David James Wallace v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. The Tribunal upholds the Registrar’s decision dated 4 July 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) Register pursuant to section 128(2) (e) Road Traffic Act 1988 (ceased to be a fit and proper person). Introduction and Jurisdiction:

1. This is an appeal under section 131 Road Traffic Act 1988 against the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant from the ADI Register under section 128(2) (e) on the basis that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained on that Register. The Registrar’s decision was issued on 4 July 2025 and took non-immediate effect, with the Appellant enjoying continuing rights pending the outcome of this appeal.

2. The appeal was accepted (notwithstanding lateness) by the First-tier Tribunal (GRC). The Tribunal refused a late application for an adjournment on 03 March and proceeded to hear the appeal on 04 March 2026 . Background:

3. The Appellant has been an ADI since July 2009 . On 4 July 2025 the Registrar decided to remove his name from the Register under s.128(2) (e ) , principally relying on his current driving record of 9 penalty points comprising MS90 (failure to give information as to driver) – 6 points (conviction 5 June 2023 for an offence of 21 October 2022 ) and SP30 (speeding) – 3 points ( 21 July 2023 ).

4. The Registrar was also concerned that the Appellant had failed to notify the Registrar of the endorsements within seven days , contrary to his earlier signed declaration (Aug 2021). The Issues:

5. The Tribunal identified the following issues: a. Whether, at the time of the Registrar’s decision (and on the evidence before this Tribunal), the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained on the ADI Register ( s.128(2) (e)). b. The weight to be attached to the Appellant’s 9 penalty points in the light of the standards required of ADIs. c. The significance of the Appellant’s failure to notify within seven days. d. The credibility and weight of the Appellant’s explanations for the endorsements and his subsequent conduct. The Evidence:

6. We had before us the parties’ documentation including the Registrar’s decision and statement, DVLA information as to endorsements, and the Appellant’s correspondence with HMCTS and DVSA. We also heard the Appellant’s oral evidence and submissions.

7. The panel recorded specific concerns regarding the Appellant’s honesty about the offences and circumstances, and his knowledge of the consequences of holding 9 penalty points as an ADI. We took those concerns into account alongside all the evidence. Findings of Fact:

8. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds: (1) The Appellant’s driving record at the relevant time comprised MS90 (6 points) (conviction 5 June 2023 ; offence 21 October 2022 ) and SP30 (3 points) ( 21 July 2023 ), totalling 9 penalty points . (2) The Appellant received the fine and endorsement correspondence and took prompt steps to reduce the financial penalty but did not take timely or effective steps to challenge the MS90 ( e.g., by statutory declaration or appeal to the Crown Court) despite being advised of these routes by HMCTS. (3) The Appellant did not notify the Registrar of the endorsements within the seven-day period required by his signed declaration. (4) The Appellant’s explanations—lost correspondence, address errors, and later recall that his spouse was the driver—were internally inconsistent , largely uncorroborated , and we find simply not credible . We unanimously reject them. (5) The Appellant referred to a significant financial scam and stressful personal circumstances. There was little or no evidence before the Tribunal as to the nature, extent or impact of these matters and in any event, they carry no material weight in relation to the core issues herein (6) As an ADI, the Appellant should have known the implications of accruing 9 points and acted with corresponding diligence both in reporting and in seeking to resolve the endorsements. His failure to do so undermines confidence in his adherence to professional standards. The Tribunal have real concerns about his complete lack of regard for the correspondence that was sent and the opportunities afforded to him to address this, by way of making a statutory declaration, or responding to letters.We do not accept that he didn't know of the consequences of having 9 penalty points and if he didn't, that's also concerning. We have concerns about his honesty about the offence and the circumstances under which it occurred. The Legal Framework:

9. Under section 128(2) (e) Road Traffic Act 1988 , the Registrar may remove a person’s name from the ADI Register if satisfied that the person has ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name retained in the Register.

10. Sections 128(5) –(7) set out the procedural requirements for notice and representations and permit a decision to take non-immediate effect. The Appellant has a right of appeal to this Tribunal under section 131 .

11. The question for the Tribunal on a statutory appeal of this kind is a merits assessment public interest in road safety and confidence in the Register. Analysis:

12. Professional standards and public protection . ADIs are entrusted with promoting safe driving. The combination of an MS90 (failure to identify a driver) and SP30 (speeding) is particularly serious. Nine current points on an ADI’s record are incompatible with the high standards expected of instructors responsible for learner safety and public confidence.

13. Credibility and candour. The Appellant’s shifting explanations lacked independent corroboration and were inconsistent with his selective engagement with official correspondence—acting quickly to reduce a fine yet failing to take the remedial legal steps clearly available and explained by HMCTS. This pattern significantly undermines reliability and candour.

14. Notification failure. Independent of the endorsements themselves, the unexcused failure to notify the Registrar within seven days—an obligation the Appellant had expressly accepted—raises concerns about compliance and integrity central to the fit and proper assessment.

15. Mitigation. The claimed financial scam and personal stressors were i nsufficiently evidenced and, even taken at their hight, do not materially alter the assessment of fitness and propriety in the face of the material matters referred to above.

16. On 3 March 2026, the Appellant applied for an adjournment of the hearing listed for 4 March 2026. The Tribunal considered that application on the papers and refused it for the following reasons. a) The application was made late, despite the Appellant having had notice of the hearing date for a considerable period. b) The Appellant provided no adequate evidence to support the asserted reasons for seeking an adjournment. c) The Appellant had previously made inconsistent statements to the Tribunal and to other bodies, and we had concerns as to the reliability and candour of the explanations offered. d) The grounds advanced did not justify interfering with the listing, particularly given the nature of the appeal, the public interest in timely resolution, and the Appellant’s opportunity to prepare in advance.

17. For those reasons, the Tribunal determined that the hearing should properly proceed as listed and the appeal was duly heard on 04 March 2026, with the Appellant attending and giving evidence. During the hearing the Appellant was given every proper opportunity to make submissions and to address the Tribunal on all matters relevant to this appeal.

18. Following the hearing, the Appellant wrote to the Tribunal stating that he was upset by being called on to address the Tribunal slightly earlier than he expected in the running order of the listed hearings. He has since invited/requested the Tribunal to convene a further hearing.

19. That request was not submitted on the required GRC5 form and provided no new or materially relevant information. The matters relied upon could and should have been raised at the hearing itself if they were said to affect his ability to participate. In any event, the Tribunal is satisfied that: a) the Appellant was fully aware of the hearing arrangements; b) he participated without indicating at any stage that he was unable to present his case; c) no procedural unfairness arose; and d) nothing in his post-hearing correspondence would materially add to or otherwise undermines the integrity of the hearing process.

20. Accordingly, the Tribunal refuses the Appellant’s request for a further hearing. There is no basis, in fairness or in law, for reopening the evidence or for relisting the appeal. The Tribunal is satisfied that the appeal was properly and fairly determined on 4 March 2026.

21. In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that, at the time of decision and at the hearing, the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to remain on the ADI Register. We endorse the Registrar’s decision and reasons in full . Conclusion:

17. For all the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed . The Registrar’s decision of 4 July 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the ADI Register under s.128(2) (e) is upheld . Right of Appeal:

18. Any party has the right to apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law . A written application for permission must be received by this Tribunal within 28 days after the date on which this Decision is sent to the parties. The application must identify the alleged error(s) of law and the result sought. J udge Brian Kennedy KC 11 March 2026. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)