Fazilrabi Noor v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 19 March 2026. 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 4 November 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a trainee driving instructor licence, pursuant to section 128(4) 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 20 October 2025, he was not a fit and proper person to be granted a trainee licence due to him having been convicted of a motoring offence (IN10) – no insurance - committed on 6 June 2025, in respect of which the Appellant received penalty points (the maximum level of points).

The Appellant submitted an appeal dated 6 November 2025, against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms:

The Appellant made representations to the Respondent on 20 October 2025 that, essentially, reiterated the contents of his appeal document, but adding that he understood he had made a mistake and that he did not get a chance to explain everything in court.

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 the Respondent.

In his oral evidence, the Appellant presented a rather confused account. He stated that because he was insured on his other vehicle, he thought no offence arose, but accepted that he was not, in fact, insured in respect of his second vehicle, being used at the date of the offence. He stated he had worked hard to further his anticipated driving instructor career, including having spent £3,000 - £4,000. He stated he was not a good decision-maker and, at the time he swapped seats with his friend, the vehicle was stopped at traffic lights. He advised the police that he would immediately arrange insurance, but which, he stated, his friend was attending to before being stopped by the police but had not completed in time. The Appellant maintained that his friend said he had insurance and was covered, therefore, to drive this second vehicle of the Appellant. He advised that the court never looked at his other insurance policy; that his solicitor had not appeared and he was confused in the court. He pleaded ‘Guilty’, however, to the offence.

In response to questions of clarification from the Tribunal, the Appellant confirmed the vehicle involved at the time of the incident was owned by him, that he owned two cars, one of which had ‘learner insurance’; that he was driving the vehicle 5-6 minutes before being stopped by the police and that he could not find a safe place to park. He stated he believed that while the insurance on the vehicle involved had expired, he was covered for that vehicle under the insurance for his other vehicle. He then stated that the vehicle involved was insured for it being driven by his friend but not for himself to drive it. He stated he had arranged the insurance for his friend. He confirmed there was no written statement from his friend as no-one had asked him for such statement.

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

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 Act by reason of his convictions for the said motoring offence, in respect of which his driving licence was endorsed with 8 penalty points.

Conditions require that an applicant for a trainee licence (such as 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, a standard higher than that expected of an ordinary motorist.

The Respondent, in his Response document, confirmed that the Appellant had applied for a trainee licence, not having held a trainee licence previously, on 13 September 2025 [4 days after his conviction for a ‘no insurance’ motoring offence]. The Respondent, in making his decision, relied exclusively, on the fact that the Appellant now had his driving licence endorsed with 8 penalty points for ‘no insurance’, the commission of that offence having been accepted by the Appellant. The Respondent further submitted in his Response that to be granted a trainee licence, the Appellant required, to be a ‘fit and proper person’, having regard to his character, behaviour and standards of conduct; 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 applicant for a trainee licence, a potential ADI; that government had increased penalties for serious road safety offences such as this as they contributed to a significant number of casualties; that he could not condone a motoring offence of this nature as, to do so, would, effectively, sanction such behaviour if transgressors were granted a trainee driving instructor licence that allows them to teach others and that it would be offensive to other applicants for trainee licences 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 this Decision. He also submitted that the court, by imposing 8 penalty points on the Appellant, was very concerned.

Neither the Tribunal nor the Appellant had any questions for the Respondent’s representative.

The Respondent’s representative had no closing submissions.

In closing remarks, the Appellant stated he had no intention of driving without insurance, there being no reason to do so since driving had always been his full-time occupation in various roles. He submitted that the whole affair was a ‘big mistake’.

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 Tribunal found the Appellant’s evidence, both written and oral, to be inconsistent, and lacking in credibility. The Tribunal concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant knew he had no insurance and yet drove the vehicle involved, a fact that was compounded by him having held other driving roles. Driving without motor insurance is a very serious matter.

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 granted a trainee driving instructor licence 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 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, being refused a trainee licence, 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 refusal of the Appellant’s application for a trainee licence 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 to be granted a trainee driving instructor licence.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.