FT/D/2025/0435 - [2025] UKFTT 01267 (GRC)

The Appellant's case

Our understanding of the incident itself derives from the Appellant's written submissions, what he said at the appeal, hearing from Mrs Fernando and reading her letter of 14 March 2025.

Mrs Fernando was a very new learner driver. The Appellant was teaching her how to drive and follow a route using satnav which is part of the driving test. The Appellant was not using a built in satnav but using the maps function on his mobile phone which was mounted by a suction pad onto the windscreen. He provided evidence that it was not being used as a telephone. The route took them to a roundabout followed by a series of traffic lights. Mrs Fernando said she was finding driving and following the map difficult.

It was not entirely clear what then happened but it appears that Mrs Fernando had to stop very suddenly at a red light. She says in her letter that the Appellant's mobile phone was in the centre of the car (although it may have been towards the left hand side) and the force of the stop made it fall out of its mount and land under the Appellant's dual-control foot pedals. At the appeal she told us that she did not see it fall nor what followed as she was focused on driving.

The Appellant says that he considered the device being on the floor under the dual-control footbrake to be a safety risk. He said that while the car was still stationary he picked it up. He said:-

"This was not a case of distracted driving as I was not using the phone for communication, texting or any interactive function. The incident was solely the result of an unforeseen hazard that required immediate action to maintain safety."

The Appellant said in his letter that as he picked up the mobile, it was still active displaying the satnav function and "A police officer approached from behind and instructed me to pull into an Aldi car park." We could not see how this could have occurred as described and the Appellant at the appeal said that the police vehicle drew alongside to the left. We found the evidence about how the police saw the mobile being picked up and communicated about going to Aldi hard to follow. Mrs Fernando said she did not realise at this point that the police were involved but was directed to drive to the car park by the Appellant. In any event the police and the Appellant then had a discussion in the car park. The Appellant says that he explained what had occurred. Ultimately this incident led to the issue of a Notice of Intended Prosecution and the acceptance by him of the penalty points.

Other issues raised by the Appellant included these:-

he referred to his openness, integrity, professionalism and work ethic.

he told us of his character and regret about the incident. He listed the lessons he had learnt including not using a mounted phone-holder and his commitment to engaging in continuous education.

he said that the loss of the licence would have severe personal and financial consequences such as the loss of investment in training, unemployment and a resultant inability to support his family. He said that his current career is "... a crucial part of my identity and well-being."

he has continued to teach learner drivers while awaiting the outcome of the appeal.

The Appellant cited section 19 Equality Act 2010, Article 8 of the ECHR, two criminal court cases DPP-v- Barreto [2019] EWHC 2044 (admin) and R-v- Spurgeon (2018) and similar cases that have resulted in instructors remaining on the Register.

The bundle contained many positive references in addition to what was said by Mrs Fernando. For example only:-

we were provided with about 25 screen shots of positive comments about the Appellant as an instructor.

a representative from Drive4Pass, with whom the Appellant has been working, said the Appellant:-

"is a trustworthy and responsible individual who takes his role as a driving instructor very seriously. His commitment to upholding high standards of safety and professionalism makes him a valuable member of our team".

a pupil said (on 20 March 2025) "I also greatly appreciate that he never uses his mobile phone during lessons"

another pupil said (on 13 March 2025) "He always kept his phone away during lessons..."

another on 20 March 2025 said "..he has maintained a strong focus on safety, never using his phone..." and again on 11 March 2025 a pupil wrote "notably, he made sure that mobile phones were never used during lessons..."

We also noted what was said by the Appellant's wife in her letter of 17 March 2025 who, as well as referring to his ability to speak multiple languages, also said that he never uses his mobile phone when driving. She ended by saying:-

"I truly believe my husband...is a fit and proper person to carry on this journey. He takes great pride in his work, acts with professionalism and integrity and genuinely makes a positive impact on the people he teaches and the wider community, since coming into this field whist working towards his final part 3 test".