Ashley Baccino v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Preliminary matters

1. References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of T he Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. In this decision, we use the following terms to denote the meanings shown: ADIs: Approved Driving Instructors (those whose name appear on the Register) . Appellant: Ashley Baccino. Application: The Appellant’s application to the Registrar for the grant of a Licence. Licence: A licence issued under section 129 to give paid instruction in the driving of a motor car (often referred to as a ‘trainee licence’). Register: The Register of Approved Driving Instructors maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Registrar: The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Respondent). Registrar’s Decision: The decision of the Registrar, by way of letter to the Appellant dated 21 July 2025, to refuse the Application . Introduction - background to the appeal

3. This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

4. The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision were, in summary, that the Appellant had been convicted of speeding on 27 March 2025 resulting in six penalty points and accordingly the Registrar considered that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to become an ADI. The appeal The grounds of appeal

5. The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision, arguing that they were a fit and proper person. The Appellant’s appeal relied, in summary, on the grounds that: a. The speeding incident resulting in the conviction resulted from a lapse of judgement, as the Appellant had (on the date of the incident) returned from a 10-day driving trip in Italy and had mistakenly misjudged his speed because he had been used to driving in kilometres per hour (kph), as opposed to miles per hour (mph). b. This was therefore an honest mistake and not intentional. The Registrar’s case

6. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s Statement of Case maintained that the Appellant’s driving licence being endorsed with six penalty points cannot be ignored. The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to be granted a Licence.

7. The Registrar’s view was that allowing the Appellant to be granted a Licence would undermine confidence in the registration system. Mode of hearing

8. The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel, the Appellant and Mr Heard (on behalf of the Registrar) joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. There were no interruptions of note during the hearing. The evidence and submission

9. The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle of evidence and pleadings.

10. We heard from the Appellant directly, as well as hearing oral submissions from Mr Heard on behalf of the Registrar .

11. All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant legal principles

12. Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor’s name is entered in the Register, or they are the holder of a current Licence.

13. Conditions for the grant of a Licence include that a person is, and continues to be, a “fit and proper person” pursuant to section 129(2)(b), which refers to the requirements in section 125(3)(e).

14. The Registrar may therefore refuse to issue a Licence under section 129(2) if the Registrar considers that the person applying for a Licence is not a “fit and proper person”.

15. The requirement to be a “fit and proper person” is not simply that the person is a fit and proper person to be, or to become, a driving instructor, but that they are a fit and proper person to have their named entered in the Register. Accordingly, the requirement to be a “fit and proper person” extends beyond instructional ability alone and, in assessing whether someone is a “fit and proper person”, account has to be taken of their character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including convictions, cautions and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate.

16. The entry of a person’s name on the Register carries with it an ‘official seal of approval’ and consequently maintenance of public confidence in the Register is important. The Registrar therefore has the duty of ensuring that ADIs are ‘fit and proper’ persons to have their names entered in the Register. As part of that, the Registrar exercises functions of scrutiny and that is why there are stringent disclosure requirements expected of ADIs and those wishing to become an ADI.

17. In cases involving motoring offences, it is expected that anyone who is to be an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. Teaching people of all ages (including those aged under 18) 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.

18. In cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the Register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence could be undermined, if it were known that a person’s name had been permitted onto, or allowed to remain on, the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours, or been convicted or cautioned in relation to offences, substantially material to the question of fitness. Indeed, it would be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.

19. Some of the factors in the preceding paragraph can also be relevant in cases involving motoring offences. The role and powers of the Tribunal

20. An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

21. The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the grant or refusal of the Application, as it thinks fit.

22. However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for him to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

23. Where the Tribunal makes an order for the refusal of the Application, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply for a Licence for a period of up to four years. Discussion and findings

24. As we have noted, the Registrar has the duty of ensuring that those who wish to have a Licence are ‘fit and proper’ persons to do so. Part of this duty is to ensure that those who wish to be granted a Licence understand their responsibilities and can show that they not only know the rules but follow them.

25. In this case, the Registrar’s Decision was based on the Appellant being convicted of speeding on 27 March 2025 resulting in six penalty points. During the hearing, the Appellant explained that he had received six penalty points previously for an earlier speeding offence. He also stated that he had previously attended a speed awareness course.

26. In respect of the March 2025 offence, the Appellant stated that he had recently returned from holiday in Italy where he had been used to driving in kilometres per hour (kph). He stated that, on return to the UK, he had set his car’s cruise control function to ‘50’, thinking that this was correct, but that this meant his car was travelling at 50mph when it should have been travelling at 30mph. The Appellant gave further explanations during the hearing as to how this had happened and how he had not realised that he was travelling faster than he should have been. The Appellant reiterated that was a lapse of judgement and was an honest mistake.

27. On balance, we found the Appellant’s explanations to be credible. However, we consider that we cannot overlook the fact that the Appellant has received six penalty points for speeding, having also received six penalty points for speeding on a prior occasion and having previously attended a speed awareness course.

28. The Registrar cited statistics of injuries and deaths relating to driving offences. The Registrar considered that he could not condone motoring offences such as those which the Appellant had been found guilty of. The Registrar’s view was that allowing the Appellant to have a Licence could undermine the public’s confidence in the ADI registration system. They added that it would be unfair to other applicants who had been scrupulous in observing the law to allow the Appellant to have a Licence.

29. Whilst we accept the Appellant’s explanation that the March 2025 offence was an honest mistake, in our view the Appellant should have taken more care – especially given his aspirations to become an ADI, his previous speeding offence and his attendance on a speed awareness course. We therefore agree with the Registrar’s view in respect of this case.

30. The Appellant explained his future plans to work with the community as an ADI, to provide driving lessons for free for those in need. He stated that he had received free lessons himself and felt that it was important to give something back.

31. We found the Appellant to be a pleasant individual, and his plans for helping the community are commendable. However, as we have noted, we cannot overlook the fact that has received six points for a speeding offence, after a previous speeding offence.

32. The Appellant can, of course, continue to work towards qualification as an ADI if he wishes - albeit if he passes the ‘Part 3’ test, there is a limited period within which he can apply to become an ADI (and he must meet the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria in any event) and if he is not approved as an ADI within that period then the qualification process must start over again, from the ‘Part 1’ test.

33. However, for current purposes, the Appellant does not need a Licence in order to attend a training course, study and practice with an ADI and give tuition on their own (provided that they do not receive payment of any kind for this). These options are used by some prospective ADIs and many people qualify as an ADI (subject to meeting the ‘fit and proper person’ criteria) without ever having held a Licence.

34. For all of the reasons we have given, though, we find that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person to be granted a Licence. On balance, taking into account all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s Decision was correct.

35. We therefore dismiss the appeal and we order that the Application is refused. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 13 February 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal