Sardar Sattar v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00643 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT/D/2025/1402
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport
Heard on: 22 April 2026
Decision given on: 30 April 2026
Before
Judge Simon Bird KC
Tribunal Member Richard Fry
Tribunal Member Martin Smith
Between
SARDAR SATTAR
Appellant
and
Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
Respondent
DECISION
___________________________________________________________________________
Representation
For the Appellant: Mr Peter Jewell
For the Respondent: Mr Darren Russell
Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The Registrar’s decision is upheld
REASONS
Introduction to the Appeal
This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (”the Registrar”) made on 4 December 2025 that the Appellant’s application for an extension of his registration as an ADI be refused on the grounds that under
The basis for the Decision was that the Appellant had on 31 October 2018, been convicted of six offences relating to the supply of illicit tobacco that breached trademarks, was not in standardised packaging and did not have appropriate health warnings. He was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for each offence to be serve concurrently, but he had failed to declare these offences on his applications for trainee and full licences or his application for renewal dated 3 November 2025.
On 14 December 2025, the Appellant appealed against the Decision.
The appeal was heard by video (CVP). The parties joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.
The Tribunal’s decision is unanimous.
The Appeal
The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 14 December 2025 states that:
The conviction was incorrect but notwithstanding this it was 8 years ago and he
had been badly advised;
He has been an instructor since 3 December 2020 and the eventual conviction was
after he had been given his instructor’s licence;
He has not received any other driving or other conviction;
He was only aware that he had to report driving offences; and
In mitigation, he has medical back issues and a disabled child.
The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated April 2026 resists the appeal. In summary, the Registrar submits that:
The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in November 2021 and that
certificate of registration expired on 30 November 2025. The Appellant applied to
renew his registration in November 2025 and that application is currently pending
and will be processed when the outcome of the appeal is known. The Appellant has
continuing rights to teach for reward until the outcome of the appeal is known.
The Registrar’s reasons for the Decision are as follows:
On 5 November 2025, the Appellant emailed a copy of his DBS certificate as
part of his application to renew his certificate of registration. This showed that the
Appellant had been convicted on 31 October2018 for possessing or supplying
tobacco in breach of packaging and trademark regulations. He received a sentence
of 10 months imprisonment;
Having checked their records the Appellant had not declared the conviction on
his applications for two trainee licences made in March and September 2020 or in
the application for his first full certificate of registration after passing the ADI Part
qualification test. He had also failed to declare in in his current application for
renewal. Of these applications the Registrar is only able to produce that of March
2020;
On 5 November 2025, the Appellant was given notice that the Registrar was
considering refusing his application on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit
and proper person to have his name entered on the register and invited to make
representations within 28 days;
The Appellant’s solicitors made representations by email dated 1 December
These representations stated that the convictions related to 2017 when the
Appellant was a van driver and carried illegal tobacco products from London to
Coventry. However, the Appellant was unaware of the illegality of the goods. Prior
to his conviction the Appellant had made an application to be a driving instructor
and the omission of reference to the conviction was not at this stage incorrect. In
relation to the subsequent applications, the Appellant would point out that the
convictions were for non-driving offences and that he erroneously believed that all
he had to declare were driving convictions as it was these which were relevant to
his status as a driving instructor. The representations further stated that the offences
were victimless offences, some seven years ago and spent, the Appellant maintains
he was unaware that the cigarette products were illegal and the convictions were
unrelated to his position as a driving instructor. It was argued that it would be
overly severe to deprive a man if his livelihood given this context;
After speaking to a member of the Registrar’s team the Appellant provided
further representations stating that, in September 2017, he had been a van driver
removing goods for anyone who needed him. He had taken a call from a man in
London to take goods from London to Coventry. He had driven to London and
allowed the man to load the van when he was not present and he had not checked
the van before driving back to London. On arriving in London he was arrested by
Trading Standards with the police and convicted because he could not provide
details of the man he had dealt with in London;
The Registrar carefully considered the representations and took into account
that the conviction was seven years ago and spent under the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act. However, the Appellant had failed to declare the conviction of
multiple occasions and he was unpersuaded by the argument that the Appellant
believed he only had to declare driving offences as the form is very clearly worded;
The Appellant’s claim that he was unaware of the illegality of the goods is in
direct contradiction of the Judge’s sentencing comments reported in the local
newspaper at the time in which the Appellant was described as “a trusted distributor
of illicit cigarettes who was able to store them as well…. it was a professional
operation”.
In consequence, the Registrar considered that the Appellant cannot fulfil
section 127(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 that he continues to be a fit and proper
person to have his name entered on the Register. Whilst the convictions were over
seven years ago, the Appellant kept the offences, convictions and prison sentence
from the Registrar’s knowledge despite a number of opportunities to declare it. In
addition, he had not been transparent about the circumstances of the offence.
Teaching people of all ages to drive safely, carefully and competently is a
professional vocation requiring a significant degree of responsibility. Such a
demanding task should only be entrusted to those which high personal and
professional standards. The Registrar would be failing in his public duty if he
allowed a person who had been convicted of these offences to have his name
retained on the register;
Registration is not simply that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be a
driving instructor, it is that he/she is a fit and proper person to have their name
entered in the register. Registration carries with it an official seal of approval those
registered are known as "Driving Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructors".
As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s character, behaviour and standards
of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including
convictions, cautions and other relevant behaviour. In view of this, the Registrar is
concerned that if the appellants name is allowed to be put on or remain on the
Register, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public’s
confidence in the Register;
It would not be fair and reasonable to other ADIs and those currently going
through the ADI qualification process, who have been scrupulous in their personal
and professional standards, for me to ignore the inappropriate behaviour displayed
by the Appellant.
The Hearing
The Registrar submitted in summary that the Registrar refused the extension of registration as he could no longer be satisfied that the Appellant met the fit and proper person criterion for the reasons set out in his decision letter and his statement in response to the Appeal. The Appellant had sent his DBS certificate (“DBS”) as part of his renewal application which disclosed that he had been convicted on 31 October 2018 of the possession or supply of tobacco products in breach of packaging regulations and possession of goods with a false trade mark for sale or hire and received a sentence of 10 months imprisonment. The offences were serious ones and part of what was described by the Judge as “an operation”. Whilst not of the type listed in the Register Guide, that list was not exhaustive and the seriousness of the offences was material when considering fitness for a regulated role which involved often teaching young people. The Appellant failed to declare these convictions despite having several opportunities to do so. His first application which was made in June 2018 had been the last occasion on which he had been required to supply an enhanced DBS and this was clear, as it pre-dated his conviction. It was not a requirement that the applications for his two trainee licences were supported by a new DBS, but he did not declare the convictions as the forms required him to do. Again, in respect of his application for full ADI registration on 29 October 2021, there was no requirement for a new DBS to be supplied, but he failed to declare the convictions as the form required. This was an extreme case and the Registrar does not accept that the Appellant made an error as to what needed to be declared. The form makes it clear that both motoring and non-motoring offences need to be declared. The Appellant has also sought to mislead about the circumstances surrounding the offences which led to his conviction as the Judge’s sentencing comments disclose. The decision to refuse the Appellant’s application was correct.
On behalf of the Appellant it was accepted that the Appellant has been convicted and that, whilst the contemporary documents disclosed that he may have been badly advised at the time and should have appealed, he did not seek to go behind those convictions. However, the Judge’s sentencing comments should not be accepted as accurate in the absence of a transcript. The Appellant’s English is not strong and he was unaware that he should give notice of any offence, including non-motoring offences although it was accepted that he had received assistance from a family member with reasonable English when completing the forms. That was an honest mistake. He should have understood the guidance but did not. The DBS was supplied with the renewal application and the Appellant was quite open about that. There is no definition of “fit and proper person” and the Appellant had completed both Part 2 and Part 3 tests and had provided instruction as an ADI for some 6 years without any issues or complaints and he has shown that he is a fit and proper person. There is no suggestion that he has behaved inappropriately with any person. Those who are sentenced to imprisonment should be able to rehabilitate and pursue their trade. The Appellant is a driver and has children and he needs to work. The Tribunal is asked to grant the Appellant his extension.
The law
Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to be and continue to be a “fit” and “proper” person to have their name on the Register – see
The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in
. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions (in accordance withIn
In Harristhe Court Richards LJ also stated: “It seems to me that the maintenance of confidence in the register is important. For that purpose the Registrar must be in a position to carry out his function of scrutiny effectively, including consideration of the implications of any convictions of an applicant or a registered ADI. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements. If an application or registered ADI fails to disclose convictions or makes a false declaration that he has no convictions, it strikes at the heart of the registration process and the reliability of the register. In my view such conduct is plainly relevant – indeed highly relevant – to the question whether an applicant is a fit and proper person”.
The evidence
We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 41 pages.
The relevant facts
On 31 October 2018 and subsequent to the date of his first application to the DVSA in June 2018, the Appellant was convicted of six offences of possessing or supplying tobacco in breach of packaging and trade mark regulations, for which he received a sentence of 10 months imprisonment for each offence to run concurrently.
The Appellant subsequently made two applications for trainee licences on 5 March 2020 and 25 August 2020 and failed to declare his six convictions in either application despite the form requiring him to do so.
Having passed his Part 2 and Part 3 tests, the Appellant’s name was first entered in the register in November 2021 and the certificate of registration expired on the last day of November 2025.
The Appellant applied to renew his registration in November 2025 which is currently pending awaiting the outcome of this appeal. The Appellant failed to declare his convictions in his application for renewal.
Whilst the Appellant’s English is not strong, he had the assistance of a family member with reasonable English when completing the relevant forms.
On 5 November 2025, the Appellant e-mailed his DBC certificate to the Respondent as required and this showed his convictions.
The Appellant has no convictions for any motoring offences and no complaints have been made about his conduct as an ADI over the period of approximately 6 years during which he has been providing instruction.
Conclusions
If an ADI’s name is allowed to be entered in the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to and bear negatively on fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public’s confidence in the Register.
As the Court of Appeal stressed in Harris maintenance of public confidence in the register is important and this is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.
ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of behaviour, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. Teaching people of all ages to drive safely, carefully, and competently is a professional vocation requiring a significant degree of responsibility. Such a demanding task should only be entrusted to those with high personal and professional standards and who themselves have demonstrated a keen regard for road safety and compliance with the law.
The Appellant’s convictions were for serious offences and the sentences of imprisonment he received indicates that his role in those offences was greater than he sought to portray in his representations to the Respondent and before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that those convictions of themselves, would justify a conclusion that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name entered on the register. Whilst the list of offences which are contained in the Register Guide as indications of when a person is unlikely to be “fit and proper” is not exhaustive, the categories (broadly sexual offences, assault, possession of drugs and offences and offences of dishonesty) relate to offences where there is an obvious connection between the need to protect the integrity of the register and or those receiving instruction, particularly to young people from the risk of harm, and the nature of the offence. The offences of which the Appellant was convicted do not have that obvious connection. We also take account of the fact that they are also spent convictions and there has been no repetition of them.
However, far more serious is the repeated failure of the Appellant to declare those convictions at the earliest opportunity, so as to enable the Respondent to consider his continuing fitness to be entered in the register. The integrity of the registration process and public confidence in the register depends on the strict disclosure requirements contained within it. The is very clear from the facts of this case. The requirements to provide a DBS certificate arose with the first application in 2018 (before the Appellant’s conviction) and thereafter only with his application for renewal. In between those events, the process relied on self-declaration for its integrity. Here, by reason of the Appellant’s failure to declare his convictions on the two applications for trainee licences in 2020, the Respondent was entirely unaware of his conviction for serious offences until late 2025, some seven years after his conviction. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that this is an extreme case.
The Tribunal is not persuaded that the Appellant’s strength of English provides meaningful mitigation, given that the form is worded very clearly in terms of the need to declare both motoring and non-motoring offences and the Appellant accepts that he was assisted in completing the forms by a family member with reasonable English. The Appellant could and should have declared the offences on all his applications.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the Appellant has shown himself to be a capable and competent driving instructor with no motoring convictions or other complaints recorded against him. But, as the Court of Appeal stressed in Harris, the issue which the Tribunal has to consider is broader than instructor competence and, importantly, involves consideration of whether, the Appellant is a fit and proper person “to have his name entered on the register”. The failure of the Appellant to declare his convictions on three separate occasions, given the central importance of doing so to the integrity of the registration process, has led us to conclude that, notwithstanding the undoubted impact of the refusal to grant an extension of his licence on both the Appellant and his family and his record as an ADI, he is not a fit and proper person to have his name entered on the register.
Whilst we have concluded that the offences of which the Appellant was convicted would not in themselves have prevented us finding he was and proper person to have his name entered on the register, the repeated failure to disclose those convictions despite the clear requirement to do so, does lead to that conclusion. The integrity of the process depends on applicants making full and frank disclosure of their convictions at the earliest opportunity, so as to enable the Registrar to consider their implications in respect of the “fit and proper” requirement. Public confidence in the process requires that this applies even where the applicant may not consider the offences to be relevant to the role of ADI.
Taking all these matters into account, we consider that the Registrar has established that
the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to be an ADI. We conclude that the Decision was
correct.
We dismiss the appeal.
Signed:
Tribunal Judge Simon Bird
Date:23 April 2026