John Pearson v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00691 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/D/2025/1370 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 JOHN PEARSON Appellant and THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Respondent Representation: For the Appellant: Ms Carly Brookfield and Mr John Pearson For the Respondent: Mr Andrew Heard Decision: The appeal is Allowed REASONS Introduction

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 14 November 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”). The decision was taken on the grounds that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered on the Register by reason of having accepted two fixed penalty notices for exceeding the speed limit on a public road on 14 April 2025 and 5 October 2025 resulting in six points on his licence. The Registrar directed that the decision would not take immediate effect.

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. The Appeal

3. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 7 December 2025 relies in summary on the grounds that: (a) The speeding offence of 14 April 2025 was committed on a long return journey home which had been delayed by holdups on the M25 and diversions on the A16, one of which took him on a road he was not familiar with late at night. He was suffering pain having recently undergone an operation and missed the fact that he had entered a 30mph limit from a 40mph limit. There had been no environmental indication of a change in speed limit and the Appellant believed he had been driving within the speed limit. He had delayed informing the DVSA of the offence, as the notice received from the Police indicated that it was a conditional offer and he had waited to see what happened having completed the paperwork; (b) The speeding offence of 5 October 2025 occurred as he was driving his children back from a football tournament and he entered a 40mph limit without having adjusted his cruise control which was set at 60mph, due to being distracted by conversation in the car. The road on which he was stopped is a rural road with no cues to reinforce the change in limit. He had notified DVSA of the incident on his return home; (c) On both occasions the Appellant had been driving his wife’s car which does not have the features of his car (a speed limiter) which help maintain the correct speed. The Appellant believes he may have become reliant on these aids and their absence may have contributed to his mistakes; (d) The two offences had had a significant impact on him. He was deeply saddened and embarrassed and they had been constantly on his mind. He had been an ADI for 7 years and, before that a police officer, never having received a complaint in either career. He had carried the professionalism, pride and standards he upheld in the police into his work as an ADI; (e) The Appellant had already taken steps to ensure that there will no recurrence of the offences. In particular, he had voluntarily undertaken sessions with a highly regarded local instructor who delivers speed awareness training. He had also prepared for and now passed the Institute of Advanced Motorists Advanced Test. He now only drives his car as opposed to his wife’s.

4. The Respondent’s Statement of Case dated 19 February 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that: (a) The Appellant’s driving licence is endorsed with six penalty points having accepted the two fixed penalties for exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road. 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 o 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; (b) 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; (c) 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; (d) 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

5. 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). Under section 128 of the Act the Registrar may remove the name of the person from the register if satisfied that theu do not fulfil the relevant conditions. One of those conditions, at section 128(2)(e), is that the person has ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name included in the Register.

6. 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).

7. 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).

8. We have considered a bundle containing 33 pages along with oral submissions made at the hearing. Procedural Issue

9. At the hearing, the Appellant sought the Tribunal’s permission to be allowed to rely on a document entitled “Additional Arguments (and supporting evidence) for submission”. The supporting evidence contained three photographs taken in 2026 showing the environment of the road on which the Appellant was driving at the time of the second offence. It also contained argument challenging the adequacy of notification of the speed limit. The document had been supplied to the Respondent and the Tribunal the day before the hearing.

10. The Respondent stated that there had not been time to consider the document in any detail and that if it was to be admitted, he would wish to check and verify its content.

11. The Tribunal ruled that it would allow the Appellant to rely on the photographs solely to assist in explaining the environment of the road and would hear submissions on the weight to be accorded to them given that they postdated the offence by some six months. The Tribunal refused permission to rely on the document itself given the lateness of its production, its limited evidential value given its ex post facto assessment and the delay which adjourning the hearing of the appeal to allow the Respondent to address its content would cause. Evidence and Submissions

12. Both the Appellant and the Registrar made submissions at the hearing.

13. The Registrar summarised his Statement of Case

14. The Tribunal heard from Mr Pearson in relation to the circumstances of the two offences as set out in his grounds of appeal. He also outlined the steps he had taken to learn from the two offences and to prevent any repetition. These included immediately taking a number of assessment lessons with a fellow instructor and lessons in relations to Advanced Driver Training, passing the test two weeks before the hearing with very little feedback. He believes that, as a result of his experience and the steps he has taken, he is much more aware as a driver and a better driver than he has ever been. He wishes to continue to teach students so that he can pass on his experience to future students so that they understand the potential severe consequences of speeding.

15. On behalf of the Appellant it was submitted that, although having 6 points on his licence did not auger well for an ADI, the Tribunal’s job was to look at the issue of future risk and it should recognise the efforts that the Appellant has made make himself a better fit and proper person to teach. There are extenuating circumstances in this case and the Appellant has shown that he has developed as a result of the offences. He has had the opportunity to go through advanced instructional training which the DVSA’s tests do not offer, with the bar which ADI’s need to pass in terms of their own driving experience being set too low. Conclusions

16. There is no material dispute of fact in this case. The Appellant has been in receipt of two Fixed Penalty Notices in relation to speeding offences committed on 14 April 2025 and 5 October 2025, resulting in the endorsement of his licence with six points.

17. Both offences, which were only 6 months apart, were the result of the Appellant being distracted and failing to observe the change in speed limit in the respective locations. Whilst the road location of the first offence was unfamiliar to him and he was distracted by discomfort, those are circumstances which, as an experienced ADI and ex-police officer, he should have been aware necessitated greater care as a driver.

18. The second offence was committed on a road which he had some familiarity with and, whilst the signage at the relevant location appears to have been generally poor, the photographs on which the Appellant relied, show that there was at least one 40mph speed limit sign clearly visible at a point before he was stopped by the police. Allowing himself to be distracted by a passenger in the car is again something which the Appellant should have known to guard against. Had he done so, he would not have driven at 60mph in a 40mph limit.

19. We share the view of the Respondent that an ADI should have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist and that the 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 should not be seen to be being condoned.

20. However, there is no principle that the those whose driving licences are endorsed with six points should automatically be disqualified. The fact of endorsement with that number of points will always be a weighty factor in favour of a finding that an ADI has ceased to be a fit and proper person, but other factors in relation to the character and conduct of a person must also be taken into account and may, in combination, outweigh the influence of the speeding convictions.

21. Here, the Tribunal was impressed with the honesty and integrity of the Appellant. He was very frank in his admission of wrongdoing and answered the Tribunal’s questions both fairly and accurately. What particularly impressed the Tribunal are the extensive steps he has voluntarily taken in terms of speed awareness and passing the Advanced Driving Course, not only to make himself a better driver, but also a better instructor. Those steps must be taken into account in deciding whether he continues to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered on the register.

22. Our judgment is that the Appellant does remain a fit and proper person to have his name entered on the register. He has used the considerable shock of incurring six penalty points to improve his ability as a driver and an instructor and in our view, shown that there is no risk of re-offending. The use of his experience to teach students the potential consequences of speeding is particularly laudable. We do not ignore the importance of the integrity of the Register, but on the facts of this case, we are persuaded that the Appellant’s name should remain in the Register, as we are satisfied that he continues to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in it.

23. We therefore allow the appeal and order that the Appellant’s name should remain entered in the Register of ADIs. . SignedJudge Simon Bird KC Date: 7 May 2026