Angela Moffatt v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00689 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0927 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Heard by Cloud Video Platform Heard on: 1 May 2026 Decision given on: 18 May 2026 Before JUDGE SIMON BIRD KC MEMBER RICHARD FRY MEMBER MARTIN SMITH Between ANGELA MOFFATT Appellant and THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Respondent Representation: The Appellant did not attend For the Respondent: Mr Andrew Heard Decision: The appeal is Dismissed REASONS Introduction

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 1 September 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second licence to give instruction in motor cars. The decision was taken on the grounds that the Appellant did not meet the condition contained in section 125(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in that she was not a fit and proper person to become an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) by reason of having been convicted on 4 March 2025 of using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks and driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence on 16 July 2024. For the offence of driving without insurance, the Appellant’s licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points. No separate penalty was imposed for the licence offence.

2. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

3. The Appellant did not appear at the hearing despite having been given notice of it by email on 9 January 2026. The Tribunal Assistant sought without success to contact the Appellant to see whether she was trying to join the hearing and might be unable to do so. There has been no contact with the Appellant since 18 November 2025. The Respondent appeared at the hearing and was ready to proceed and, having regard to Rule 36 of the Rules, we concluded that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing. There was no material dispute of fact to be resolved and the Appellant had set out her case fully by email dated 20 August 2025 in responding to the Respondent’s proposal to refuse her application. The Appeal

4. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 18 November 2025 in summary contends that The Registrar’s decision was wrong. She had pleaded guilty to the offences having been advised to do so by a person she believed to be the Court Clerk. She was also told she did not need a lawyer. She was asked whether she had ridden the motorbike and said yes, as she had.

5. In her e-mail response on 20 August 2025 to the Respondent’s email proposing to refuse her application, the Appellant set out the circumstances of the offences of which she was convicted. In summary, she had been the owner of a motorbike training school together with her husband. She did all the office work, whilst her husband and one other provided tuition and were insured on motorbikes requiring a 2a licence. When students for a 2a licence had tests booked, she would trailer the motorbike to the test centre for the student to use. She did not have insurance to ride the motorbikes to the test centre. On 16 July 2025, whilst trailering a motorbike to the test centre, her van broke down and, without thinking, she had put on her gear and proceeded to ride the motorbike for which she had neither a licence nor insurance to ride, to the test centre.

6. The Appellant stated that she had had a clean driving licence for 33 years until the offence and was currently studying for her Part 3 test.

7. The Respondent’s Statement of Case dated 25 February 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that: (a) The Appellant’s driving licence is endorsed with six penalty points having been convicted on 4 March 2025 of using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks and driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence. This offence occurred while she was in her role at an Approved Training Body where she should have been fully aware of the licence and insurance requirements. (b) The conditions for entry onto the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. As such, account is taken of a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct. Anyone who is an Approved Driving Instructor is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. In committing the offences, the Appellant has not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to road safety that the Registrar would expect to see from an ADI; (c) The Government increased payment levels for serious road safety offences such as speeding, the requirement to control a vehicle (including mobile phone use), passing red traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and wearing a seatbelt. These offences contribute to a significant number of casualties; (d) The Registrar as an officer of the Secretary of State charged with compiling and maintaining the Register on his behalf, does not consider that he can condone motoring offences of this nature. To do so would effectively sanction such behaviour, if those who transgress were allowed to remain on an official register that allows them to teach others; (e) It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law for the Registrar to ignore the recent and relevant motoring offence. The Law

8. Entry of a person’s name in the Register is subject to the conditions set out in section 125(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the Act). One of those conditions, at section 125(3)(e), is that the person is a fit and proper person to have their name included in the Register.

9. 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).

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 Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31).

11. We have considered a bundle containing 22 pages along with oral submissions made at the hearing on behalf of the Respondent summarising his Statement of Case. Conclusions

12. There is no material dispute of fact in this case. The Appellant has been convicted of two motoring offences, both relation to 16 July 2024, when she rode a motorcycle without being insured against third party risk, which resulted in the endorsement of her licence with six points, and driving otherwise that in accordance with a licence for which no separate penalty was imposed.

13. We agree with the view of the Respondent that an ADI should have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist and that only those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety should be entrusted with teaching people to drive. We also agree that it is important for the integrity of the Register to be safeguarded and that the commission of motoring offences by ADIs should not be seen to be being condoned.

14. Here, the Appellant who was the joint owner a motorcycle training school chose to break the law and to ride a motorcycle without either a licence or insurance, rather than cause inconvenience to a student of the school who was waiting at a test centre to undertake their test on that motorcycle. In the context of being a fit and proper person to have their name entered on the register of ADI’s, both offences are very serious ones. The Appellant knew she had neither a licence nor insurance to ride the motorcycle in question, as that was the reason she was using a trailer to take it to the test centre. Her excuse for the offences provides no material mitigation and the Tribunal notes that there is no expression of remorse for her conduct in either the grounds of appeal or the Appellant’s correspondence with the Respondent.

15. The Industry Code of Practice makes it clear that driving without insurance is a motoring offence the commission of which is unlikely to a person being classed as a fit and proper person and the severity of the offence coupled with the absence of any real mitigation or expression of remorse leads the Tribunal to conclude that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to hold a trainee licence. It therefore agrees with the decision of the Respondent.

16. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. . SignedJudge Simon Bird KC Date: 7 May 2026