Yudhvir Singh v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 11 March 2026 at 10.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. Oral evidence and submissions were heard on behalf of the Respondent from its representative.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 29 August 2025 to remove his name from the Register (‘the Register’) of Approved Driving Instructors (‘ADIs’), pursuant to section 128(2)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) on the basis that, having taken account of the Appellant’s representations received by email on 8 August 2025, he was no longer a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the Register due to him having accepted that, on 18 October 2024 and, again, on 13 April 2025, he had committed a speeding motoring offence, for which he accepted a fixed penalty in each case that resulted in an endorsement of 6 penalty points in total (3 penalty points in each case) on his licence.

The Appellant submitted a detailed appeal on 22 September 2025 against the Respondent’s said decision, reiterating, essentially, but in more detail, his representations against the stated intention of the Respondent to remove his name from the Register, including character references and testimonials. The said representations, largely incorporated into his grounds of appeal, included, in terms:

In his oral evidence, the Appellant essentially repeated and reiterated the contents of his representations and grounds of appeal. He also confirmed that he accepted committing the offences and now offered no excuse; that he was fully aware of the ADI voluntary Code of Practice and standards; that he was committed to there being no recurrence and the said ADI standards; that he had taught hundreds of pupils; that he had undertaken a number of remedial actions, that he detailed; that being an ADI was his sole livelihood, being aged 55 years of age, and would lead to financial hardship; that his name being removed from the Register would represent a loss of service to the community and that the offences were minor when compared to the work he had put in over the years as an ADI.

In response to questions of clarification from the Tribunal, the Appellant confirmed that, in respect of the second offence, there were road works in the 20mph zone; that he could not recall the location of the speed camera; that traffic was being marshalled by the road workers, leading to him feeling he could not lag behind; that he had not thought of challenging the offences when they were committed and had not taken advice in that regard; that he had undertaken a Speed Awareness Course more than 5 years ago, but had not been offered that option following the two offences; that he agreed with 20mph zones as they slowed down traffic and made roads safer, but queried the location of some of those zones; that he had put a speed limiter in his vehicle and that his pupils would have challenges adhering to a 20mph speed limit; that he now gave only three 1.5 hour lessons per day and outlined the personal reflection steps taken by him and that his reference to 20mph speed limits being ignored by other drivers was stated as being a fact - not as an excuse.

In closing remarks, the Appellant again accepted he had committed both offences and apologised. He suggested these offences were minor in comparison to other motoring offences and that the decision under appeal was disproportionate given his history as an ADI.

In his said decision, the Respondent stated that while account had been taken of the Appellant’s representations, he no longer considered the Appellant to be a fit and proper person and removed his name from the Register due to his having committed the said speeding offences incurring a total of 6 penalty points, that were accepted by the Appellant. The Respondent reiterated this position in his Response document, emphasising that the conditions for entry onto the Register, or remaining on the Register, extended beyond instructional ability alone to a need to take account of the Appellant’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct too; that the standards expected of an ADI exceeded those expected of an ordinary motorist; that teaching (generally) young people to drive was a responsible and demanding task that should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen sense of road safety, something not demonstrated by the Appellant in receiving a total of 6 penalty points for two motoring offences of speeding, in which penalties had recently been increased due to a significant number of casualties occurring; that offences of this nature could not be condoned as, to do so, would, effectively, sanction such behaviour if those who transgressed were allowed to have their names remain on the Register that allows them to teach others to drive and would be offensive to other ADIs, or aspiring ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, to ignore this offence.

In his oral evidence the Respondent’s representative restated these matters, noting, too, that the two offences had been committed within 6 months of each other.

The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had furnished copious amounts of information concerning the offences, and steps he had taken subsequently, in respect of which the Respondent’s Response said little in reply.

In response to questions for clarification from the Tribunal, the Respondent’s representative stated that, normally, if an ADI received 3 penalty points for one motoring offence, he would be merely issued with a warning to allow the ADI to take further steps for the future. However, the key to the making of the decision under appeal was, he stated, the fact that the Appellant had committed two motoring offences within 6 months. Further, he submitted, the actions of other drivers were irrelevant.

The Appellant had no questions for the Respondent’s representative.

The Respondent’s representative had no closing submissions to make.

All of the evidence, written and oral, by, or on behalf of both parties, and their submissions, were considered by the Tribunal, resulting in the Tribunal taking an exceptional course to allow this appeal, on balance of probabilities.

While the Appellant did not challenge the FPN in the local Magistrates’ Court, the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, found the Appellant to be credible, honest, sincere, and forthright, demonstrating considerable insight and understanding. He stated all that could be expected. He was an experienced ADI, with the first offence being committed while he was under considerable domestic pressure, while, on balance, the second offence may have largely occasioned due to unusual circumstances where traffic at road works was being marshalled manually by road workers.

The Respondent could, and should, in all the circumstances, have accepted that were exceptional circumstances in both cases, and could, and should, have, in the alternative, issued a warning to the Appellant, rather than make a decision to remove his name from the Register.

The basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant did not fulfil the
criteria to be a ‘fit and proper person’, as required by the relevant provisions in the Act.

Conditions for remaining on the Register do require that an ADI (the Appellant in this case) to be a ‘fit and proper person’. This does require account to be taken of anAppellant’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of allmaterial matters, including convictions for offences including, as in this case, a motoring offence, and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters incontext, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate. The Respondent may take theview that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change incircumstances, so long as he does not make a decision such as this merely by reference to the Appellant accruing 6 penalty points on his licence.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way ofre-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must givesuch weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a proceduralreview of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

The Appellant, in essence, correctly submitted in both his written and oral evidence that all of the circumstances had to examined and that the penalty imposed on him in respect of motoring offences did not, and should not, have resulted in automatic removal of his name from the Register.

The Tribunal found that, while the Appellant did not challenge the alleged offence in the local Magistrates’ Court. The Tribunal accepted that the Appellant was remorseful and that what occurred would not recur. It was accepted that the Appellant loved his career as an ADI and that he was an otherwise diligent, long-standing ADI. The Tribunal accepted that the Appellant understood the standards expected of an ADI.

While the Tribunal was conscious of, and was bound by, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving
Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 that stated, inter alia -

In reaching its Decision, the Tribunal considered all of the evidence and submissions received, both written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

The Tribunal also considered the wider context of the Appellant’s professional conduct.

The decision of the Tribunal in this appeal does not take away from the importance which attaches to the integrity ofthe Register. For the public to have trust init, the Respondent must act in a way that encourages belief that those on it have high standards. Allowing those who do not meet those standards would undermine the trust placed in it with serious consequences for those who do maintain the necessary high standards.These are matters of wider, and public interest, which attract significant weight even where, as in this case, removal of the Appellant’s name from the Register may have had significant consequences for the Appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal isallowed.