Paul Allan Jones v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction to the Appeal

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Registrar") made on 28 May 2025 that the Appellant’s name should be removed from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register") on the grounds that under Section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ the Act ”) the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the Register (“the Decision”).

2. The basis for the Decision was a complaint made by a person about the Appellant.

3. On 22 June 2025, the Appellant appealed against the Decision.

4. The Tribunal’s decision is unanimous. The Appeal

5. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 22 June 2025 explains that: a. At the time of the matters complained of, the Appellant’s father had suddenly died; the Appellant was drinking heavily, depressed and felt suicidal, obtaining medical support, including anti-depressants and was consulting bereavement services. b. The Appellant was regretful as to what had happened. c. The Appellant has been supporting his mother financially since his father died and the Appellant has financial commitments to his family. d. By way of outcome, the Appellant seeks to retain his licence; its loss will cause a lot of problems financially and mentally for him and his family.

6. The Registrar's Statement of Case is dated 17 October 2024. That date significantly precedes the Notice of Appeal. We consider that that must be an error. It is not a material error. By his Statement of Case, the Registrar resists the appeal. In summary, the Registrar submits that: a. The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in September 2019 and in the normal course of events, his certificate of registration will expire on 30 September 2027. b. The Registrar’s primary role is to ensure that instruction provided by ADIs meets the required standard and that all ADIs have met and continue to meet the fit and proper criteria to have their names entered and retained in the Register. The Registrar also expect ADIs to adhere to professional standards and business ethics when dealing with their customers. The driver training industry has a Code of Practice which the Registrar fully endorses, but it is a voluntary Code and the Registrar has no legislative power to compel ADIs to sign up to the Code nor can the Registrar always take action if ADIs flout the framework of the Code. The Registrar receives many complaints from dissatisfied customers and also complaints regarding the unprofessional and inappropriate behaviour of ADIs. When the Registrar receives complaints of a sexual nature, he attempts to encourage complainants to involve the Police but will also contact the DVSA Counter Fraud & Investigations team. c. On 28 April 2025, the Registrar received a report from DVSA Counter Fraud and Investigations, who had conducted an investigation into allegations of inappropriate behaviour following a complaint from the uncle of a former pupil of the Appellant. The Appellant had attended a voluntary interview on the 28 March 2025. The allegations of inappropriate behaviour and screen shots of certain text exchanges between the Appellant and the complainant were put to the Appellant during the interview. He recalled the complainant and said he thought they were both on the same wavelength and could laugh and joke with her. He stated that the complainant's ex-partner's new partner was having lessons with him and the complainant constantly asked if the new partner was a better driver or more attractive than her. He stated that the complainant had become problematic as she would text him at all times of the day and night; consequently, he says he has changed his phone and now has a work phone and a personal phone. He says that due to changing his phone he no longer has access to the messages from her. He admitted to responding to the complainant's texts with inappropriate comments but said they were intended as jokes and he had not intended to cause her harm or distress. He agreed his final text was highly inappropriate and although he tried to brush off the adult meaning of the text, he agreed he would be angry if a middle-aged men sent similar to his daughter. d. In the light of this complaint, the Registrar considered that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register. e. On 29 April 2025, the Registrar notified the Appellant that the Registrar was considering removing his name from the Register on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his named retained in it. The Registrar invited the Appellant’s representations. f. On 13 May 2025, the Appellant made representations, in summary, denying the full extent of the allegations made by the pupil but conceding certain aspects. g. The Registrar’s reasons for the Decision are as follows: i. Whilst the Registrar accepts that the Appellant has not been convicted of any offence, he has received a complaint concerning the Appellant’s behaviour which is not appropriate to the professional relationship between instructor and pupil. The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. As such, account is taken of a person's character, behaviour and standard of conduct. Anyone who is an ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour of that above the ordinary motorist. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standards. The Registrar would therefore be failing in his public duty if he allowed a person who had conducted himself in such a manner to have his name retained in the Register. ii. Registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is "Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor". Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person's character, behaviour and standard of conduct. In view of this, the Registrar is concerned that the good name of the Register would be tarnished and the public's confidence undermined if it were generally known that the Registrar had allowed the Appellant's name to be retained in the Register. iii. It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in their professional conduct, for the Registrar to ignore the inappropriate and unprofessional conduct displayed by the Appellant. The hearing

7. The Appellant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal established that the Appellant had been sent the Notice of hearing and joining instructions. The Tribunal waited 10 minutes to afford the Appellant an opportunity to join the hearing. Absent any contact from the Appellant, the Tribunal decided that it was appropriate to proceed in his absence, having taken full account of his representations and associated evidence in the hearing bundle.

8. The Registrar submitted, in summary, as follows: the Registrar had been informed that the Appellant was subject to an investigation in relation to making inappropriate comments to a pupil; the Appellant had admitted to responding to the pupil’s texts in an inappropriate way; the Registrar had considered the Appellant’s representations and was sympathetic to his personal circumstances, but concluded that he had conducted himself contrary to the ADI Code of Conduct, and failed to demonstrate the high standards required of an ADI. The law

9. 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 sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Act . The Registrar has the burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

10. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act . 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 with R. (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 ).

11. In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 , the Court of Appeal described the fit and proper person condition as follows: ".. the condition is not simply that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor, it is that he is a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the register. Registration carries with it an official seal of approval…It seems to me that the maintenance of public 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. This is why there are stringent disclosure requirements. " (paragraph 30). The evidence

12. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 35 pages, including screenshots of text exchanges between the Appellant and his pupil, and a witness statement from the pupil.

13. In that statement, the pupil says that: a. In her conversations with the Appellant in lessons, the Appellant: i. spoke about himself, his family life and his health issues, and on occasion made critical comments about his other pupils but “never really stated names.” ii. once said that he preferred blondes. iii. used to call the pupil by her ex-partner's new girlfriend’s name as a joke. b. the Appellant was never “inappropriate” in lessons and “never made [the pupil] feel uncomfortable”. c. On one occasion, the Appellant told the pupil that he suffered from diabetes and needed a drink from his house, so the pupil drove to the Appellant’s house in her lesson and waited outside while the Appellant got a drink. d. On one occasion, the Appellant came to the pupil’s house to collect paracetamol but did not come in; the pupil met him outside. The pupil had been supposed to be having a lesson that day but had had to cancel for “personal reasons”, and the Appellant asked her why she was unable to have her lesson. The pupil explained the situation to him, although does not say in the statement what that situation was. e. The pupil’s last lesson with the Appellant was on 9 January 2025. f. On 13 January 2025, the Appellant sent the pupil a very inappropriate message inviting the pupil to town. The pupil describes inappropriate comments of a sexual nature made by the Appellant in the following text messages from him, and the Appellant asking her whether she was at home alone. g. She is diagnosed with autism and did not realise that the Appellant’s conduct was unprofessional. She referred the matter to her uncle.

14. In response to the pupil’s statement, on 13 May 2025, the Appellant made the following representations to the Registrar: a. The pupil had persisted in talking about her ex-partner and his new girlfriend. b. He denied saying that he preferred blondes. c. He had no recollection of making critical comments about other pupils. d. He tells every pupil that he has diabetes. In relation to the occasion where he had had to return home in the pupil’s lesson, he had not been getting a drink but had to go home to change the cannula on his insulin pump because the error alarm on it had sounded. e. When he had asked the pupil for paracetamol at her home, it was because he had just finished a lesson near her house. f. He has no recollection of sending the pupil inappropriate text messages; his father had suddenly passed away in November; he had started drinking heavily to block everything out; he had suffered some type of a breakdown; his GP had prescribed him anti-depressants and put him in touch with bereavement groups, which have assisted him, and he hardly drinks alcohol any more. g. When he was shown the text messages, he was upset and deeply ashamed because he is not that kind of person. h. He has a separate work and personal phone, does not have any pupil’s number in his personal phone, and switches off his work phone as soon as he finishes work. i. He needs to retain his ADI job as he is responsible for paying the mortgage as his partner is off work due to ill health. He also supports his widowed mother financially. j. He has never previously sent any inappropriate messages to any pupils. The relevant facts

15. The Appellant did not attend at the hearing, so we were unable to explore his evidence with him.

16. We find the following facts based on: a. the copies of the text exchanges between the Appellant and the pupil, which we have seen and which we understand the Appellant to accept as the relevant text messages; and b. Those matters which we understand the Appellant to have accepted both in the DVSA investigation and in his exchanges with the Registrar.

17. The Appellant and his pupil exchanged several text messages unrelated to the arrangements for the pupil’s instruction and after he had ceased to provide her with tuition. It appears that the Appellant instigated the exchange. The messages from the Appellant were variously of a familiar, intrusive or sexual nature, and therefore inappropriate in the context of a driving instruction relationship.

18. There is nothing on the face of the text message responses from the pupil to suggest that the Appellant’s texts caused the pupil distress at the time of receipt. Nevertheless, we accept that a pupil would likely feel uncomfortable upon receipt of such messages, even if their own text responses do not indicate that and they continued to engage in the exchange.

19. On one occasion, the Appellant attended at the pupil’s house other than for the purposes of a lesson: ostensibly to obtain paracetamol for a headache.

20. On one occasion, the Appellant and the pupil drove to the Appellant’s house so that he could resolve an issue with his insulin pump.

21. At the time he sent the text messages, the Appellant was having difficulty in coming to terms with the loss of his father which, we accept, may, in part have clouded his judgment. Conclusions

22. If an ADI's name is allowed to be entered in the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public's confidence in the Register.

23. 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.

24. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register.

25. On the basis of the evidence before us, we are satisfied that the Appellant’s conduct has fallen short of the high standards to be expected of an ADI. The pupil in question was a young person. We are unable to identify whether the working relationship between the Appellant and the pupil was such as to have encouraged the text exchanges we have seen, but that would make no difference: it would have been inappropriate of the Appellant to permit such a relationship between teacher and pupil, and there is no doubt that the text messages he sent the pupil were inappropriate in any event. The Appellant’s difficult personal circumstances at the time are no mitigation.

26. We can see no justification for the Appellant visiting the pupil’s house to obtain medication, if that is, in fact, what happened.

27. Viewing matters in the round, we find that the Registrar has established that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person. The Decision was correct.

28. We dismiss the appeal.