Roman Islam v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00331 (GRC) First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0961/FPP Heard by Cloud Video Platform Heard on: 25 February 2026 Decision given on: 06 March 2026 Before JUDGE HARRIS MEMBER PEPPERELL MEMBER ROANTREE Between ROMAN ISLAM and THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Appellant Respondent Representation: For the Appellant: Mr Islam, representing himself For the Respondent: Darren Russell Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. Background to the appeal REASONS 1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Registrar”) made on 11 September 2025 to refuse the application for a further trainee licence on the ground that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). This is because he was charged by the police on 22 July 2025 with the offence of aiding and abetting a driver driving without insurance. © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 2. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The parties joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The Appeal 3. The Appellant lodged an appeal on form GRC1 dated 16 September 2025. In summary, in his reasons for the appeal he made the following points: a. The Appellant says he was stopped by a police officer while his vehicle was stationary outside his client’s house. The client was sat in the driver’s seat because he was considering switching lessons from the Appellant’s automatic car to his manual car, so the Appellant was showing him the difference in the gear and clutch. The client was not driving and the Appellant asserts that the police officer did not witness him doing so. b. The client was not insured on the manual vehicle, but if he decided to proceed with lessons in that vehicle, the Appellant’s intention was to add the client to the policy on that vehicle. c. The Appellant considers it is wrong and unfair to deem him not fit and proper based on an offence of which he has not at present been convicted. His licence is clean and he has no historical offences indicating he was likely to or likely to cause another to drive a vehicle without insurance. d. The Appellant says the Registrar was unfair and wrong by failing to consider the likely outcome if he was convicted of the offence with which he is charged. He anticipates that the offence would be characterised as category 3 and lesser harm, resulting in a maximum penalty of 6-8 points, further reduced for mitigating circumstances. e. The Appellant contends that he has now lost his job, as he resigned from his previous employment to work as a driving instructor. f. The Appellant says that having now passed his Stage 3 test, he meets the criteria to apply for a full instructor licence. Alternatively he asks the Tribunal to provide clear guidance as to how he may redeem his character. 4. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 12 February 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant was charged by the police on 22 July 2025 for the offence of aid & abet – no insurance. The Appellant’s account of the events is not consistent with that provided by the police. An ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. In committing these offences, the Registrar does not believe that the Appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that he would expect to see from a potential ADI. 5. The Appellant did not provide a Reply The Law 6. Grant or retention of a trainee licence requires a person to be a fit and proper person – see sections 125(3)(3)(e) and 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (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. As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s 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. 7. 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). 8. 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). The evidence and submissions 9. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 33 numbered pages. 10. We heard submissions from the Appellant at the hearing. When asked about the incident in question, he said that he had been teaching the pupil, but had swapped cars outside the Appellant’s house and he drove the pupil to the pupil’s house 7 minutes’ drive away. The Appellant says he was going through how the gears work with the pupil when the police officer came up from behind. When the police officer approached the car, the Appellant says that it was 10-12 yards away from the pupil’s drive, on a side road. He accepted that the key was in the ignition at the time. He said that when turning into the road where the pupil lived the road is very narrow so it was necessary to approach at an angle and this is the point at which the police officer must have seen him. 11. Following the alleged offence he was stopped again on 1 July by police who said that he did not have insurance. He received papers from the magistrates’ court and pleaded not guilty, asking for a court hearing. He had a date in December at which he was told there would be a hearing in February 2026 but this has been delayed to May 2026. He said he understood the related proceedings against the pupil had been dismissed at a hearing in February, but was unable to give further details. 12. The Appellant said that he bought the manual car in which he was stopped for his nephew to teach him how to drive and that it did have L plates on front and back. He insured the manual car for the pupil in question when he came back home. 13. He stated that he has now passed his Part 3 driving instruction test. 14. We also heard submissions from the Registrar at the hearing. Mr Russell said that this appeal relates to the refusal of a trainee licence and that, having passed the Part 3 test, the Appellant was advised to wait for the outcome of this appeal before applying for full registration as an ADI. He submitted that the Appellant had allowed a client to sit in the driver’s seat of the manual car to see the difference in the controls with the engine running, but that the insurance policy on which the Appellant relies was not put into place until two hours after the incident so there was no appropriate insurance policy on the manual vehicle at the relevant time. 15. The Registrar considers that in not having a suitable policy and the engine running at the time of the incident, the Appellant has not only committed an offence but failed to uphold the standards expected of an ADI. The relevant facts 16. On 18 August 2025, the Registrar received an application for a further licence to give instruction (trainee licence) from the Appellant. The Appellant declared that “I have been accused of aiding and abetting a learner to drive without insurance. I do not agree with this as a police officer approached my vehicle when a prospective new client was considering becoming a new client and I was showing him the vehicle. The vehicle was not moving and in any event the vehicle had insurance, I will therefore be challenging any decision to pursue this matter. There is no hearing listed as yet.” 17. On 27 August 2025, the Registrar gave the Appellant written notice that he was considering refusing his application on the grounds that he could not be satisfied that the Appellant was a” fit and proper person”. The Appellant was invited to make representations within 14 days. 18. By email dated 28 August 2025, the Appellant made representations. He included the notice of prosecution, a statement and copies of insurance documents. He stated, “Thank you for the opportunity to make representations before a final decision is made. I would welcome you to ask me for any additional information, if you feel it would assist your decision making. I attach a statement explaining what happened, certificate of insurance for the material vehicle held at the time and the current policy. I also attach the certificate of insurance for my primary vehicle, ie the automatic which I had given this gentleman a lesson in before the incident and a notice of action regarding this incident.” 19. The Registrar considered these representations carefully and came to the view that the Appellant’s application should be refused as he could not fulfil the condition of being a fit and proper person within the context of the Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 125 (3) (e). The Appellant was given notice of the Registrar’s decision by a letter dated 11 September 2025, pursuant to section 129(4) of the Act Conclusions 20. If an ADI’s name is allowed to be put on or 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 the Register. This includes behaviour relating to driving. The Registrar’s guidance on the Register states at paragraph 2.4 that when determining whether a person is fit and proper, relevant matters may include whether a person has any court proceedings pending against them, so we do not consider that the lack of a conviction is determinative in this case. 21. 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. This includes matters such as ensuring appropriate insurance is in place before permitting pupils to be in charge of a vehicle. 22. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. What the Appellant did may not seem to be a serious offence, but the law treats it very seriously because of the need to ensure that pupils are protected by appropriate insurance when learning to drive. It is essential that ADIs follow the law that they are supposed to be teaching to often young and impressionable pupils. 23. We have considered all of the arguments made by the Appellant. However, we do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances which would justify allowing the Appellant to hold a trainee licence after conduct of this nature. 24. We find on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s decision to refuse the application for a trainee licence as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal Signed: Judge Harris Date: 27 February 2026 5