John William Parker v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Registrar dated 29 July 2025, removing the Appellant from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, is confirmed. REASONS Introduction:

1. This is an appeal by Mr John William Parker (“the Appellant”) against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) to remove his name from the Register following three failed Standards Checks conducted in August 2023, February 2025, and June 2025.

2. The Appellant asserts that the Standards Checks were improperly conducted, that DVSA personnel acted dishonestly, and that his driving-test pass rates prove competence. He also alleges deficiencies in complaint-handling.

3. The Tribunal’s task is to decide whether the Registrar’s decision was lawful, procedurally fair, and rational, applying the statutory framework and the Tribunal’s limited supervisory jurisdiction.

4. The Tribunal has considered all documents in the bundle, including the Registrar’s Statement of Case (pp. 19–22) and the Appellant’s representations. Background:

5. The Appellant has been registered as an ADI since February 2014 His registration was due to expire in February 2026. He had approximately 15 live pupils at the time of his June 2025 representations.

6. The Appellant has been registered as an ADI since February 2014 His registration was due to expire in February 2026.

7. He had approximately 15 live pupils at the time of his June 2025 representations. Standards Check 1 – 17 August 2023:

8. Conducted by a qualified examiner in accordance with the Regulations. The Appellant failed the test (D1). He received a debrief identifying deficiencies. He was advised to undertake further professional development. Standards Check 2 – 26 February 2025

9. Conducted by a DVSA Standards Check examiner. The Appellant again failed (D2–3). Developmental feedback was given. The Appellant provided no evidence of remedial training after this or the previous test. Notice of Third Test:

10. By email dated 13 March 2025, the Registrar required the Appellant to attend a third Standards Check on 02 June 2025 (D4) -The Appellant was encouraged to address earlier concerns. Complaints Prior to Third Test:

11. The Appellant complained to DVSA about marking and feedback from the earlier tests (D5–6) – the DVSA responded on 30 May 2025. The complaint did not prevent the scheduled test. Standards Check 3 – 02 June 2025

12. Conducted by a different examiner (D7). Conducted in accordance with the Regulations. The Appellant again failed. The Appellant provided no evidence suggesting impropriety in the conduct of this test. Registrar’s Notice of Intent – 03 June 2025

13. Registrar wrote indicating intention to remove the Appellant from the Register (D8). The Appellant invited to make representations within 28 days. Appellant’s Representations – 22 June 2025

14. The Appellant made brief written representations (D9). He did not contest the test findings or address the examiners’ criticisms. He provided pass-rate statistics for his pupils. He suggested willingness to revert to PDI status. He provided no evidence of remedial training or development. He did not provide detail on his allegations of improper conduct. Registrar’s Decision – 29 July 2025:

15. The Registrar issued a decision removing the Appellant from the Register (D10) with reasons included: three consecutive failures; adequate opportunities to improve; no evidence of improvement and statutory duty to protect road safety. Post-Decision Allegations – 19 August 2025

16. The Appellant then made additional allegations—dishonesty, misconduct, corruption, and “lying” by two DVSA staff members (D11). He asserted that he had dashcam footage but produced none. These allegations were not raised substantively before the Registrar. Absence of Contradictory Evidence

17. The Appellant provided no evidence contradicting the three failed test outcomes. He produced no evidence supporting allegations of misconduct. He provided no evidence of undertaking professional development. Statutory Framework:

18. Section 123(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits giving paid driving instruction unless registered. Section 125(5) requires ADIs to undergo a test of continued ability and fitness when required. Section 128(6) mandates removal of an instructor from the Register where the Registrar is not satisfied that the instructor’s ability to give instruction is of a satisfactory standard. The Registrar’s role is protective, not punitive. The Registrar’s Legal Duties:

19. The Registrar must act reasonably, procedurally fairly, and within the parameters of the enabling Act. The Registrar is entitled to rely on the professional expertise of DVSA Standards Check examiners unless evidence shows the tests were unlawful, irrational, or procedurally unfair. The Registrar must consider any representations made under s.128 but is not required to conduct a rehearing or re-examination of the test results. Legal Standard Applied by the Tribunal:

20. The Tribunal does not substitute its own assessment of instructional ability for that of the examiner. The Tribunal exercises supervisory jurisdiction: Was the decision rational? Was it procedurally fair? Was it made in accordance with law?

21. The Tribunal gives weight to the fact that the legislature has entrusted the Registrar—not the Tribunal—with primary responsibility for assessing ADI competence. Application to the Present Case:

22. There were three properly-conducted, consecutive Standards Checks all resulted in failure. Under the statutory framework, a single failure could suffice; three consecutive failures overwhelmingly justify the Registrar’s lack of satisfaction. The Appellant’s representations did not challenge the test findings and therefore could not undermine the Registrar’s evidential basis. The Appellant’s pass-rate statistics are irrelevant to the statutory test of “continued ability and fitness to give instruction.” No legal requirement exists to offer a fourth test, additional opportunities, or a reversion to PDI status. The Appellant’s unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct cannot legally displace the presumption of regularity attaching to DVSA examiners’ assessments. Conclusion in Law:

23. The Tribunal find that the Registrar acted within his statutory powers. The decision was rationally based on repeated failures of the statutory test. The Appellant received the procedural fairness required by s.128. No error of law or procedural unfairness has been demonstrated. The Tribunal is not empowered to investigate unsubstantiated personal complaints of the nature raised post-tests. Analysis:

24. The three failures, the absence of any contradictory evidence, the limited nature of the Appellant’s representations, and the statutory responsibility placed on the Registrar all lead to the same conclusion: the Registrar’s decision was lawful, rational, and proportionate. Conclusion:

25. For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed. Right to Appeal:

26. Any party seeking to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal must apply for permission within 28 days of the date of this decision, identifying the alleged error(s) of law.