Approved Driving Instructor Appeals

We represent Approved Driving Instructors in First Tier Tribunal

and Upper Tribunal Appeals

Our regulatory law barristers can advise Approved Driving Instructors (ADI) on appealing a Registrar’s decision to remove an ADI from the register.

Example ADI Appeal Decision

Jones v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 1519 (GRC) – the ADI was removed from the Register by the Registrar, under Section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, The ADI appealed. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, finding:

22. If an ADI’s name is allowed to be entered in 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 Is 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 behaviour, 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.

25. On the basis of the evidence before us, we are satisfied that the Appellant’s conduct has fallen short of the high standards to be expected of an ADI. The pupil in question was a young person. We are unable to identify whether the working relationship between the Appellant and the pupil was such as to have encouraged the text exchanges we have seen, but that would make no difference: it would have been inappropriate of the Appellant to permit such a relationship between teacher and pupil, and there is no doubt that the text messages he sent the pupil were inappropriate in any event. The Appellant’s difficult personal circumstances at the time are no mitigation.

26. We see no justification for the Appellant visiting the pupil’s house to obtain medication, if that is, in fact, what happened.

27. Viewing matters in the round, we find that the Registrar has established that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person. The Decision was correct.

The Tribunal made some observations about the legal considerations of an appeal (at paras 9-11):

9. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to be and continue to be a fit  and proper  person to have their name on the Register – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of 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.

10. 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).

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. 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).

(11 December 2025)

For more details of how we can assist you in API appeals, contact us on 0845 652 0451