David Lowe v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 01273 (GRC) First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber Transport Case Reference: FT/D/2026/0153 Determined at an oral hearing on 27th August 2026 Decision given on: 04 September 2026 Before

HHJ DAVID DIXON

DAVID RAWSTHORN

MARTIN SMITH Between

DAVID LOWE and

THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED

DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Appellant Respondent Decision: The appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 Background to Appeal

REASONS 1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 14th January 2026 to remove his name from the Register.

2. The Registrar’s reasons for removal, in summary, were that the Appellant had accrued penalty points for speeding on 30th April 2024 and 18th October 2025. The Registrar took the view the offending was serious and allowing him to remain on the Register would undermine confidence in it, so determined the Appellant must be removed.

3. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision. Appeal to the Tribunal 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 11th February 2026, indicates that he provided details to the Registrar of the two offences, which he suggests have been given insufficient weight in determining whether he should be removed from the Register. The Appellant provided a “paid and endorsed” notice dated 29th December 2025 for the second offence. He accepted that he had failed to notify the Registrar within the 7 day required period for both offences. For the 30th April offence he said that he was driving on an unfamiliar road and there were fluctuating speed limits. He suggested the signage wasn’t clear and he only slightly exceeded the limit. He said that an email was sent at the time but he doesn’t have access to it anymore. For the 18th October offence he said that he was driving on cruise control and failed to deactivate it as the speed limit changed, hence the offence. He said that the acrimonious divorce he was going through meant he was unable to inform the Registrar promptly. He awaited confirmation of the endorsement before notifying the Registrar. He argues that if he loses his licence his income will be affected. His current income allows him to be the head coach for a swimming club, which would change if his no longer had his licence. Character reference excerpts were supplied indicating pupils were happy with the Appellant’s driving instruction. The

Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the Appellant was required to apply the rules of the road and he hadn’t. He was in charge of teaching young people to drive, and that required ADIs to have the highest standards in their use of the roads. Here the Appellant had failed in that regard and it would send out the wrong message if he was allowed to remain on the Register. He was no longer fit and proper. His failure to notify the Registrar of the offences was a further serious omission, which had a considerable bearing on his status. Mode of Determination 10. The case was listed for oral hearing, and heard via the CVP system.

11. The Appellant attended and was unrepresented.

12. The Respondent was represented by Mr Ahtiq Raja of the DVSA Appeals team.

13. The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 28 pages. Evidence and submissions 14. Mr Raja said the Respondent’s position was as per the response.

15. The Appellant said for the first offence he was travelling on a dual carriageway and was slightly over the limit. He said he believed he was travelling at 42-44 in a 40 zone. He was the driver at the time and he was in Solihull an unfamiliar area for him. He said he was caught on a mobile camera.

16. The Appellant said that he went onto his ex-wife’s phone to send an email to notify the Registrar but it doesn’t seem to have been received. He said he was unable to get that email to confirm an attempt to notify the Registrar due to his divorce and communication with his ex-wife being acrimonious. .

17. For the second offence he was heading the down M11 taking some swimmers to the winter championships. He put his car in cruise control at 65mph and with rain and darkness went through the camera at that speed. He said that the speed had dropped to 50mph and he missed the change in limit. He couldn’t explain why his concentration dipped, whether it was that the championships were on his mind or something else he couldn’t say.

18. After hearing nothing from the Registrar for first offence he was about to notify for the second when he received a letter from the Registrar indicating that they knew of the offence. He said he received the Registrar’s notification the day before he was going to notify. He said he was waiting for the points to be added to his licence before notifying.

19. The Appellant said that he had made it clear to his pupils that they are to slow down before limits, as a consequence of this offending. He said that if pupils said to him you’ve been caught speeding why shouldn’t I, he would frankly say that he had committed offences and had learnt his lesson. He would stress that he was lucky that the consequences weren’t more serious as driving above the limit is obviously dangerous.

20. He said he was involved in coaching swimmers on a paid basis. He said that he had something like 30-35 pupils at any one time. He described how his ADI income supplemented his coaching which was in effect a part time job. He said he would need more earnings to survive if he lost his ADI status. The Appellant said that he would probably be able to get another job driving if he had to. Getting a job within the swimming field would be more difficult as the nearest facility for a higher paid job was 2 hours away from his home address.

21. He was asked about the flexibility of his ADI role, and whether that was relevant to his coaching. He said that he coached early in the morning, evenings and weekends, and he generally worked 9.30am to 3.30pm as an ADI. He had looked for other work and had seen that he could get work from 8am but that would involve some personal sacrifices. The Law 22. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the Applicant to be and continue to be a “fit and proper person” to have his name on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors – see s. 125 (3) and s. 127 (3) (e) Road Traffic Act 19881.

23. The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. The burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory criteria rests with the Registrar.

24. In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 8082, the Court of Appeal described the “fit and proper person” condition thus: “..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…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”.

25. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Registrar’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing i.e. the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and take a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as is considered appropriate to the Registrar’s reasons3 as the Registrar is the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process. Conclusion 26. The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.

27. Here the Appellant has committed two separate speeding offences. The Appellant seeks to minimise the first offence by suggesting that it was an unfamiliar road where the limits fluctuated. All drivers are expected to be more aware of the limits, and if a driver found themselves in an area they were not familiar with common sense would 1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/V/crossheading/registration 2 http:/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/808.html 3 See R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/31.html. Approved by the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 at paragraph 45 – see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0126-judgment.pdf. dictate taking more care. The failure to be more aware is an aggravating factor not mitigating.

28. The Appellant said he was driving at about 44mph in a 40 mph zone. It showed that he was not paying attention to the road conditions. For an ADI that was serious.

29. The second offence is equally so. The Appellant seeks to minimise matters again by saying he forgot to turn off cruise control and it was a simple error. By suggesting that he accepts paying insufficient regard to the road and his car. He should have paid sufficient attention to the road to notice the change in speed allowed. He was travelling in raining conditions with young people in his car. His indication that he wasn’t paying attention under those circumstances was worrying.

30. The fact that after accruing the first offence he did not pay better attention to his speed is a further matter of concern. The Appellant disclosed he had also been on a speed awareness course 3-5 years ago.

31. He failed to tell the Registrar about the second matter within the allocated time. This does his status a further disservice. (The Tribunal was prepared to accept that an attempt was made to communicate for the first offence, albeit it seems it was unsuccessful.) 32. The Tribunal comes to the view that the Registrar had no option but to remove the Appellant. The Registrar must ensure that the public has faith in the Register and the only way to do so is to ensure that only those suitable to instruct are on it. Here an ADI driving over the speed limit on two occasions, having failed to heed the first, is not. To allow the Appellant to appear on the Register would be to send out the wrong message and almost condone the speeding convictions. The Registrar simply can’t do that. Further, for an ADI to say “you must drive within the speed limits” to pupils, when within a relatively short time they have not, leaves pupils with the option of saying “you haven’t,” which is simply inappropriate. The Appellant’s suggested response, whilst honest, would not be enough to counter his own offending.

33. The Tribunal is also concerned about the minimisation of the offences. The “signage wasn’t clear”, “I didn’t turn cruise control off in time”, are all signs of someone not paying close enough attention to the control of their own vehicle and/or the road. ADIs are required to do both to show by example how new drivers should conduct themselves.

34. The Tribunal gave due regard to a holistic approach but the offences, the failure to notify properly and the way the Appellant described the driving resulted in all of his good character going to one side. The Registrar must ensure that the Register is being upheld to the appropriate standard and allowing the Appellant to remain would undermine the same.

35. The consequences of removal were considered carefully by the Tribunal to determine if it was proportionate in all the circumstances, and came to the firm view it was. Whilst losing his licence to teach was of note, it didn’t preclude the Appellant from other work and a good driver could find alternative employment. Removal was entirely appropriate. The Appellant had already failed to heed his first offence, therefore a simple warning from the Registrar was insufficient for an ADI that had shown a disregard for the road and for his registration.

36. The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. The Registrar’s decision was correct. (Signed) HHJ David Dixon David Rawsthorn Martin Smith DATE: 27th August 2026 6