Darren Geoffrey Salter v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 19 March 2026 at 11.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and submissions. Oral evidence and submissions were given by the Respondent’s representative.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 21 October 2025 to remove the Appellant’s 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 representations made by the Appellant, in writing, by email on 2 and 7 October 2025, he was not a fit and proper person to have his name entered onto the Register due to him having been convicted of two motoring offences (SP50 and SP30) committed on 18 April 2024 on a motorway and on 4 August 2025 on a public road, respectively, in respect of which the Appellant received a total of 6 penalty points (3 penalty points in respect of each offence). The Appellant also failed to report each penalty to the Respondent within 7 days. However, the Respondent did not pursue this failure as a reason for his decision.

The Appellant submitted an appeal on 3 November 2025, against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms:

The Appellant made representations to the Respondent on 2 and 7 October 2025, namely, in terms:

The Appellant’s representations and written grounds of appeal, were taken into account by the Respondent prior to the decision under appeal being made by it.

In his oral evidence, the Appellant reiterated that he had been an ADI for a very long time and had a very good reputation [as an ADI]; that due to a difficult period in his life he had made mistakes by committing the said offences but to remove his name from the Register was harsh. He explained the circumstances of each offence. He confirmed he had been offered a Speed Awareness Course on each occasion but had not accepted this offer on time, in either case, due again, he submitted, to his personal circumstances at the time, that had been resolved 8 months ago, but that he had suffered stress for 3 years while continuing to teach driving instruction. Finally, the Appellant submitted that, normally, he planned his days well. The Tribunal spent some time on the question of the Appellant not reporting the offences to the Respondent. However, this was not, ultimately, pursued by the Tribunal in making its Decision.

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 s.128(2)(e) of the Act by reason of his convictions for the said motoring offences, in respect of which his driving licence was endorsed with a total of 6 penalty points.

Conditions require that an applicant for entry onto the Register (the Appellant in this case) to be a ‘fit and proper person’. This requires account to be taken of anapplicant’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of allmaterial matters, including convictions, and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters incontext, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate.

The Respondent, in his Response document, relied exclusively in making his decision, on the fact that the Appellant now had his driving licence endorsed with a total of 6 penalty points for two separate speeding offences, accepted by the Appellant, who also accepted there had been no excuse. He confirmed that the Appellant’s name had first been entered onto the Register in September 2005 that would have expired, in ordinary course, on 31 October 2025 and the Appellant had applied for renewal on 29 October 2025 [some 8 days after the date of the decision under appeal]. The Respondent further expressed his disappointment that the Appellant, being an ADI for so long, did not, he stated, understand the dangers of excess speed or have better time management to avoid any ‘need’ to speed; that the conditions for remaining on the Register extended beyond instructional ability alone, requiring him, in addition, to be a fit and proper person, having regard to his character, behaviour and standards of conduct, that had to be in excess of those 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 for road safety; that in committing the said motoring offences, the Appellant had not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety expected of an ADI; that government had increased penalties for serious road safety offences such as these as they contributed to a significant number of casualties; that he could not condone motoring offences of this nature as, to do so, would, effectively, sanction such behaviour if transgressors were allowed to remain on an official Register that allows them to teach others and that it would be offensive to other ADIs or aspiring ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, to ignore these recent and relevant motoring offences.

The Respondent’s representative, in oral submissions, confirmed the contents of the Respondent’s written evidence and the matters set out already in the Respondent’s Decision. He emphasised that an ADI must have standards of conduct and behaviour higher than that of an ordinary motorist, while sympathising with the Appellant’s difficult personal circumstances. He confirmed that the Appellant had not reported either of the said offences to the Respondent, as required. He confirmed that the Appellant had been re-registered as an ADI every 4 years, nothing untoward having come to the attention of the Respondent.

Neither the Appellant nor the Respondent’s representative had anything further to add.

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.

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 significant 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, his name being removed from 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, dictated that removal of the Appellant’s name from the Register was entirely proportionate in all the circumstances.

While all of the evidence, and submissions, both written and oral from, and on behalf of, the parties, was considered by the Tribunal, it did not alter the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss this appeal as the written and oral evidence and submissions before the Tribunal were not of sufficient persuasive value to do otherwise.

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.