Paul Griffin v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Registrar dated 22 September 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the register of approved driving instructors.

2. The Tribunal received and considered a bundl e of documents, a separate witness statement from the Appellant dated 6 February 2026 and a bundle of exhibits to that statement, and the parties attended a hearing by Cloud Video Platform. The Tribunal has had regard to all evidence and submissions contained in these documents and submitted during the hearing, whether or not these are referred to in this decision.

3. Before the hearing, correspondence between the parties showed a lack of agreement as to whether the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (the DVSA ) had responded to a subject access request made by the Appellant. In directions by email before the hearing, I said that this would be considered as a preliminary issue at the hearing. However, further correspondence indicated that the issue was resolved, and it was not necessary to deal with this at the hearing. Relevant law

4. The Registrar maintains the register of approved driving instructors, pursuant to s125 Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ the Act ”).

5. When a person applies to be registered as an approved driving instructor, the Registrar must enter that person’s name in the register if he fulfils certain conditions, including, in s125(3) (e), that the applicant is a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the register of approved driving instructors. The Act does not specify what this standard requires.

6. Section 128 of the Act provides that the Registrar may remove a person’s name from the register if one or more of a number of conditions is fulfilled. One of these conditions is that the person has ceased to be a fit and proper person to be registered ( s128(2) (e)).

7. In Harris v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 , Richards LJ said that, when applying this standard: “a central question is an applicant's fitness to be a driving instructor – that he has the requisite instructional ability and driving ability and that he does not pose a risk in any respect to his pupils or other users of the road. The "fit and proper person" condition has obvious relevance to that issue, though the more technical aspects are covered by other, more specific conditions relating to tests, driving licence and the like. But 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: those registered are known as "Driving Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructors".

8. The powers of this Tribunal in relation to appeals against decisions of this nature are set out in s131 of the Act . When making a decision on any such appeal, 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. Background

9. The Appellant’s name was first entered onto the register in 2003.

10. On 21 August 2025 the Registrar received a report from a DVSA investigator regarding a complaint (the Complaint ) which had been made by one of the Appellant’s students (the Complainant ) regarding his conduct. The Complainant had said that the Appellant had made a number of inappropriate comments to her during three lessons in April 2025. These included: a. a reference to the Appellant wanting to buy a “dick colouring book”; b. a reference to some of his students getting free lessons; c. a reference to a “secret road”, from a time when he had a “colourful life”; d. references to Onlyfans, a website which is known for, although not exclusively for, user-generated pornographic content - including a reference, which the Appellant says was a joke, to the Complainant potentially posting content on this site; and e. a reference to another student of his posting pictures of her backside on social media.

11. The Complainant had said that these conversations had made her feel uncomfortable and that she had stopped her lessons with the Appellant.

12. Following a DVSA investigation, the Registrar wrote to the Appellant on 22 August 2025, indicating that he was minded to remove the Appellant’s name from the register on the basis that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person.

13. The Appellant made representations in an email dated 8 September 2025.

14. The Registrar wrote to the Appellant on 22 September 2025, stating that he had decided to remove the Appellant's name from the register.

15. The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal. The Appeal

16. The Appellant admits that he made comments of the nature which were referred to in the Complaint, although he disputes some of the details. He submits that: a. the conversations have been taken out of context; he provides his version of the context for these comments in his evidence; b. he accepts that his conduct needs to change, and the birth of his first child has given him a different perspective on his conduct as a driving instructor; c. he was not aware that his conduct had made the Complainant feel uncomfortable, and his interactions with her did not give any reason to believe that she was; d. that the Complaint may have been instigated by the Complainant's boyfriend (although no evidence was offered to support this beyond the Appellant’s speculation about the timing and circumstances of the Complaint).

17. The Appellant says that his conversational style with students is intended to relax them and make them feel comfortable. He submitted text messages between himself and the Complainant which he says indicate a positive and professional relationship between them. He also says that talking about social media is a normal part of conversation with his students who are teenagers or young adults.

18. The Appellant disputes a number of statements made in the Complaint, and these are referred to in this decision where relevant. Some of these matters, such as the specific make and model of the Appellant’s car, are not relevant to this decision.

19. The Registrar submits that: a. while the Appellant has not been convicted of any offence, his conduct has been inappropriate; b. teaching people to drive is a responsible and demanding task and should be entrusted to those with high standards; c. approval is not limited to instructional ability but extends to a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct; d. the good name of the register would be tarnished and public confidence undermined if it were known that the Appellant’s name had remained on the register; and e. it would be offensive to other approved driving instructors and persons trying to qualify as approved driving instructors who had been scrupulous in their professional conduct to allow the Appellant’s name to remain on the register.

20. The Registrar endorses the Approved Driving Instructor Code of Practice (the Code ), which is described as “a framework within which all instructors should operate”.

21. Mr Lavell on behalf of the Appellant submits that, while the Registrar’s submissions make reference to the Code, he has no legislative power to enforce it.

22. Mr Lavell also submits that removal from the register is a draconian step and a more proportionate sanction could have been used. He refers to internal documents showing the decision making process by the registrar, which show that a DVSA official recommended that the Appellant be allowed to remain on the register and be given a warning, and that this recommendation was supported by another member of staff, but was not accepted by the ultimate decision maker, the Registrar. Discussion

23. The Registrar's decision has been based on one complaint from one student; but the Appellant’s evidence indicates that these conversations in themselves are not out of character for how he has conducted himself with students in the past.

24. The question of whether the Complainant felt comfortable with the Appellant is not determinative. It is the Appellant’s conduct, rather than the way in which it is received by anyone else, which is under consideration.

25. The Appellant makes a number of submissions regarding the DVSA investigation process which led to the Registrar's decision. This is not a matter for the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not conduct a judicial review of the Registrar's decision-making, but stands in the shoes of the Registrar and considers whether the Registrar's decision itself was wrong. Conclusion and decision

26. The Tribunal notes the Appellant’s long career as a driving instructor, his evidence regarding the context of the allegations and his submissions regarding his client base and having realised the need to change his behaviour.

27. The Tribunal also notes that his behaviour as demonstrated by the evidence, even if limited to the extent that he acknowledges it, is inconsistent with the Code. Although he disputes the number of minor details, the Appellant admits having had a number of inappropriate conversations with the Complainant, and that these are similar in nature to other conversations he has had repeatedly with students over time.

28. In the Tribunal's view, the Appellant’s submissions do not outweigh the evidence in support of the Registrar's decision. Accordingly, t he Tribunal is not persuaded that the Registrar’s decision was wrong, and dismisses the Appeal. Signed Date: Judge Maton 20 March 2026