Mohammed Munir Ramzan 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: Mohammed Munir Ramzan . Application: The Appellant’s application to the Registrar for the grant of a Licence. Licence: A licence issued under section 129 to give paid instruction in the driving of a motor car. 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 23 July 2025, to refuse the Application . Introduction - background 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 received a fixed penalty of six penalty points on 30 December 2023 for using a vehicle without insurance and accordingly the Registrar considered that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to become an ADI. The appeal The grounds of appeal

5. The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision, arguing that they were a fit and proper person. The Appellant’s appeal relied, in summary, on the grounds that: a. He had informed the Registrar at the time of his Application of the offence in question. He had not been told previously that the offence was a problem and he had spent a significant amount of time and money in pursuing a Licence. b. In respect of the offence itself, he believed that he had legitimate insurance at the time but had been scammed by an insurance broker. The reason for receiving the points was therefore something outside of his control. The Registrar’s case

6. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s Statement of Case maintained that the Appellant’s driving licence being endorsed with six penalty points cannot be ignored. The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to be granted a Licence. The Registrar’s view was that allowing the Appellant to be granted a Licence would undermine confidence in the Register. Mode of hearing

7. The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel, 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 .

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.

12. Conditions for the grant of a Licence include that a person is, and continues to be, a “fit and proper person” pursuant to section 129(2)(b), which refers to the requirements in section 125(3)(e).

13. The Registrar may therefore refuse to issue a Licence under section 129(2) if the Registrar considers that the person applying for a Licence is not 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, or to become, a driving instructor, but that they are a fit and proper person to have their named 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 could be 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 takes 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 grant or refusal of the Application, 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 refusal of the Application, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply for a Licence for a period of up to four years. Discussion and findings

23. As we have noted, the Registrar has the duty of ensuring that those who wish to have a Licence are ‘fit and proper’ persons to do so. Part of this duty is to ensure that those who wish to be granted a Licence understand their responsibilities and can show that they not only know the rules but follow them.

24. In this case, we are mindful that the offence in question (using a vehicle without insurance) is a serious one. However, we accept the Appellant’s explanation that he was scammed and that he believed that he had insurance in place and consequently that his driving without insurance was unintentional.

25. We acknowledge the Registrar’s point that the Appellant did not produce relevant evidence to support his contention that he was scammed. However, the Appellant explained that the scam had occurred following a social media exchange on Snapchat and that the scammer had subsequently deleted all the messages. We also accept the Appellant’s explanation that he had also since changed his phone and data relating to the scam had not transferred across to his new phone.

26. This was a finely-balanced decision, but ultimately we accept the Appellant’s position that he did not intend to drive without insurance. The Appellant could be criticised for not suitably checking the credentials of the alleged insurance broker in question and for not ensuring that he had received appropriate documentary evidence that insurance was in place. However, we do not consider that the Appellant was deliberately careless or acting with any nefarious intent. In our view, this was more a question of naivety on the part of the Appellant due to his relatively young age. We also take into account that when the Appellant knew that he was in the wrong (when the Police explained that he was not in possession of a valid insurance policy), he pleaded guilty to the offence and showed remorse.

27. We understand the Registrar’s concerns. However, on the specific facts of this case, we consider that refusal of the Application would be disproportionate.

28. For all of the reasons we have given, we find that the Appellant has not failed to meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person to be granted a Licence. 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 allowing the Appellant to have a Licence.

29. We therefore allow the appeal and we order that the Application be granted.

30. We would ask the Appellant to note the following. Following the endorsement of his driving licence with 6 points he has come very close to losing his right to be granted a Licence. As we have mentioned, we think that the Appellant has perhaps been naive but hopefully he has now learnt a very valuable lesson. The Appellant should be aware that any future transgressions could result in him having a Licence (or potential future registration as an ADI) refused or revoked. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 7 February 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal