Afsana Begum v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Preliminary matters

1. References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of t he Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. In this decision, we use the following terms to denote the meanings shown: ADIs: Approved Driving Instructors (those whose name appear on the Register) . Appellant: Afsana Begum. Application: The Appellant’s application to the Registrar for the grant of a Licence. Licence: A licence issued under section 129 to give paid instruction in the driving of a motor car. Register: The Register of Approved Driving Instructors maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Registrar: The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Respondent). Registrar’s Decision: The decision of the Registrar, by way of letter to the Appellant dated 21 July 2025, to refuse the Application . Introduction - background to the appeal

3. This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

4. The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision were, in summary, that the Appellant had received a fixed penalty notice dated 1 June 2023 of six penalty points for breach of requirements as to control of a vehicle and accordingly the Registrar considered that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to become an ADI. The appeal The grounds of appeal

5. The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision, arguing that they were a fit and proper person. The Appellant’s appeal relied, in summary, on the grounds that: a. The incident resulting in the fixed penalty notice was a one-off occurrence, resulting from a lapse of judgment prompted by an urgent phone call relating to her responsibilities as a carer. b. There were wider personal circumstances which had also contributed to the lapse of judgment. c. She had not previously had any points or other convictions and was generally of good character.

6. The Appellant provided a character reference as well as a witness statement in support of her appeal regarding their character and her work done part-time for a law firm. She accepted responsibility for the incident in question and stated that she had learnt from it. The Registrar’s case

7. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s Statement of Case maintained that the Appellant’s driving licence being endorsed with six penalty points cannot be ignored. The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to be granted a Licence.

8. The Registrar’s view was that allowing the Appellant to be granted a Licence would undermine confidence in the registration system. The Registrar also stated that the Appellant had not given notification of the offence within 7 days, despite an obligation to do so pursuant to their Application. Mode of hearing

9. The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel, the Appellant, the witness (see paragraph 11 below) and Mr Heard (on behalf of the Registrar) joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. There were no interruptions of note during the hearing. The evidence and submission

10. The Tribunal read and took account of an ‘updated’ bundle of evidence and pleadings, and a separate signed copy of the witness statement referred to below .

11. The bundle included a witness statement given on behalf of the Appellant . The witness statement was essentially a character reference, given by the Appellant ’s employer (a solicitor). It is not necessary for us to identify this witness personally in this decision - therefore we merely refer to them as “the witness” and we mean no disrespect to them in doing so. T he witness also gave evidence at the hearing.

12. We heard from the Appellant directly, as well as oral submissions from Mr Heard on behalf of the Registrar.

13. All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant legal principles

14. Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor’s name is entered in the Register, or they are the holder of a current Licence.

15. Conditions for the grant of a Licence include that a person is, and continues to be, a “fit and proper person” pursuant to section 129(2)(b), which refers to the requirements in section 125(3)(e).

16. The Registrar may therefore refuse to issue a Licence under section 129(2) if the Registrar considers that the person applying for a Licence is not a “fit and proper person”.

17. The requirement to be a “fit and proper person” is not simply that the person is a fit and proper person to be, or to become, a driving instructor, but that they are a fit and proper person to have their named entered in the Register. Accordingly, the requirement to be a “fit and proper person” extends beyond instructional ability alone and, in assessing whether someone is a “fit and proper person”, account has to be taken of their 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.

18. The entry of a person’s name on the Register carries with it an ‘official seal of approval’ and consequently maintenance of public confidence in the Register is important. The Registrar therefore has the duty of ensuring that ADIs are ‘fit and proper’ persons to have their names entered in the Register. As part of that, the Registrar exercises functions of scrutiny and that is why there are stringent disclosure requirements expected of ADIs and those wishing to become an ADI.

19. In cases involving motoring offences, it is expected that anyone who is to be an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. Teaching people of all ages (including those aged under 18) 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.

20. In cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the Register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence could be undermined, if it were known that a person’s name had been permitted onto, or allowed to remain on, the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours, or been convicted or cautioned in relation to offences, substantially material to the question of fitness. Indeed, it would be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.

21. Some of the factors in the preceding paragraph can also be relevant in cases involving motoring offences. The role and powers of the Tribunal

22. An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

23. The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the grant or refusal of the Application, as it thinks fit.

24. However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for him to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

25. Where the Tribunal makes an order for the refusal of the Application, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply for a Licence for a period of up to four years. Discussion and findings

26. In this case, the Appellant was guilty of an offence of using a handheld mobile phone while driving, for which she received six penalty points.

27. The Appellant submitted that there were difficult family circumstances, including relating to her responsibilities as a carer, and that this was a factor leading to a lapse in her judgement. However, she also stated that she took full responsibility for the incident and would ensure that nothing similar would happen again.

28. The Registrar cited statistics of injuries and deaths relating to driving offences. The Registrar considered that they could not condone motoring offences such as those which the Appellant had been found guilty of. The Registrar’s view was that allowing the Appellant to have a Licence could undermine the public’s confidence in the ADI registration system. They added that it would be unfair to other applicants who had been scrupulous in observing the law to allow the Appellant to have a Licence.

29. We understand the Registrar’s concerns. However, all things considered, our view is that this was a case of human error and an isolated incident in respect of which the Appellant expressed remorse. We found the Appellant to be sincerely contrite and we consider that she has ‘learned her lesson’ in respect of the incident. The Appellant also adduced evidence in respect of her personal circumstances and we accept that those circumstances were a contributing (and mitigating) factor to her lapse of judgment. We also take into account that she had not previously had any penalty points or other convictions.

30. This was a finely balanced decision but, for all of the reasons we have given, we find that it would be disproportionate to conclude that the Appellant has failed to meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person to be granted a Licence. On balance, taking into account all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s Decision was incorrect. There is, in our view, no risk to the integrity of the Register by allowing the Appellant to have a Licence.

31. We therefore allow the appeal and accordingly the Registrar’s Decision is set aside. The Respondent is hereby ordered to grant the A pplication .

32. We would ask the Appellant to note the following. Following the endorsement of her driving licence with six points, she has come very close to a determination that she is not a ‘fit and proper person’ for the purposes of a Licence. It should be self-evident that there are significant learning outcomes from this process and that any future transgressions could have serious consequences for her Licence (or potential future ADI status). Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 7 February 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal