Zafran Razaq v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 01039 (GRC) First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber Transport Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0190 Determined at an oral hearing on 27th August 2025 Before HHJ DAVID DIXON GARY ROANTREE MARTIN SMITH Between ZAFRAN RAZAQ and THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Appellant Respondent Decision: The appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. REASONS © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 Background to Appeal 1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 13th January 2025 to remove his name from the Register, as he was no longer fit and proper to be on the same. 2. The Registrar’s reasons for removal, in summary, were that the Appellant had been convicted of dishonestly failing to disclose information for gain, and had been sentenced to a suspended prison term of 12 months. The Registrar deemed the offence serious, it impacted upon the Appellant’s character such that he was no longer fit and proper and had to be removed from the Register. 3. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision. Appeal to the Tribunal 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 6th February 2025, provided a number of character references to support the contention that the Appellant was fit and proper. In an email he set out how when his father became unwell properties were put into the Appellant’s name and due to other factors in his life the Appellant did not give them any real concern. He said he did not receive any benefit from the properties hence he forgot about them. He said it wasn’t until the offending came to light that he realised and held his “hands up.” He indicated that his wife has health issues, as does a child, he has had to care for other family whilst working during all of that time, including starting work as an ADI. He described a difficult position. The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the offence was serious, it related to benefit fraud committed over a lengthy period. Whilst the Appellant had pleaded guilty, the conviction was such that allowing the Appellant to remain on the Register would diminish the public trust in the same. Accordingly, the Appellant had to be removed. The Respondent provided a news cutting reporting on the Appellant’s sentencing hearing before HHJ Batty at Leeds Crown Court. The Prosecutor apparently indicated the Appellant had two properties in his name, yet claimed housing benefit for his own home. Over £40,000 in benefits were dishonestly claimed. The Learned Judge indicated, “According to him it’s all a mistake, but it’s not. It’s a series of lies he’s told…. I’m not going to lock him up because of his family but that’s what it is. It is just a “I can get the local authority to pay my rent.” The Judge did seem to accept that the Appellant had a lot “on his plate.” Mode of Determination 9. The case was listed for oral hearing, and heard via the CVP system. 10. The Appellant attended and was unrepresented. 11. The Respondent was represented by Andrew Heard of the DVSA Appeals team. 12. The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 56 pages. Evidence 13. Mr Heard said the Respondent’s position was as per the Response. 14. The Appellant said his late father put properties into the Appellant’s name, but the Appellant did not know that. He said when things came to light he started repaying things and thought that was the end of things, but in the end he was prosecuted. He said that he had no option but to plead guilty as he had started repaying things. He maintained that he was not dishonest. He was unaware of the properties being registered in his name, and it wasn’t until the benefits agency came to see him that he became aware. 15. He maintained he had no dealings with the properties at all. The Appellant indicated he has not received anything from the properties. He explained that he was in the process of selling one of the properties to raise monies to repay the overpayment. 16. He said that he was a man of high integrity and he had been brought up to be honest and trustworthy. He said he had been an ADI for some time and had no complaints or other issues against him. He maintained he was of impeccable character, and therefore fit and proper. The Law 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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”. 20. 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. 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. Conclusion 21. The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it. 22. The Tribunal was troubled by this case. The Appellant was adamant that he was in effect innocent of the offending alleged, yet at the same time he has pleaded guilty to serious criminal conduct. The Tribunal gave careful consideration to the overall position and came to the conclusion that it could not go behind the conviction. There was no suggestion he was going to appeal the conviction and therefore the Tribunal has to proceed on the basis he was dishonest or at the very least there would be a public perception that he was dishonest. 23. Here then the Appellant dishonestly made statements to the Benefit Agency to get over £40,000 for himself. As the Judge indicated he lied repeatedly. A significant part of being an ADI is the responsibility to behave honestly, and to be regarded as truthful. Here the Appellant by virtue of the conviction has little integrity. He has accepted that over a number of years he was dishonest. This is not a situation where there were omissions or errors, but by his plea he accepts dishonest acts. Such an individual is not fit and proper to be on the Register. 24. The Registrar is right to be concerned that the public would be bemused how someone with such a conviction and sentence could be on the Register. Allowing the Appellant to remain on the Register firstly gives the impression that honesty and integrity do not matter. Secondly, it suggests that someone who has manipulated systems for their own benefit is being vouched for by the Registrar as an “approved” person, and again that shouldn’t happen. Finally, it could give the impression that the Registrar was willing to overlook serious offending and again that simply cannot be allowed. 25. The conviction and sentence render the Appellant no longer fit to be on the Register; he is no longer fit and proper. 26. The Tribunal gave consideration to the effect of removal, giving careful attention to the Learned Judge’s sentencing remarks, the Appellant’s family and health issues, and the references supplied, but when balanced against the offending came to the clear view that removal was still appropriate. 27. The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. The Registrar’s decision was entirely correct, he had no option but to remove the Appellant as a result of his offending. HHJ DAVID DIXON GARY ROANTREE MARTIN SMITH Date: 27th August 2025 4