Bradlee Cozens v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 8 April 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for registration as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) on the grounds that he is not a “fit and proper person”. This was due to the Appellant having received a fixed penalty for speeding on 23 June 2024 and a conviction on 14 February 2025 for speeding on 8 July 2024. On each occasion the Appellant received 3 penalty points on his driving licence.

2. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). Both parties joined remotely. The Appeal

3. The Notice of Appeal is dated 28 April 2025. The Appellant refers to having a long-standing medical condition which he says contributed to him suffering a brief lapse in concentration resulting in the additional 3 penalty points. Details of the Appellant’s medical history are provided. This personal information has been considered but it is not repeated here for reasons of confidentiality.

4. The Tribunal is asked to take into account that the Appellant had “accidentally” exceeded the speed limit on 8 July 2024 whilst on his way to a doctor’s appointment for symptoms following surgery in 2023. Between January to October 2024, the Appellant had made countless telephone calls to 111, his GP and numerous visits to A&E. By the time of the offence, the Appellant had been constantly suffering from the condition for 5 to 6 months.

5. The Appellant states that he fully recognises that road safety is of the utmost importance. Whilst acknowledging the penalty points, the Appellant does not believe that the offence reflects his overall character or ability to safely and effectively carry out the duties of an ADI. He remains committed to upholding the highest standards of road safety and driver education.

6. The Appellant is willing to comply with conditions or oversight that may be deemed necessary or order to demonstrate his fitness to join the Register.

7. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 27 October 2025 resists the appeal for the following reasons: (a) The Appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having accepted a fixed penalty notice and been convicted for exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road. (b) Conditions for entry onto the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require the applicant to be a fit and proper person. Account is taken of a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct. An ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. (c) Teaching generally young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task that should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. In committing the speeding offences, the Registrar does not believe that the Appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety expected of an ADI. The Registrar considers that he would be failing in his public duty if he allowed a person, whose driving licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points whilst progressing through the qualification process, to have his name entered in the Register. (d) The Government increased the payment levels for serious road safety offences such as speeding. These offences contribute to a significant number of casualties. For example, in 2020 excessive speed contributed to 202 deaths, 1,300 serious injuries and 1,386 minor accidents. (e) The Registrar cannot condone motoring offences of this nature. To do so would effectively sanction such behaviour if those who transgress are allowed entry on the official Register to allow them to teach others. (f) It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify, who are scrupulous in observing the law, to ignore these offences.

8. The Appellant added to his appeal that the DVSA had continuously cancelled Part 3 test dates in the qualification process to become an ADI and rescheduled them many months in advance. He also queries why another instructor was granted an ADI badge despite having 6 penalty points whereas the Appellant’s application was declined. The Appellant suggests that the disparity raises concerns of potential inconsistency or discrimination in the decision-making process. The Law

9. Under section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ the Act ”), no paid instruction in the driving of a motor car shall be given unless—(a) the name of the person giving the instruction is in the register of approved instructors, or (b) the person giving the instruction is the holder of a current licence granted under Part V of the Act authorising him to give such instruction.

10. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”) require the applicant to be a “fit and proper person” to have his name on the Register, as set out in section 125(3) (e) of the Act . The Act does not specify what this standard requires.

11. 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.” [paragraph 30].

12. There are no fixed rules about 6 penalty points being a trigger for the “fit and proper person” condition ( RADI v C [2019] UKUT 230 (AAC) ).

13. 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

14. We have considered all the written evidence in the hearing bundle comprised of 32 pages along with the oral submissions made by the Appellant and the Registrar’s representative at the hearing. Submissions

15. At the hearing Mr Heard reiterated the reasons given in the Registrar’s statement of case. He added that the Registrar was aware of the Appellant’s first offence in June 2024 after notification by the Appellant in December 2024. The Registrar accepts there is nothing in legislation stating that 6 penalty points is the threshold for a person being deemed not to be a fit and proper person. The Registrar’s own guidance provides that 5 points and above could be classed as a tipping point. The Registrar looks at the type of offence.

16. The Appellant disagrees that he is not a fit and proper person. He submitted that it is not easy becoming an ADI. He started teaching on a trainee licence on 15 January 2024. Only 3 months later, he had his first test booked as part of the qualifying examination. The test was cancelled by the DVSA and the date moved. Another test booked for 3 December 2024 was cancelled by the DVSA only 2 minutes before the close of business on 2 December 2024.

17. At the time of the offences, the Appellant was being ill every single day. He was not in the correct mindset maybe. He is no longer facing any health issues.

18. The Appellant acknowledged at the hearing that the speeding offences were in quick succession. They were two SP30 offences going from a 40mph to 30mph speed limit whilst using cruise control. The Appellant accepts that he should have been more aware of his speed and the speed limit. It was completely his fault. For the second offence, the Appellant was on the way to see his GP.

19. In answer to the Tribunal’s questions, the Appellant confirmed that he had a few months previously attended a speed awareness course after driving maybe 37mph in a 30mph speed limit. The speed awareness course was around 12 to 18 months prior to the commission of his June 2024 offence.

20. When asked if it was appropriate for him to be driving on days when he was unwell, the Appellant maintained that he could still focus on his driving. There was no reason why he should not be driving.

21. Both offences had been captured by a speed camera van. A notice of intended prosecution had followed in each case. For the first offence, the Appellant had admitted to being the driver and accepted a fixed penalty. The Appellant had elected to go to Court for the second offence because he did not want 6 points on his licence. He pleaded ‘guilty’ to the offence but argued against endorsement of his licence due to mitigating circumstances. The Magistrates still imposed 3 penalty points.

22. The Appellant accepted that he had not notified the DVSA of the first (June 2024) offence as soon as he became aware of it around 2 to 3 weeks later. When asked for the reason for the delay, the Appellant told the Tribunal that he had given notification as soon as he could (in December 2024). Life was busy with his baby who was born in May 2024. The Appellant had not notified the Registrar at the same time of the pending Magistrates Court proceedings for the further offence as he did not know the outcome. Relevant Facts

23. The Appellant is not and never has been on the Register as an ADI. He was issued with two trainee licences that were valid from 15 January 2024 until 14 January 2025.

24. The Appellant accepted a fixed penalty notice (SP30) for speeding on 23 June 2024 for which he received 3 penalty points.

25. On 13 December 2024 the Appellant declared to the DVSA that he had received 3 penalty points “ due to using cruise control and going through a speed camera van at 37 in a 30 ”. He apologised for not emailing sooner.

26. The Registrar cannot provide a copy of his letter of response of 16 December 2024. According to the Registrar, the letter advised the Appellant that although no action would be taken on that occasion, an application for a full ADI certificate could be refused if it became necessary to consider whether he was a fit and proper person.

27. On 14 February 2025, the Appellant was convicted for the offence of speeding on 8 July 2024. His licence was endorsed with a further 3 penalty points resulting in a total of 6 penalty points.

28. On 28 February 2025 the Appellant applied for registration as an ADI after successfully completing the qualification process to become an ADI. In the application form, the Appellant declared that he had 6 penalty points for two offences.

29. By letter dated 10 March 2025, the DVSA notified the Appellant that the Registrar was considering refusing his application for registration as an ADI. This was on the grounds that the Registrar does not consider that the Appellant met the “fit and proper person” condition within section 125(3) (e) of the Act . The letter erroneously stated that the Appellant had accepted a fixed penalty notice on 8 July 2024. The speeding offence occurred on that date. The Appellant was convicted in the Magistrates Court on 14 February 2025 after pleading ‘guilty’ to the offence. The Appellant was given 28 days to make representations.

30. The Appellant made representations by email on 10 March 2025. He stated that: (a) He fully understands the seriousness of road safety and deeply regrets the circumstances leading to the two speeding offences. (b) The first offence on 23 June 2024 was an unfortunate lapse of judgement for which he took full responsibility at the time. (c) The context for the second offence on 8 July 2024 was that the Appellant was extremely unwell and was on his way to seek medical attention. He had set the vehicle cruise control to 40mph and did not notice the speed limit change from 40mph to 30mph due to the difficult circumstances that he was experiencing. (d) Since the offences, the Appellant has been even more mindful of his speed and adherence to the law. He is fully committed to setting a positive example for learner drivers. (e) A previous instructor at the Appellant’s driving school was granted an ADI licence despite also having 6 penalty points at the time of their application. (f) The Appellant sincerely apologises for the offences.

31. Having considered the response, the Registrar gave notice to the Appellant on 8 April 2025 that he had decided to refuse the Appellant’s application as he could not fulfil the condition in and proper” person to become an ADI. section 125(3) (e) of the Act of being a “fit Consideration and Conclusions

32. The Tribunal cannot impose additional conditions or require oversight of the Appellant in order that his name can be entered in the Register. The question is a straightforward one of whether or not the Appellant is a fit and proper person to be entered in the Register as an ADI i.e., without safeguards in place.

33. It is incumbent upon the parties to provide all information within the bundle upon which they seek to rely. We are not supplied with the details or circumstances in which the Registrar allowed another instructor’s name to be entered on the Register despite having 6 penalty points. Nevertheless, every case must be considered on its individual merits. Six penalty points is not an automatic cut-off point for admission to the Register. Consideration is required to the circumstances of the case. Each case is fact specific.

34. In this instance, the Appellant had attended a speed awareness course for speeding prior to the two speeding offences for which he received the 6 penalty points. The speed awareness course should have acted as a warning to the Appellant. Despite this, the Appellant committed two further speeding offences in quick succession. It is unclear if the Appellant knew of the first offence at the time of the second. Even if he was unaware, it does not mitigate the severity of committing repeated speeding offences. The Appellant may not have been deliberately speeding, but he clearly failed to have the requisite awareness of the speed limit and necessary concentration.

35. It is no mitigation in our consideration of the “fit and proper person” test that the DVSA had repeatedly cancelled Part 3 tests date and rescheduled them months ahead. They are entirely separate issues. Any difficulties during the qualifying process are simply irrelevant in this appeal.

36. We note that the hospital invoice provided by the Appellant concerns an appointment in October 2024, which was after the two speeding events in June and July 2024. Nonetheless, we have no reason to doubt that the Appellant was suffering from long-standing medical symptoms when the offences occurred.

37. We can understand why the Appellant was distracted on 8 July 2024 when he was caught speeding whilst on his way to seek medical attention. However, if the Appellant was as unwell as he stated, he should not have been driving. Continuing to drive whilst in a distracted state out of fear of sickness/vomiting indicates an alarming lack of judgement, placing himself and other road users at risk. It causes the Tribunal to seriously question the Appellant’s understanding of road safety if he drives whilst not well and fully alert. From the Appellant’s account, he was relying on adaptive speed controls and was more concerned about not being extremely ill than abiding by the law.

38. The Tribunal is also concerned that a potential ADI would rely on adaptive speed controls given that an ADI should have driving standards above that of an ordinary motorist, whatever the circumstances. In our view, the Appellant should be demonstrating that he has control of the car at all times rather than placing faith in technology.

39. There was a long delay before alerting the DVSA to the fixed penalty notice and no mention was made of the pending Magistrates Court proceedings. The failure to notify the Registrar in a timely manner does not inspire confidence that the Appellant understands the responsibilities expected of a fit and proper person, however busy life may be. Moreover, failing to mention the second occurrence of speeding (for which the Appellant had elected to go to Court) demonstrates a lack of candour.

40. If a person’s name is entered in the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are inconsistent with fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public’s confidence in the Register. This includes behaviour relating to driving and other matters of responsibility, trustworthiness, inappropriate personal conduct or commission of criminal offences.

41. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, that those who are on it understand their responsibilities, and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. This would all be undermined if the Appellant’s name was allowed to be entered on the Register. The public are entitled to know that the Registrar will ensure that often young and impressionable pupils are being instructed by those that behave properly and observe the law.

42. Aside from the seriousness of two speeding offences attracting 6 points, the Appellant has displayed a lack of awareness and insight as to the requirements, behaviours and standards expected of an ADI.

43. On the balance of probabilities, we find that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person to be admitted as an ADI. In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s decision to refuse the Appellant’s application for entry in the Register was correct. We dismiss this appeal.