Paul Brown v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 3 November 2025 to remove him from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors on the grounds that he had failed his third attempt at the ‘test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction’ (a check test) and the Registrar was no longer satisfied that his ability to give driving instruction was of a satisfactory standard.

2. The reasons for this decision were set out in the letter to the Appellant dated 3 November 2025: The Registrar has now considered your representations and has decided to remove your name from the Register on the grounds that under Section 128(2) (d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended) you have failed to pass the test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction. In accordance with Section 128(6) of the Act . I now give you formal notice of the Registrar's decision. He came to this conclusion because you failed the test on 9th August 2023, 16th October 2024, and 27th May 2025.

3. The appellant does not now object to the removal of his name from the register, because he intends not to continue to work as a driving instructor, now that his final pupil has taken their test. Legal framework

4. Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) prohibits the driving instruction for payment unless the instructor’s name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructor’s or he is the holder of a current licence issued under Section 129(1) of the 1998 Act.

5. Section 125(5) of the 1998 Act imposes a condition for an Approved Driving Instructor to submit themselves for a check test if required to do so by the Registrar.

6. Where an Approved Driving Instructor fails to attend or fails a check test, the Registrar may remove that person from the Register under section 128(2) (c) or (d) of the 1998 Act.

7. An appeal against the conduct of a check test by a person who has failed it can be made to the Magistrates Court.

8. An appeal against the decision of the Registrar to remove a person from the Register can be made to this tribunal.

9. When making its Decision, 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. The burden of satisfying the tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant. Factual background to the appeal

10. The Appellant’s name was first entered on the register in February 2010 and the certificate of registration is due to expire at the end of February 2026.

11. The Appellant failed check tests on 9 August 2023 and 16 November 2024. Following each test the Appellant was notified for the examiner’s findings and advised to consider further personal development.

12. By letter dated 10 March 2025 the Appellant was informed that he was required to take a further check test on 27 May 2025. The Appellant took his third test on 27 May 2025 and failed. Appeal to the Tribunal

13. The grounds of appeal are, in summary, that: 13.1. The Appellant wished to continue giving lessons until his licence expired at the end of February 2026, because he had a number of pupils due to attend tests up to an including in February 2026. He did not want to let his pupils down. 13.2. He has been a driving instructor for 17 years and has taught hundreds of students from novice to passing their test which has given him huge satisfaction.

14. The Registrar, in his response, states: 14.1. The Appellant had failed three check tests. On his first test, not only did the appellant fail to achieve the overall minimum required score of 31, he also failed to achieve the minimum required score of 8 specifically within the competence of Risk Management. 14.2. Although the Act only requires one test, the Appellant was given 3 opportunities to pass and time to seek professional development. 14.3. The Registrar considered that the Appellant had been given adequate opportunity to pass the test but had failed to do so. In the interests of road safety and consumer protection the Registrar felt obliged to remove his name, because he had been unable to satisfy the Registrar that his ability to give driving instruction was of a satisfactory standard. Evidence and submissions

15. I read and took account of a bundle of documents and heard submissions from the Appellant and the Registrar. Discussion and conclusions

16. I bear in mind the significant importance which attaches to the integrity of the Register. Entry on to and remaining on that is a public endorsement of a high standard of competence on the part of ADIs. For the public to have trust in it, the Register must show integrity and that those on it have high standards. Part of that is achieved by the need for those on the Register to pass regular tests; doing so adds to the trust placed on the Register. Allowing those who do not meet the standards to remain on the Register undermines the trust placed in it with serious consequences for those who do maintain the necessary high standards. These are matters of public interest which attract significant weight. They are unlikely to be outweighed by the undoubted inconvenience to pupils whose tests are already booked with the instructor in question.

17. The Registrar attempts to balance the serious consequences for the individual against the need to maintain the integrity of the Register by allowing, in most cases, a maximum of three attempts to pass a check test.

18. Looking at all the circumstances the Appellant has not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision to remove his name from the Register after failing the third test was wrong. The appeal is dismissed. Signed Sophie Buckley Date: 26 February 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal