Baldeesh Kaur v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Preliminary matters

1. References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of T he Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. In this decision, we use the following terms to denote the meanings shown: ADIs: Approved Driving Instructors (those whose name appear on the Register) . Appellant: Baldeesh Kaur. Register: The Register of Approved Driving Instructors maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Registrar: The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Respondent). Registrar’s Decision: The decision of the Registrar, by way of letter to the Appellant dated 12 June 2025, to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register . Introduction - b ackground to the appeal

3. This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

4. The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision were, in summary, that the Appellant had accrued penalty points for two motoring offences – namely, a fixed penalty of three penalty points on 1 April 2024 for speeding and a fixed penalty of three penalty points on 19 April 2025 for driving without due care and attention – and accordingly the Registrar considered that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register. The appeal The grounds of appeal

5. The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision, arguing that the Registrar had given insufficient weight to the representations which she made ahead of the Registrar’s Decision. We address the material aspects of those representations below, which were also relied on by the Appellant in the appeal. The Registrar’s case

6. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s Statement of Case maintained that the Appellant’s offences, with six penalty points being endorsed on their driving licence, cannot be ignored. The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to have their name on the Register. The Registrar also stated that the Appellant had not given notification of the two offences within 7 days, despite an obligation to do so pursuant to their registration as an ADI. Mode of hearing

7. The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel, Mr Schiller (on behalf of the Appellant), the Appellant and Mr Russell (on behalf of the Registrar) joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. There were no interruptions of note during the hearing. The evidence and submission

8. The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle of evidence and pleadings.

9. We heard from the Appellant directly, as well as hearing oral submissions from Mr Russell on behalf of the Registrar and from Mr Schiller on behalf of the Appellant .

10. All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant legal principles

11. Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor’s name is entered in the Register, or they are the holder of a current licence issued under section 129 .

12. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require a person to be, and continue to be, a “fit and proper person” pursuant to section 125(3)(e) and section 127(3)(e).

13. A person’s name may therefore be removed from the Register under section 128(2)(e) if the Registrar considers that they have ceased to be a “fit and proper person”.

14. The requirement to be a “fit and proper person” is not simply that the person is a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor, but that they are a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register. Accordingly, the requirement to be a “fit and proper person” extends beyond instructional ability alone and, in assessing whether someone is a “fit and proper person”, account has to be taken of their 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.

15. The entry of a person’s name on the Register carries with it an ‘official seal of approval’ and consequently maintenance of public confidence in the Register is important. The Registrar therefore has the duty of ensuring that ADIs are ‘fit and proper’ persons to have their names entered in the Register. As part of that, the Registrar exercises functions of scrutiny and that is why there are stringent disclosure requirements expected of ADIs and those wishing to become an ADI.

16. In cases involving motoring offences, it is expected that anyone who is to be an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. Teaching people of all ages (including those aged under 18) 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.

17. In cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the Register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence undermined, if it were known that a person’s name had been permitted onto, or allowed to remain on, the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours, or been convicted or cautioned in relation to offences, substantially material to the question of fitness. Indeed, it would be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.

18. Some of the factors in the preceding paragraph can also be relevant in cases involving motoring offences. The role and powers of the Tribunal

19. An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and take a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

20. The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the removal or the retention of the Appellant’s name in the Register, as it thinks fit.

21. However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for him to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

22. Where the Tribunal makes an order for the removal of the Appellant’s name in the Register, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply to have their name entered in the Register for a period of up to four years. Discussion and findings

23. In this case, the Appellant was guilty of two offences; one for speeding and one for driving without due care and attention. The latter was related to a collision which the Appellant was involved in whilst driving her vehicle in a personal capacity (not whilst instructing someone to drive). The Appellant originally submitted to the Registrar that she did not believe that she had driven without due care and attention. She stated that, due to the sharp braking of a vehicle in front of her (which in turn was caused by a car in front of that vehicle being under instruction and performing an emergency stop), the Appellant was unable to stop in time, despite paying full attention and travelling within the speed limit. Amongst other things, the Appellant questioned why the vehicle under instruction was carrying out an emergency stop at the location in question (which the Appellant considered was unsuitable and stated that it was known as a high-risk location for accidents). The Appellant submitted to the Registrar that, for various reasons (including family illnesses and the stress she was under), she had ultimately accepted the fixed penalty notice.

24. When questioned about the incident during the hearing, the Appellant stated that there was a close family illness at the time and this may have been a factor leading to a lapse in her concentration. However, she also stated that she took full responsibility for the incident and that there were no mitigating circumstances.

25. The Appellant also accepted responsibility for the first offence we referred to. She stated that this involved speeding at around 34 mph or 35 mph in a 30 mph zone.

26. In respect of the Registrar’s statement that the Appellant had not given notice of the offences, the Appellant stated that notice had been given on time in respect of the first offence. Included in the bundle was a copy of a letter which the Appellant stated was sent to the Registrar in that regard. We accept the Appellant’s evidence on this point and find that due notice was given.

27. In respect of the second offence, the Appellant accepted that the notice may not have been given within the time limit of 7 days. Mr Schiller submitted that timing of such notifications can be problematic on the basis that there is some delay by the time the driver is actually notified of the points, in contrast to offences following a court appearance where there is advance notice of the court date. The Appellant stated that, after she had submitted the relevant paperwork to accept the fixed penalty, she received a confirmation letter by post on 10 May 2025 and believed that the notice she had given to the Registrar was still within the 7 day period. We find that the Appellant did not notify the Registrar within the statutory period but consider, taking into account all of the circumstances, that it is not a material factor in the appeal.

28. In our view, the issue in this case comes down to the second offence we have referred to. It is the occurrence of the second offence which has resulted in the accumulation of six points on the Appellant’s driving licence, resulting in the Registrar’s Decision.

29. The Registrar did not dispute the Appellant’s position that the incident involved no injuries and no paramedics were called. Also, as Mr Schiller pointed out, 3 points for an offence of driving without due care and attention was the “bottom level”, as the potential points for such an offence range from 3 points to 9 points.

30. We agree with Mr Russell’s submission that it was incumbent on the Appellant to be able to safely stop her car and, if was a known as a high-risk location for accidents, then that was more reason for the Appellant to have been careful. We also consider that there was a higher driving standard expected of the Appellant than that of an ordinary driver, given her status as an ADI, and that driving without due care and attention is a serious issue.

31. However, all things considered, our view is that this was a case of human error and an isolated incident in respect of which the Appellant expressed great remorse. We find the Appellant to be sincerely contrite and we consider that she has ‘learned her lesson’ in respect of the incident. We also take into account that she has largely had an unblemished career as a driving instructor over a period of 29 years.

32. This was a finely balanced decision but, for all of the reasons we have given, we find that it would be disproportionate to conclude that the Appellant has failed to meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person to have their name retained in the Register. On balance, taking into account all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s Decision was incorrect. There is, in our view, no risk to the integrity of the Register by the retention of the Appellant’s name on it.

33. We therefore allow the appeal and we order that the Appellant’s name be retained in the Register.

34. We would ask the Appellant to note the following. Following the endorsement of her driving licence with six points, she has come very close to losing her professional career and employment. It should be self-evident that there are significant learning outcomes from this process and that any future transgressions could result in her losing her status as an ADI. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 17 December 2025 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal