George Clenton 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 14 August 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 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 provided by the Appellant in his GRC1 Form are, in summary: a. Some factors upon which decision was made are correct but others are erroneous. b. The Registrar has not considered relevant factors.

6. The Registrar in his response states that the appellant has failed a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction on four occasions and following the first and second attempt was provided with feedback to improve his standard of instruction. Despite this, the Appellant failed his third attempt.

7. Due to the Covid pandemic, its subsequent lockdown and restrictions and the ongoing disruption this caused, a significant period of time had passed since the Appellant’s third attempt with no follow up action taken against the Appellant, despite him failing the test on three occasions. As a result, the Registrar decided to allow the appellant one final opportunity to pass the test.

8. The Appellant also failed his fourth attempt.

9. The Registrar can no longer be satisfied that the appellant can meet the minimum required standard.

10. In his response to the Registrar, the Appellant states that: a. Three failed standards check tests took place 5–7 years ago, and the Appellant argues they are now too old to be relevant to current competence. b. He says the DVSA normally treats older driving‑related issues as spent (e.g., penalty points expire after four years; insurers only ask about incidents within five years), so past test results should likewise lose significance. c. The missed test in April 2024 should not count against him because he was unwell and had provided acceptable medical evidence, and accordingly, the DVSA did not require him to attend. d. The October 2024 standards check was materially different in format from previous tests, and he assumed that COVID‑era changes would revert once the pandemic ended. e. He only discovered the test format had permanently changed shortly before taking it, leaving little time to adjust. f. He believes the October 2024 check should count as the first attempt at a new type of test, not the fourth attempt overall. g. He highlights an incident where he intervened to prevent a collision, which the examiner later praised as good risk management, suggesting his instruction is safe. h. He says the scheduling clash between his pupil’s driving test and his standards check was unavoidable and not a genuine choice, despite what the examiner suggested. i. As an automatic‑only instructor, he argues that his performance data should be contextualised because automatic pass rates are lower nationally, and he has never met three negative trigger points. j. Since 2020 he has been diagnosed with a neurological condition that may have affected his performance, particularly in the most recent test. k. Overall, he seeks for the 2024 standards check to be treated as the first of the permitted three attempts, allowing him to remain on the register. Evidence

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

12. The Respondent stated in submissions that the Act requires only one attempt at the standards check test, it is the Registrar’s normal practice to allow three attempts. The Appellant has been afforded four opportunities to pass the test and has failed to do so. The Registrar allows three attempts to allow opportunities for feedback and any required training. The Appellant had failed the test on the following dates: a. 22 November 2018, b. 16 April 2019 c. 7 February 2020 and d. 31 October 2024.

13. There were also occasions upon which the Appellant cancelled the standards check test on the follow dates: a. 16 July 2028 – Appellant failed to attend b. 20 March 2019 – Appellant cancelled c. 15 January 2020 – Appellant cancelled d. 9 May 2023 – Appellant cancelled e. 29 April 2024 – Appellant failed to attend with a puil f. 9 May 2024 – Appellant cancelled

14. 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.

15. The Parties confirmed to me that the overall score required to pass the test was 31. The Appellant’s highest score to date is 29.

16. The Appellant confirmed that he relies on his previous written submissions but reiterated that the 5 year gap between his third and fourth attempt should act as an intervening act to ‘reset the clock’.

17. The delay of 5 years was caused by a new system brought in by the Registrar and the backlog in relation to tests post-COVID which meant that the Appellant fell below the radar of the Register.

18. The Appellant could not provide any reason as to why he cancelled or failed to attend any tests prior to 2020 save for March 2019 at which time he was on holiday.

19. The Appellant also set out that on his third attempt he had lost his voice and he considers that this was a contributing to his failure. He considers that this was also a factor in the Registrar allowing him a fourth attempt at the test.

20. The Appellant considers that the Registrars decision was wrong as he has failed to consider the change of format of the test between his third and fourth attempt and that he had only had one attempt at the new format test.

21. Moreover, he has been diagnosed with autism following his third failed attempt. Failing three tests was the trigger to have him investigate his neurological condition. He was placed on an autism pathway by the NHS.

22. He considers that someone with his condition is materially disadvantaged, particularly before they are diagnosed, by having to start again after a significant period of time and having to adjust to the new format. He considers that being allowed only one attempt following his diagnosis and the change in format of the test places him at a disadvantage.

23. The Respondent confirmed that the Registrar would expect the Appellant to be up to date with any change in format of the test and that there are sufficient processes in place to deal with reasonable adjustments.

24. The Appellant did not raise his requirement for any reasonable adjustments at the time of the test and accordingly, the Registrar was satisfied that the tests were carried out in a fair and reasonable manner.

25. The Appellant accepted that there was no obligation on the DVSA to make reasonable adjustments because they could not have known about them as the Appellant was not diagnosed at this time.

26. 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. Conclusions

27. 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 reasonably by operating a practice of allowing four opportunities for the Appellant to take the test and has shown flexibility re-booking tests after the Appellant has cancelled some four dates.

28. In considering afresh whether the decision to remove the Appellant from the Register was correct, I bear in mind the significant importance which attaches to the integrity of the Register. Entry onto and remaining on the Register is a public endorsement of a high standard of competence on the part of the Registrar. For the public to have trust in it the Register must show integrity and those on it have high standards. Part of that is achieved by the need for those on the Register to pass regular tests. Doing so adds to the trust placed in the Register. This is a matter of wider public interest which attracts significant weight, even if removal from the Register has consequences for an individual.

29. However, I am persuaded that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in that the Registrar failed to give adequate regard to that the passage of time between the third and fourth tests, the change in format of the test and the Appellant’s autism diagnosis.

30. In all the circumstances, I consider that the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register was incorrect. However, I also consider that the Appellant has been afforded considerable opportunity to pass the standards check test already and that only one further attempt may be taken before removal from the Register is the appropriate action to be taken by the Registrar. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the Appellant is granted one further attempt at the standards check test.