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

Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor’s name is in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, or she is the holder of a current licence issued under s 129(1) of the Act.

Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to be and continue to be a “fit and proper person” to have her name on the Register – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”).

Pursuant to section 129(2) of the Act, the Registrar may refuse to issue a licence to a person if they are satisfied that the applicant is not a fit and proper person pursuant to section 125(3)(e).

The Registrar has the burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions (in accordance with R. (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31).

In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808, the Court of Appeal described the “fit and proper person” condition as follows: “..the condition is not simply that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor, it is that he is a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the register. Registration carries with it an official seal of approval…It seems to me that the maintenance of public confidence in the register is important. For that purpose, the Registrar must be in a position to carry out his function of scrutiny effectively, including consideration of the implications of any convictions of an applicant or a registered ADI. This is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.” (paragraph 30).