Muhammad Aamir Patel v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 16 April 2026, before me, at 14.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. Oral evidence and submissions were made on behalf of the Respondent by its representative.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 17 November 2025, pursuant to section 125(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, to refuse his application dated 8 October 2025 to grant him a trainee driving instructor licence, on the basis that the Respondent did not consider the Appellant to be a fit and proper person (‘FPP’) to be granted a trainee licence as he had received, and accepted, two Fixed Penalty Notices for driving at excess speed (SP30) on 24 March 2024 and 18 January 2025, respectively, the Appellant having received 3 penalty points in respect of each office, making a total of 6 penalty points, all of which remained endorsed on his licence at the date of his said application for a trainee licence.

The Appellant submitted an appeal dated 23 November 2025 against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms that reiterated his detailed representations to the Respondent in response to the Respondent’s notification of his possible decision:

In his oral evidence, the Appellant stated he understood the basis of the Respondent’s decision. He reiterated much of what was in his written submissions. He pointed out that he had engaged in a level and volume of training that was ‘above and beyond’ what was required and that he was still practising with ADIs since the offences. He submitted that new circumstances existed since January 2025 (when he had committed the second excess speed offence).

The Appellant was unsure whether or not he had ever undertaken a Speed Awareness Course and could not remember if this had been offered to him following the said two offences.

The Appellant had provided a written Witness Statement dated 19 February 2026, as directed in Case Management Directions dated 5 February 2026 issued by the Tribunal. This Statement essentially confirmed the Appellant’s written and oral evidence and submissions.

In his Response document dated 25 February 2026, the Respondent elaborated on the reasons for his decision as set out in the said decision. He confirmed that a warning had been issued to the Appellant when the Appellant had disclosed his first excess speed offence resulting in his licence being endorsed with 3 penalty points. He set out the detailed representations made by the Appellant, explaining the circumstances of the two excess speed offences that he attributed to a brief lapse of concentration rather than a deliberate disregard for the law, pointing out that he had not received the maximum penalty points or monetary penalty; that he took full responsibility and was deeply regretful; had learned an important lesson and had reassessed his driving habits and attitude to road safety, referring to taking advice and guidance from his mother in her capacity as a long-established ADI, that would help, he submitted, in ensuring there would be no recurrence. The Response of the Respondent attached particular significance to the fact that the Appellant had committee two separate excess speed offences resulting in his licence currently being endorsed with 6 penalty points; that the standards expected of an aspiring ADI in respect of behaviour and driving 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 regard for road safety; that in committing the said offences, the Appellant had not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety expected from an aspiring ADI; that penalties for serious motoring offences, such as these, had been increased as they contribute to a significant number of casualties; that the Respondent could not condone offences of this nature as, to do so, would effectively sanction such behaviour, if transgressors were allowed, ultimately, to be to have their names entered onto the ADI Register that would allow them to teach others and that it would be offensive to other aspiring ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, to ignore these motoring offences.

In his oral submissions, the Respondent’s representative essentially confirmed what was contained in the Respondent’s written evidence and submissions but emphasising the Respondent’s concern that the Appellant had committed asecond excess speeding offence despite receiving a warning from the Registrar consequent on the Appellant committing the first excess speeding offence. The Respondet’s representative accepted that, to a degree, the offences might be regarded as minor offences at the lower end of the scale, but, still, there were two excess speeding offences, resulting in the Appellant’s licence being, currently, endorsed with 6 penalty points and he not having taken, or been offered, a Speed Awareness Course. He confirmed that the Appellant could, at a future date, for example, when his initial 3 penalty point endorsement had expired, make a fresh application, even for entry onto the Register, if he had passed his Part 3 test, could show a good driving record and no further offences having been committed.

The Respondent’s representative agreed with the Appellant that ‘FPP’ was not defined but referred to the guidance contained in the ADI Code. He confirmed that each case was decided on its own merits but that a penalty points endorsement of 5 points or more was an important factor in any decision concerning an aspiring ADI was a FPP.

In closing, the Respondet’s representative confirmed that there was no provision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register since his name was not on the Register and that while he could pass his Part 3 test, his name might not be entered onto the Register.

In closing, the Appellant stated that he found interesting what the Respondent’s representative said concerning future possibilities.

While all of this evidence and submissions, and every other piece of evidence and submissions, both written and oral of the parties, was carefully considered, it did not alter the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss this appeal as the written and oral evidence and missions that were before the Tribunal were not of sufficient persuasive value to do otherwise.

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.125(3)(e) of the Act by reason of his said convictions for motoring offences.

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.

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, in the circumstances of the Appellant, had demonstrated behaviours or been convicted in relation to an offence, substantially material to the question of fitness was granted a trainee licence. 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.

The Tribunal found it proportionate to refuse this appeal in all the circumstances, on the balance of probabilities standard of proof, a burden that lay on the Appellant to show that he was a FPP to be granted a trainee licence.

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 licence.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.