Anthony Roy Marshall v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 11 September 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 failed to pass the test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction to continue as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”).

2. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The Appellant joined initially by video and then by telephone and confirmed that he could clearly hear the proceedings. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. Legal Framework

3. 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 a person from the Register if satisfied that they do not fulfil the relevant conditions. One of those conditions, at section 128(2)(d), is that they have failed to pass a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction (often referred to as a “standards check”). Under section 125(5)(a)(i), a person whose name is in the Register must submit to a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction in the driving of motor cars, if required at any time to do so by the Registrar.

4. 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). Appeal to the Tribunal

5. The grounds of appeal are, in summary: a. The Appellant has always been willing to undergo the standards check but was involved in a long-distance relationship which means he regularly travels abroad. b. The Appellant works well with students, has no bad reviews and a high-test pass rate.

6. The Registrar in his response states that the appellant has failed a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction and failed to attend a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction. The Registrar can no longer be satisfied that the appellant can meet the minimum required standard. Evidence

7. I read and took account of a bundle of documents and the Appellant and Respondent made oral submissions during the hearing. Submissions

8. The Respondent stated in submissions that the Appellant had failed the test on 12 November 2019. The Appellant has been presented with 15 opportunities to attend standards check tests. The Appellant cancelled 10 of those tests on dates ranging from 28 February 2020 to 11 January 2023 and failed to attend the test on the following dates: a. 7 October 2020, b. 27 September 2022, c. 5 April 2023, d. 24 October 2024 and, e. 10 June 2025.

9. The Respondent considers that the Appellant has been given a fair and reasonable number of opportunities to complete the test but has not done so. The Appellant has failed to present himself when required to do so by the Registrar.

10. The Respondent is also concerned regarding the evidence provided by the Appellant in terms of his travel abroad which appears to show that the Appellant has presented 4 people to take their driving test during the period in which he was on holiday.

11. The Respondent considers that the public’s confidence in the Register would be undermined if the Appellant’s name were to remain in the Register as the Respondent can no longer be satisfied that the Appellant’s ability to provide driving instruction is of a satisfactory standard.

12. In response, the Appellant stated that during the time of the cancelled and missed tests, he was travelling abroad regularly, but that his long distance relationship no longer exists. The Appellant accepted that he has missed several check tests.

13. The Appellant stated that, despite providing evidence of travel abroad to the Tribunal in September 2025 to substantiate his submissions that he was abroad at the time of the booked check tests and so could not attend in October 2024 and June 2025, those trips did not in fact take place and he cancelled his travel plans. He submitted that in relation to the October 2024 test, one of his students had a driving test and so he could not travel and could not attend the check test. He could not provide a reason as to why he could not attend the test in June 2025.

14. The Appellant could not provide any reason as to why he presented the Tribunal with evidence of travel when in fact he did not travel during that time.

15. In relation to the cancelled tests, the Appellant stated again that this was due to his overseas relationship which required him to travel re4gularly.

16. The Appellant did not accept that he has submitted pupils for their driving test whilst he has been abroad. Despite providing evidence to the Tribunal to suggest that he was abroad, the Appellant stated that he often booked flights but did not go on the trip.

17. The Appellant submitted that if the Tribunal was minded to grant the appeal, he would take any check test required by the Registrar in 3 months' time, he would guarantee that he would take the test and he considers that the Registrar’s decision to remove him from the Register was harsh.

18. Whilst it is the practice of the Registrar to allow three attempts at the standards check, there is no such requirement in law. Section 125(5) of the Act requires an ADI “if at any time required to do so by the Registrar, submit himself for (i) such test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction …as may be prescribed”. Under section 128 of the Act, the Registrar may remove a person’s name from the Register if “he failed to pass such a [emphasis added] test”, singular. Thus, the legal requirement is for the Appellant to submit himself for the test at any time required. The Registrar has applied the requirement extremely reasonably by operating a practice of allowing 15 opportunities for the Appellant to take the test and has shown flexibility re-booking tests after the Appellant has cancelled some 10 dates.

19. On the Appellant’s own evidence, despite initially asserting that he was abroad at the time of the latest planned standards check test, he in fact was not. The Appellant could not account for or give any reason as to why he did not attend the test arranged for June 2025.

20. Whilst I acknowledge that the Appellant had commitments abroad, he has been given an extraordinary number of opportunities to take and pass the standards check test over a prolonged period of time between November 2019 and June 2025. For a test of such importance and with so much at stake, it is surprising that the Appellant could not make any necessary arrangements to allow him to attend just one of the fifteen proposed dates.

21. Having cancelled the standards check test on so many occasions in the past, there can be little confidence that the Appellant will submit to the standards check test without further cancellations. I am satisfied that the Appellant has been given more than reasonable opportunity to undertake the test.

22. I find that the Appellant has not met the condition of retention on the Register at section 128(2)(d) of the Act by failing to pass a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction, as required by the Registrar under section 125(5)(a)(i) of the Act.

23. In all the circumstances, I consider that the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register was correct. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.