Attila Gulyas v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKFTT 00687 (GRC) First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0423 Heard by Cloud Video Platform Heard on 9 June 2025 Decision given on: 09 June 2025 Before JUDGE J FINDLAY JUDGE K SAWARD Between ATTILA GULYAS and REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Representation: For the Appellant: Did not attend. For the Respondent: Did not attend. Decision: The appeal is dismissed. Appellant Respondent Procedural matters REASONS 1. Neither party attended the hearing. It was anticipated that the Respondent would not attend having been barred from further participation in the proceedings by directions issued by Judge Findlay on 18 December 2024. This followed a failure by the Respondent to serve their response by no later than 13 June 2024 or to make an application for an extension of time. 2. The directions permitted the Respondent to apply for the bar to be lifted within 28 days of issue. The Tribunal subsequently refused to lift the stay on 2 May 2025 when the © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 Respondent made an application some 2 months late. Notwithstanding those directions, the Respondent has produced a statement of the Registrar dated 13 March 2025 in response to the appeal. Given that the statement provides the Tribunal with important relevant information, the stay is lifted for these purposes. 3. The Appellant was sent notice of the hearing and the link to join the proceedings on 8 May 2025. Before the hearing opened, the Tribunal clerk telephoned the Appellant to ascertain if he proposed to attend. There was no reply. When the Appellant failed to join the hearing at 4pm, the clerk made further attempts to telephone him, but the calls went unanswered. He had not joined the hearing by 4.15pm. In the circumstances the Tribunal considered it in the interests of justice to proceed to determine the appeal in the absence of the parties. Findings and analysis 4. Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”) prohibits the giving of instruction paid for by or in respect of a pupil in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor’s name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, or he is the holder of a current licence issued under Section 129(1) of the Act. 5. The Appellant ‘s name was first entered in the Register in September 2013 and in the normal course, his registration would expire on the last day of September 2025. 6. On 20 March 2024 the Respondent received notification from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (“DVLA”) that the Appellant had been convicted of a breach of the requirements as to control of the vehicle, mobile telephones and so on (CU80) on 5 March 2024. A printout from the DVLA database is produced which confirmed the conviction resulting in 6 penalty points and a £166 fine. 7. The Appellant failed to notify the Registrar of the offence within seven days in breach of the declaration the Appellant signed on his application for extension of registration as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). 8. In the light of this offence, the Respondent considered that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name retained on the Register. By way of an email dated 21 March 2024 the Respondent gave the Appellant written notice that consideration was being given to removing the Appellant’s name from the Register on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in it. The Appellant was invited to make representations within 28 days. 9. The Appellant made representations in an email received by the Respondent on 21 March 2024, summarised as follows: a) The Appellant expresses his deepest apologies for failing to notify the Registrar. He has always been proud to be a driving instructor, and for over 10 years, he has taught to the highest standard. The Appellant states that he understands that he must adhere to the DVLA’s high standards, representing them not only when instructing but also when driving alone. The reason for his oversight was simply forgetfulness, not an attempt to conceal. He was pulled over for touching his mobile phone to adjust the map for navigational purposes. He also admitted this to the police officer who imposed the mandatory 6 points and fine. b) The road and traffic circumstances at the time were quiet traffic, perfect weather, and good visibility. The Appellant says that he felt remorse and embarrassment when stopped. Before and after the incident, he has always followed and continue to follow traffic rules and drive safety. He has never had any prior offences. The penalty will also have further financial implications due to potential premium increases. c) It had not occurred to the Appellant that he needed to inform the Registrar. This was his fault for which he apologises. The Appellant considers himself a proper person, and sincerely believes that this administrative error can be understood in his case. An appropriate warning would suffice and be a reasonable decision. 10. The Respondent considered the representations and decided that the Appellant’s name should be removed from the Register. The Respondent considered that the Appellant could not fulfil Section 128(2)(e) because he ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register. 11. The Appellant was given notice of the decision by email dated 19 April 2024 pursuant to Section 128(7) of the Act. The reasons for the Respondent’s decision are summarised as follows: a) The Appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having been convicted of a breach of the requirements as to control of the vehicle, mobile telephones and so on (CU80) on 5 March 2024. Although the Appellant states he was only touching the telephone for navigation purposes, it is expected that a qualified instructor for over 10 years would be fully aware of the rules for mobile phone use. b) The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. 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 above that or 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 and a keen regard for road safety. In committing this offence, the Respondent did not believe that the Appellant displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that would be expected from a professional ADI. c) The Government increased the payment levels for serious road safety offences, including the requirement to control a vehicle (including mobile phone use). Such offences contribute to a significant number of casualties. For example, motorists using a mobile phone contributed to 25 deaths, 92 serious injuries and 306 minor accidents in 2018. The Respondent did not consider that motoring offences of this nature can be condoned. To do so would effectively sanction such behaviour, if those who transgress were allowed to remain on an official register that allows them to teach others. d) It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs who have been scrupulous in observing the law to ignore this recent and relevant motoring offence. The appeal 12. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 5 May 2024 seeks to provide further context. 13. On the day in question, the Appellant had briefly touched his securely placed mobile phone, which was in a holder, to adjust the map while driving. This action was solely for navigation purposes and not for any other use of the mobile phone. He regrets his lapse in judgment and fully understands the importance of adhering to regulations regarding the use of mobile and other digital devices while driving. 14. The Appellant emphasizes that this was an isolated occurrence in an otherwise exemplary driving record and extensive experience as an ADI. Throughout his 25-year career, including over a decade as an instructor, the Appellant has maintained a flawless driving record, devoid of any prior infractions. 15. The decision could be perceived as disproportionate and unfair based on an isolated mistake. Fairness and proportionality dictate that individuals who make isolated mistakes should be allowed to learn from their errors and continue their profession and life with an appropriate warning. The Appellant is committed to upholding the highest standards of safety and professionalism in driving instruction. This isolated incident does not reflect his overall character or suitability for the role. 16. The circumstances at the time of the incident: (a) the Appellant was driving alone and not conducting a lesson, (b) the vehicle was not marked with L-plates or anything else to indicate it was being used for instructional purposes. (c) the incident occurred outside his professional duties as a driving instructor. It is an unrelated occurrence to his role as an ADI. 17. The Appellant considers that removal of his name from the Register is disproportionate to the gravity of the transgression in question. 18. In another Appeal Reference: D/2018/7 (Jonathan Gore v the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors) dated 28 April 2018 the Tribunal allowed an appeal against the decision of the Registrar to remove the driving instructor`s name from the Register. Consideration 19. If an ADI’s name is allowed to remain on 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 it. This includes behaviour relating to driving and the commission of criminal offences. 20. There are numerous differences between this case and the First-tier Tribunal decision from 2018 where the ADI retained their licence. In that case, the ADI promptly informed the Registrar that he had been stopped by the police for looking at his mobile phone, and before receiving the notice of intended prosecution. Upon accepting the fixed penalty plus penalty points, the ADI notified the Registrar again. The ADI attended the hearing and immediately recognised the foolishness of his action and showed responsibility. He admitted the offence without argument. He explained how he had looked at the text because of his worry about his wife who had serious health difficulties and been in a bad way that morning. The ADI was instructing at the time, not driving. The ADI was about to lose his business and produced numerous testimonials from past pupils. 21. In contrast, the Appellant here did not inform the Registrar of the offence, who found out via the DVLA. The Appellant seeks to excuse his behaviour by the incident occurring outside his professional duties. He must have been driving at the time as he was pulled over by the police. The severity of the motoring offence is not diminished by reason of the incident occurring outside of a lesson. As an ADI, he cannot separate out a driving offence committed outside of work from his professional duties. This has not been understood or remorse shown. 22. 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 motoring, 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. Conclusion 23. There were grounds for the Respondent to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register. The decision was correctly made that the Appellant ceased to be a fit and proper person. Signed: Judge J Findlay Judge K Saward Date: 9 June 2025 5