainee licence in these circumstances would be sanctioning the Appellant’s conduct in using a mobile telephone whilst in control of a vehicle. I do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances which would justify allowing the Appellant to hold a trainee licence.

I therefore find that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, I conclude that the Registrar’s decision not to grant the Appellant a trainee licence was correct. The appeal is dismissed.