Ian Wycherley v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 11 March 2026 at 11.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence. He was accompanied by his wife, Sharon Wycherley who also gave oral evidence.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 20 October 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for re-registration as an Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’), pursuant to section 125(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to have his name re-entered onto the Register, pursuant to s.125(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’), due to him having been convicted of a motoring offence on 3 April 2024 (TT99) for which he was disqualified from driving for a period of 6 months under the ‘totting up’ procedure. The Appellant was also convicted of two previous motoring offences, namely, on 24 April 2007 of having no insurance, for which he received 6 penalty points (but his application to have his name entered onto the Register was approved in July 2007) and, on 29 October 2010 of failing to identify a driver, for which he again received 6 penalty points (but, again, his application to have his name entered not the Register was approved in October 2011, but with a warning being issued, including that any further offences had to be notified to the Respondent within 7 days). These earlier convictions were not directly related to the decision under appeal. The Appellant, contrary to his signed declaration dated 27 July 2021 on his application for re-entry onto the Register, failed to declare his latest offence(s). The Respondent stated that he had taken account the Appellant’s representations dated 17 October 2025 before making the said decision under appeal.

The Appellant submitted an appeal on 28 October 2025, against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms, reiterating his said representations to the Respondent:

In his response or 10/02/126 the Respondent confirmed that the Appellants name was first entered into the ADI Register in 2007.  His registration expired 31/08/26 and he applied for re-registration in October 2025. The Appellant had advised the Respondent on 28/08/25 that he had been disqualified from driving for 6 months on 03/04/25 (TT90).  The re-registration application was refused by the Respondent because in light of the TT90 disqualification offence above, believing the Appellant to be no longer a Fit and Proper Person to be on the ADI register.  The reasons for refusal were that an account must be taken of his behaviour character and standards of conduct of the ADI and these should be at a level which exceeds those of an ordinary motorist.  Teaching (generally) young people, to drive was responsible and demanding and should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. In committing the offences the Registrar found the Appellant had failed to display such a commitment and this could not be condoned, pointing out that such offences contribute significantly to casualties on the roads and were he to allow ADIs who had committed such offences to be on the Register he would in effect be condoning their behaviour, that would be offensive to other ADIs or aspiring ADIs who had been scrupulous in their behaviour and observance of the law.

The Respondent’s representative, in oral submissions, reiterated the contents of the Respondent’s decision notice and Response.

The Respondent’s representative, in response to queries from the Tribunal, advised that the DVLA database did not reveal the make-up of the penalty points imposed on the Appellant. In respect of the reference to the Appellant having received a warning for ‘common assault’ in the papers, the Appellant’s representative stated that such a matter would come to the attention of the Respondent if the Appellant had self-declared that matter or from the police or following an Enhanced Disclosure procedure, but that there was no issue of any ‘common assault’ matter being part of the decision under appeal, albeit there was an obligation on an ADI to disclose all offences.

The Appellant, in his oral evidence, stated that his choice had been to commit a speeding offence or potentially let his daughter die by choking. He stated that he had been driving for 35 years; that he was experienced at driving on a racetrack and, therefore, experienced in fast driving and that driving at 80mph was nothing to him; that his pupils had an 86% successful pass rate and could not believe that this [presumably the decision under appeal] had happened. He agreed he should have identified his paramedic friend, who was driving another vehicle belonging to the Appellant, but did not in case his job was affected; that he, the Appellant, had received a call from his son and that he, the Appellant, was literally ‘down the road’ at that time.

In response to clarificatory questions from the Tribunal, the Appellant confirmed that his daughter was a lot better now and that his paramedic friend had been off-duty; that the offences, involving both vehicles (both of which were owned by him), were detected by camera; that he was furious to be penalised and had written to the Ticket Office, that did not listen to him. He confirmed that he ‘did not bother’ challenging the offences in court. He confirmed that the 12 penalty points arose out of one incident – his speeding offence and his failing to identify his friend, the driver of the other vehicle. He advised he never dreamt that what occurred would affect his ADI registration; that he had been driving for 36-37 years, passing a Standards Check every four years, the last being 2.5 years ago [actually 24 October 2017, as confirmed by the Respondents representative]; that he had about 20 pupils at any one time and that he was a very good, passionate instructor. He confirmed that he had been driving at 73mph in a 50mph zone.

The Appellant’s wife stated that the Appellant had been ‘in a right state’ about his daughter; that he had not been far away and that they lived in a semi-rural area. She stated the Appellant realised he was wrong to fail to identify his friend as the driver of the other vehicle.

The Appellant confirmed he understood he had done wrong but that, if given another chance, he would ‘keep his nose clean’. He also confirmed that he had not been in the driving school car at the time of the offence and had to get back to see his daughter. He suggested that a ‘slap on the wrist’ would be all that was required as he was a good instructor with a very high pass rate.

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 Respondent, in its said Response, referred to the fact of the motoring offences committed by the Appellant and that he had failed to report same to the Respondent within 7 days, as a result of which it found the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to be re-entered onto the Register, together with the other reasons set out in paragraph 4 of this Decision.

As a matter of law, the standing of the Respondent could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidenceundermined, if it were known that a person whose name was included in the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours or been convicted in relation to an offence, substantially material to the question of fitness. This can be in respect of behaviourpertaining to motoring matters and other matters of responsibility, trustworthiness and prudence;indeed, it would be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observingthe law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving
Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 confirmed that -

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

The Tribunal must bear in mind 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, being refused re-entry onto the Register, potentially may have significant consequences for the Appellant.

The Tribunal particularly considered the question of whether it was proportionate to dismiss this appeal. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal concluded that, in view of the gravity of the particular said motoring offences, it was dictated that refusal to re-enter the Appellant’s name onto the ADI Register was entirely proportionate in all the circumstances.

Taking all these factors into account and, noting that the Tribunal needs to maintain publictrust in the Register and to prioritise consumer protection over the interests of the Appellant as an individual driving instructor, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant, at the time of this appeal, was not a fit and proper person tohave his name entered onto the Register.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.