Tak Ken Liu v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Background to the appeal

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Registrar”) sent to the Appellant on 5 August 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”) on the ground that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). This is because of a complaint received concerning images of pupils taken without their knowledge and pictures of himself in a state of undress.

2. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The parties joined remotely and Mr Liu joined by telephone due to technical difficulties. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way and that all present had a chance to participate properly. The Appeal

3. The Appellant lodged an appeal on form GRC1 dated 26 August 2025. In summary, in his reasons for the appeal he made the following points: a. He says that the matters to which the complaint refers are over two and a half years old and that he was in a consensual adult relationship with the complainant for over 18 months, which ended in November 2024. b. He states that the photographs of pupils were taken in September and October 2024 and have been investigated by the police. These were taken and shared privately in response to the complainant’s anxiety concerning his whereabouts. The photos of himself in a state of undress were shared privately with the complainant who was his partner at the time. c. He believes the allegations were made out of spite and seeking revenge for the ending of the relationship by a disgruntled ex-girlfriend. He considers it unfair that the Registrar has based its decision on this one complaint. d. He says that he has not had any complaints from any of his other pupils. e. He queries how long it will take for him to be rehabilitated and prove he is a fit and proper person.

4. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 12 February 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that an ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist and that the Appellant has pursued a course of conduct that is not appropriate to the professional relationship between instructor and pupil.

5. The Appellant did not provide a Reply. Law

6. 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 – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”). The Registrar has the burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s 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.

7. 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. 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 .” (paragraph 30).

8. 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 and submissions

9. We have considered a bundle of evidence provided by the Registrar containing 53 numbered pages. The Appellant provided a supplemental bundle of 25 pages including character references.

10. We heard submissions from the Appellant at the hearing. He said that he had been in a serious relationship with the complainant and it was wrong that she was at the same time his pupil who was paying him for lessons (at her insistence). He said that the relationship ended because of the complainant’s behaviour.

11. When asked about the photos he had taken of pupils, the Appellant explained that this was due to the complainant wanting to know his whereabouts during the day. He said he would normally take a photo when he reached a pupil’s house, but was sometimes not able to do that so took a quick picture as the pupil was setting up for the lesson to say he was with a pupil instead. The images were a side view of the pupil setting themselves up for the lesson but the pupil was not aware that their photo was being taken nor the reason for it. When a parent of one of those photographed complained and brought this to the attention of the Appellant’s employers, he met with them to discuss this and they provided him with guidance on appropriate conduct.

12. The Appellant said that he did make representations to the Registrar and thought he had sent them off, but that in fact it had not been sent.

13. We also heard evidence from two character witnesses on behalf of the Appellant, Mr Andrew McDonald and Mr Darran Shaw, who are the owners of the driving school in which the Appellant teaches.

14. Mr McDonald described being contacted by the mother of one of the pupils the Appellant had photographed, after the mother had been provided with a copy of the photo by the complainant. He discussed this with the police, who indicated there was no case to answer, but remained of the view that the photos should not have been taken without the pupils’ knowledge. He also gave positive evidence about the Appellant being a friendly polite driving instructor who is a good role model to others, but that in this instance his personal situation had interfered with his professional role.

15. Mr Shaw echoed much of what Mr McDonald had said and also gave positive evidence about the Appellant. He said that he and Mr McDonald had met with the Appellant after they became aware of the allegations and discussed his conduct with him.

16. We also heard submissions from the Registrar at the hearing. The Registrar submitted that the Appellant was no longer fit and proper because he pursued a course of conduct and behaviour that was unacceptable. He breached the code of practice and his professional boundaries by entering a relationship with a vulnerable pupil. This was an abuse of trust which is placed in an ADI. The relevant facts

17. The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in July 2023 and in the normal course, his certificate would expire on the last day of July 2027.

18. On 1 July 2025 a DVSA investigator sent the Registrar a report that contained a statement and images that the Appellant had formed a relationship with a pupil and had taken photos of other pupils during driving lessons. The report summarized that the Appellant had admitted to having a relationship with the pupil and had sent graphic images to her. The relationship had also been reported to the police with allegations of abuse.

19. In light of this allegation, the Registrar considered that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the register

20. By email dated 01 July 2025 the Registrar gave the Appellant written notice that he was considering removing his name from the register on the grounds the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in it. The Appellant was invited to make representations within 28 days. The Appellant did not do so.

21. The Registrar carefully considered the submitted report and the Appellant’s responses to the DVSA investigator, but came to the view that the Appellant’s name should be removed from the register. He admitted to overstepping the professional boundary between a pupil and instructor. The Registrar considered that the Appellant cannot fulfil Section 128 (2) (e) in that he ceased, apart from fulfilment of any of the preceding conditions, to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register. The Appellant was given notice of my decision in an email dated 5 August 2025, pursuant to Section 127 (7) of the Act . Conclusions

22. If an ADI’s name is allowed to be put on or remain on the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public’s confidence in the Register.

23. ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of motoring, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. Teaching people of all ages 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.

24. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. It is essential that ADIs follow the law that they are supposed to be teaching to often young and impressionable pupils.

25. We have considered all of the arguments made by the Appellant. We have not focused on the challenges in the relationship between the Appellant and complainant, although we note that there appears to have been some blurring of personal and professional boundaries as they were pupil and instructor in addition to being in a consensual adult relationship, which breaches the relevant code of conduct. We have given more weight to the fact that the Appellant took photographs of pupils without their knowledge or consent, which then found their way back to at least one pupil’s family. This is serious misconduct which has implications both for safeguarding and for the trust which the public places in ADIs to teach young people.

26. We find on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant from the Register as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.