Abdul Majeed Dar v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 19 March 2026 at 16.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and submissions. He was accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Samittah Dar, his named and authorised representative, who also gave oral evidence and submissions. Oral evidence and submissions, essentially a character reference, was also received from a witness, Ms. Vivien Steer, called by the Appellant. Oral evidence and submissions were received, too, from the Respondent’s representative.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 5 August 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 on 29 July 2025, he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the Register due to his driving licence being endorsed with 6 penalty points due to him having committed a motoring offence (CU80) on 15 September 2023 while providing a driving lesson. The Appellant also failed to report the said endorsement of 6 penalty points to the Respondent within 7 days, not reporting until 6 July 2025. However, the Respondent did not pursue this failure as a reason for his decision.

The Appellant submitted an appeal on 27 August 2025, against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms:

The Appellant made representations to the Respondent dated 29 July 2025 wherein he stated what he later repeated in greater detail in an undated written submission (pages 19-22 of the bundle).

In that detailed written submission, the Appellant stated, in terms:

In his oral evidence, the Appellant stated he had made a mistake; that what occurred had never happened before and that he never used the phone as it was not safe to do so; that he told his students to store their phones; that when the incident occurred, the traffic was slow-moving; that his phone fell into his footwell, causing him to be concerned that he may not be able to use the dual-control pedals; that the road was a busy road with no place to park; that he took an opportunity to retrieve the phone, in those circumstances, but maintained that he did not take his eyes off the road; that his phone was on a ledge in the vehicle and was not secured; that if it had been secured, he agreed, it would not have fallen into the footwell; that this had never happened subsequently, the phone always now being kept in the glove compartment; that he accepted he must demonstrate high standards as an ADI and set good example to his students; that the police had stopped him when he picked the phone up off the floor of the vehicle, telling him, however, that they knew he was not using the phone but was holding it (a position accepted by the Appellant).

In response to clarifications sought by the Tribunal, the Appellant stated that the police vehicle had pulled up alongside his vehicle, on the driver’s side, even though the road was a single carriageway; that he had explained to the police officer what had happened and that the phone was only held by him for a couple of seconds; that his student was directed to drive to a side road 100 yards away and stop there; that the police officer confirmed there was no issue with the student’s driving. The Appellant stated he had emphasised the safety concern to the police officer, but that the officer stated that an offence had been committed. The Appellant confirmed that he then continued the lesson, completing it after 10 minutes, but that the student had booked no further lessons with him. The Appellant confirmed that there was only one available side road to pull in and stop; that his phone was ‘bulky’ due to it being kept in a wallet with his cards; that he ‘had to’ pick up the phone for safety reasons. He confirmed the comment in his detailed written submission that he decided to simply accept whatever outcome might arise but that had he realised that this might affect his ADI registration, he would have challenged the offence in court.

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

The Appellant’s wife, his representative, repeated, essentially, the written and oral evidence of the Appellant, describing the incident as ‘unfortunate’ and that since the Appellant could not stop on the road, his next best option was to retrieve the phone from the footwell as it was a hazard. She emphasised that the Appellant was truly sorry but accepted committing the offence.

The Appellant confirmed he wished his witness, Vivien Steer, to give evidence. Ms. Steer confirmed she attended as a character witness for the Respondent, having known the Appellant and his family for many years; that both the Appellant and his wife were hard working, the Appellant having been an accountant before becoming a driving instructor; that he was always diligent, caring for his family and students. She considered the episode to be so sad.

Neither the Tribunal, nor the Respondent’s representative had any questions for Ms. Steer.

The basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had ceased to be a ‘fit and proper person’, as required by s.125(2)(e) of the Act by reason of his conviction for the said motoring offence on 15 September 2023, 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, and not simply instructional ability alone. This involves consideration of allmaterial matters, including convictions, and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters incontext, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate, matters that require an ADI to have higher standards than the standards expected of an ordinary motorist.

The Respondent, in his Response document, confirmed that the Appellant’s name had first been entered onto the Register in December 2009 and that his registration had expired on 31 December 2025; that the Appellant’s application, dated 8 December 2025, to renew his registration had been held pending the outcome of this appeal. The Respondent, in making his decision, relied exclusively on the fact that the Appellant now had his driving licence endorsed with a total of 6 penalty points for the said motoring offence, as a reason for his decision, the fact that the Appellant had not reported the offence and penalty to the Respondent not being pursued. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant, being an experienced ADI, should have secured his mobile phone properly in his vehicle or put it away completely, while giving a driving lesson; that he had committed a motoring offence in front of a pupil and had not taken the opportunity to teach a pupil what to do with a mobile phone while driving, thus setting a very wrong example that undermined the integrity of the Respondent. He further submitted 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 offence, 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, reiterated the contents of the Decision letter and the Respondent’s Response document. He commented that he could not understand why the police would have proceeded if an offence had not been committed and noted that the Appellant had not challenged the offence in court and had accepted committing the offence; that the offence occurred during a driving lesson; that the Respondent adhered to his Guidance where 6 penalty points had been issued to a ADI and noted, too, that no advice appeared to have been taken by the Appellant.

In response to clarifications sought by the Tribunal, the Respondent’s representative advised that the Respondent’s Guidance stated that a mobile phone should not be used save when parked in a safe, legal place, but that there was no reference in the Guidance to a ‘secure place’ or the ‘glove compartment’. He advised that the Respondent would not check matters with the DVLA as a matter of course and that there was a requirement on an ADI in the Declaration completed by him every four years, to notify the Respondent of any offences or penalties.

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

The Respondent’s representative confirmed that he had no further submissions to make to the Tribunal.

The Appellant, in closing, reiterated that he took his responsibilities as an ADI very seriously and that he had held an unblemished driving licence for 30 years. He stated that what had occurred was a one-off incident that would not recur. He referred to the testimonials he had received from students.

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, indeed, 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 was particularly conscious of the Appellant’s long career as an ADI and the impressive testimonials submitted by him. However, the Tribunal was very concerned at the message this incident sent to the Appellant’s pupil, noting that the Appellant accepted having committed this serious motoring offence. The Tribunal also found the very fact that the Appellant stored his phone on a ledge in his vehicle, that would always create a potential for it to fall into the footwell, to be concerning. Finally, the Tribunal concluded that, in the circumstances described by the Appellant, there arose a question whether there ever would have been any need to use the dual controls – even if it might be reasonably argued that the phone falling into the footwell would not have prevented their use in any event.

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, the Appellant’s 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 offence, 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.