Paul Broadbent v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Appeal

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 16 October 2025 to remove the Appellant from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Register”). The Registrar reached this decision on the basis that the Appellant had failed to meet a requirement of continued registration, namely that on three occasions, the Appellant had failed to pass a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction (commonly known as the “check-test”) as required by s.128(2)(d) of the Road Traffic Act (the “Act”).

2. The appeal was brought on 4 November 2025. The grounds of the appeal can be summarised succinctly. The Appellant disagrees with the marks he was awarded in a number of areas for his third check-test which he took on 9 May 2025. The Appellant states that “my opinion is that my teaching and style was satisfactory for my pupil’s ability.” The Appellant further states he has been with a driving school since September 2006 and has been an Approved Driving Instructor since March 2007. The Appellant has had what he describes “glowing” reviews on his driving school’s Facebook page. His desired outcome is that he would have another attempt at passing the check-test.

3. In accordance with s.128(6) of the Act, the Registrar gave the Appellant notice of his decision on 16 October 2025. However, in the same correspondence, the Registrar informed the Appellant that the decision would not take effect in accordance with s.128(7) of the Act pending any appeal.

4. The Appeal was opposed by the Registrar on 6 February 2026. The Registrar contends that his decision was justified on the following grounds: a. The Appellant failed the check-test on three occasions on 6 June 2023, 22 August 2023 and 9 May 2025. b. After failing the first and second check-tests, the Appellant was informed of his shortcomings in order for him to consider them and improve his standard of instructions. However, he still failed to reach the minimum required standard on his third test. c. The Registrar therefore considers that the Appellant has been given adequate opportunity to pass the check-test and has failed to do so. Therefore in the interests of road safety and consumer protection, the Registrar considers he is obliged to remove the Appellant from the Register as he been unable to satisfy the Registrar that he is able to give driving instruction to a satisfactory standard. The Hearing

5. The hearing was listed to held by CVP at 11.00 today. The Appellant attended in person and was supported by his witness, Mr Anthony Bedford. Mr Bedford owns the driving school at which the Appellant has taught for many years. Mr Russell attended on behalf of the Registrar. Each party was given an opportunity to raise questions of the other and Mr Bedford gave evidence on behalf of the Appellant, without objection from the Registrar. I am satisfied that it was appropriate and fair to hold the hearing in this way. I am grateful to the parties for the assistance they have given to the Tribunal at the hearing. The law

6. S.125(5) of the Act requires that an Approved Driving Instructor submit, when required to do so by the Registrar, to a check-test. This is a condition of registration.

7. S.128(1) and s.128(2)(d) of the Act provide that the Registrar may remove an Approved Driving Instructor from the Register if he has failed to pass a check-test. Although the Act only requires one test to permit the Registrar to take this action, in practice, the Registrar ordinarily allows three attempts for an Approved Driving Instructor to reach the required standard – i.e. to pass a check-test.

8. An appeal against the conduct of a check-test must be made to the Magistrates Court and not to this Tribunal. Specifically s.133 of the Act provides for an application for a review of the examination if the examination has not been properly conducted.

9. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order for the grant or refusal of the application, or for the removal or the retention of the name in the register, or the revocation or continuation of the licence (as the case may be), as it thinks fit (s.131(3) of the Act).

10. 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. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant. Discussion and Conclusions

11. I have considered the bundle of evidence of 30 pages (including an index). I also have heard and considered representations from the Appellant, from his witness, Mr Bedford and from the Respondent during the hearing.

12. The Appellant’s case at the hearing largely followed his grounds of appeal. The substance of the Appellant’s complaint concerns the marks he was awarded in his third check-test. He disagrees with the decisions about the marks he was award in numerous areas of scoring. The Appellant says that he asked the candidate what they required from this lesson, and was asked to instruct in relation to roundabouts as the candidate was unsure about them. He further says he explained about driving on roundabouts, and asked candidate if they would like him to control the lesson at the start, before prompting later. The Appellant believes the area chosen was suitable as there were nine roundabouts in the relevant area. He says he encouraged his pupil to accept responsibility for control of the car, but advised he was able to help if needed. In his representations to the Registrar he says he thinks it is “totally unfair to think of revoking my ADI licence as I have been doing the job for 18 years, and really enjoy teaching people to drive. It is my only source of income….also…contact AB Driving School, who I have been franchised to since I was a provisional driving instructor, I have fantastic Google reviews from students I have taken.”

13. At the hearing the Appellant acknowledged that he did not dispute the previous two check-tests which he had failed. He maintained that he had provided adequate supervision and training during the lesson and that the pupil had gone on to pass first time later in 2025 with only a few minors. He explained that the pupil was exceptionally nervous on the test and believed she was being the one being examined rather than the Appellant. He explained that the pupil in question had not been his first choice and that he normally had to plan her test for certain days.

14. In answer to questions of mine, the Appellant confirmed that he had seen the text in the Registrar’s email of 16 October 2025 which advised him in the following terms: “I must also point out that the Tribunal has no powers to alter the result of your test or order a retest. If you are aggrieved by the result of the test then you must appeal to your local Magistrates' court, or in Scotland, the Sheriff's court. I would strongly advise that you seek legal advice before taking this course of action.” The Appellant explained that he had not pursued an appeal to the Magistrates Court as he believed he had to appeal to the Tribunal first.

15. Mr Bedford is an experienced ADI who runs the driving school at which the Appellant has taught for many years. Mr Bedford gave evidence on behalf of the Appellant. Mr Bedford explained that his driving school specialised in tests automatic car driving lessons for individuals with learning difficulties or neurodiversity. A lot of the pupils are very nervous. Mr Bedford explained that he had never had a problem with the Appellant’s driving and on the contrary, the Appellant had secured favourable reviews. Mr Bedford explained that he did not consider the check-test to be a reliable way of testing competency at instruction. It allowed people to “put on a show”, but did not adequately reflect day to day instructional aptitude.

16. The key facts in this appeal are as follows: a. The Registrar says the Appellant has been on the Register since March 2008. His current period of registration would expire at the end of March 2028. b. The Appellant says he gets very nervous about his check-tests. c. The Appellant has failed his check-test on three occasions, namely on 6 June 2022, 22 August 2023 and 9 May 2025. Each check-test was conducted by a different examiner. d. In the first test, the Appellant scored 25. In the second test, he scored 27. In the third test, the Appellant scored 27. The minimum satisfactory score is 31. The maximum score is 51. e. The evidence shows that the Appellant was provided with feedback after each of his tests. f. The Appellant and Mr Bedford consider that the Appellant is a competent driving instructor who should remain on the Register.

17. I consider there are two central aspects to the Appellant’s appeal. The main thrust of his appeal goes to the conduct of the check-test. Any such appeal is to the Magistrates Court. This Tribunal cannot overturn the result of the third check-test. Indeed, this Tribunal is in position to gainsay the marks awarded at the third check-test. In any event the third check-test forms part of a consistent pattern of marks awarded to the Appellant across three check-tests which fall below the required standard for an Approved Driving Instructor. Three separate examiners have reached the conclusion that the Appellant does not meet the required standard. These tests have been carried out over almost three years, which would have provided ample opportunity for the Appellant to achieve the required standard during a check-test.

18. The second aspect of the appeal is the contention that regardless of the position in the check-tests, the Appellant is a competent ADI who should remain on the Register – i.e. his check-tests do not reflect his true abilities.

19. I have considered afresh the Registrar’s decision and whether it was correct. In doing so, I bear in mind the significant importance which attaches to the integrity of the Register. Entry on the Register is a public endorsement of a high standard of competence on the part of the Registrar. Public confidence in that endorsement and what it signifies is important. Approved Driving Instructors included in the Register must first achieve, and then maintain high standards. Passing regular check-tests is a central way of achieving that legitimate public interest objective. Allowing those who repeatedly fail a check-test to remain on the Register would undermine public confidence in the integrity in the Register. That is a matter of significant weight, even if removal from the Register will have potentially significant consequences for an individual (as is often the case, and as I accept applies in this case).

20. Ultimately, it cannot be ignored that the Appellant has failed the check-test on three occasions between 2022 and 2025. Social media reviews are no substitute for passing the check-test. While I have given considerable weight to the evidence of Mr Bedford on behalf of the Appellant, I consider that it would be wrong to substitute Mr Bedford’s views for those of three separate check-test examiners.

21. Accordingly, taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, I consider that the Registrar’s decision was correct and that removal from the Register is the appropriate sanction.

22. This is not a decision I have reached lightly. The fact that the Appellant has been removed from the Register for failure to pass three check-tests does not mean that he never was, or never will be, able to give instruction to the required standard. There is considerable evidence that the Appellant has given satisfactory instruction over many years to many successful pupils. If the Appellant is able to requalify as an ADI again, nothing in this judgment should be seen to detract from his many years of experience and he may be able to continue with his career as an ADI.

23. However, for the reasons given, I must dismiss this appeal.