Bill Davies 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: Bill Davies. Complaint: The complaint referred to in paragraph 4 of this decision. DVSA: The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Register: The Register of Approved Driving Instructors maintained by the DVSA. 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 17 April 2023, to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register . Introduction - b ackground 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 a complaint had been made against the Appellant on 27 September 2022 involving allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards (including inappropriate physical contact with) a female student. T he Registrar a ccordingly considered that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register. The appeal The grounds of appeal

5. The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision. In summary, the Appellant’s appeal relied on the grounds that, in respect of the Complaint: a. He had never received any other complaints. b. He never intentionally touched anyone inappropriately. c. He was old-fashioned in his approach and has now realised that how he had been acting is not acceptable. d. He has put measures in place to change, and was already dealing with lessons in a different way. The Registrar’s case

6. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s Statement of Case maintained that the Complaint cannot be ignored and that the Appellant had admitted to inappropriate behaviour. The Registrar also stated that the behaviour contravened the industry code of practice agreed between the National Associations Strategic Partnership and the DVSA. The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to have their name on the Register. Mode of hearing

7. The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform.

8. The Tribunal Panel, the Appellant, Mr Harvey (assisting 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 Harvey on behalf of the Appellant and 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 issued under section 129 .

13. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require a person to be, and continue to be, a “fit and proper person” pursuant to section 125(3)(e) and section 127(3)(e).

14. A person’s name may therefore be removed from the Register under section 128(2)(e) if the Registrar considers that they have ceased to be 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 a driving instructor, but that they are a fit and proper person to have their name 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 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 take 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 removal or the retention of the Appellant’s name in the Register, 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 removal of the Appellant’s name in the Register, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply to have their name entered in the Register 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 have their names entered in the Register are ‘fit and proper’ persons. Part of this is ensuring that ADIs observe appropriate behaviours.

25. In this case, the Complaint involved allegations of a serious nature. Mr Harvey stated during the hearing that the Appellant had not received prior notification of the Complaint when he received a phone call from the DVSA asking him to attend an interview in respect of it. The Appellant also stated that he received very short notice of the interview (having not received an letter about it previously) and he was on his way to a funeral at the time but had to attend the interview instead. The Appellant’s position was therefore that he attended the interview without being prepared, without his wife in attendance (despite him having some literacy difficulties) and accordingly that he felt under some duress in the interview.

26. We have taken into account the Appellant’s representations regarding the interview with the DVSA and the surrounding circumstances. However, during the hearing the Appellant admitted to aspects of the Complaint (albeit he still disputed some aspects of it).

27. Also, whilst the Appellant stated that he had not received other complaints, he admitted that (prior to the Complaint) he had routinely touched students’ legs (holding their knee when demonstrating ‘bite’ on the clutch), routinely touched students’ shoulders (to say ‘well done’ when they had done something well) and often kissed the hands of female students (or took hold of their hands to attempt to kiss them) when giving them praise.

28. The Appellant accepted that he had been ‘doing things wrong’ prior to the Complaint, although he stated that this had been unintentional and was part of his ‘old-fashioned’ approach. He stated that he had not been required to undergo a standards check by the DVSA for approximately ten years. He also stated that he had now realised that how he had been acting is not acceptable and that he had undertaken a number of training courses since the Complaint. The Appellant asserted that he now had a better understanding of what is expected of him as an ADI and that he had now altered his behaviour.

29. We have taken the above into account but we consider that the Appellant’s conduct has fallen short of the high standards to be expected of an ADI. Given that many students are just seventeen years of age, it is clear that substantial trust will be placed in ADIs by students, parents and the public and that the ADI registration scheme relies upon exemplary standards of behaviour from ADIs. Notwithstanding the Appellant’s assertion that he has attended various courses and altered his behaviour, in our view the Appellant should already have been aware that his behaviour regarding physical contact with students was not acceptable. We agree with the Registrar’s concerns that it could undermine trust in the Register if the Appellant’s name were to be retained in it.

30. For all of the reasons we have given, we find that the Appellant does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person to have their name retained in the Register. On balance, taking into account all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s Decision was correct.

31. We therefore dismiss the appeal and we order that the Appellant’s name be removed from the Register. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 23 February 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal