Rizwana Rafiq v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Background to the appeal

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Registrar”) made on 7 October 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”) on the ground that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). This is because she was convicted on 2 September 2025 for a failure to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90) following an offence on 30 January 2025, resulting in her receiving 6 penalty points.

2. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The parties joined remotely. Mr Ali, an interpreter appointed by the Tribunal, attended by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The Appeal

3. The Appellant lodged an appeal on form GRC1 dated 9 October 2025. In summary, in her reasons for the appeal she made the following points: a. She accepts responsibility for the circumstances which led to her conviction, but considers that removal is disproportionate, given the nature of the offence, her professional record, her personal circumstances and established legal precedent. b. Her son was caught speeding in the family car, but she was not made aware of this until the court summons arrived, by which point it was too late for her to identify him as the driver. She has taken steps to prevent reoccurrence. c. She was not the driver, the offence was not related to dangerous or reckless driving and there was no dishonesty or deliberate attempt on her part to obstruct justice.

4. The conviction does not reflect her conduct as an instructor or ability to maintain public trust or teach safe driving. It is an administrative conviction which does not go directly to fitness. a. She is the main financial contributor in the household. Loss of her livelihood would cause disruption and hardship for her family. b. She has contributed positively to society. She speaks six languages, which allows her to reach communities other instructors cannot, particularly women.

5. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 3 February 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant’s driving licence is endorsed with 6 penalty points and an ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. The Registrar notes that the Appellant was convicted of the same offence in 2019 and did not appeal the conviction. The Registrar does not believe that the Appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that he would expect to see from a professional ADI.

6. The Appellant did not provide a Reply The Law

7. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to be and continue to be a “fit and proper person” to have his name on the Register – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”). The Registrar has the burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s 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.

8. In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808, the Court of Appeal described the “fit and proper person” condition as follows: “..the condition is not simply that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor, it is that he is a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the register. Registration carries with it an official seal of approval…It seems to me that the maintenance of public confidence in the register is important. For that purpose, the Registrar must be in a position to carry out his function of scrutiny effectively, including consideration of the implications of any convictions of an applicant or a registered ADI. This is why there are stringent disclosure requirements .” (paragraph 30).

9. 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). The evidence and submissions

10. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 36 numbered pages.

11. We heard submissions from the Appellant at the hearing and found her to be an honest and straightforward witness. She explained that she took full responsibility for what had happened and explained that her son had taken the family car without her knowing and committed a speeding offence. She did not know about this until the court summons arrived, at which point her son told her he had withheld it from her out of embarrassment, had tried to deal with it himself and had not been able to do so. By the time the Appellant was aware of this, it was too late to contest the conviction and she accepted that as the letter had been sent to her address she was responsible for responding to it. She expressed her regret and apologies for this.

12. The Appellant spoke about the fact she had previously been convicted of the same offence in 2019, when she was at an early stage of her career as an ADI. She accepted responsibility on that occasion as well and received a warning from the Registrar. The system which she put in place as a result of this was to tell her family not to open her post, but she was generally not able to check her post until the evening because of work commitments.

13. The Appellant explained that she is the sole earner in a large family and that the revocation has an impact on the entire family as a result of this. The job of an ADI suits her other commitments in caring for her family as she can work flexibly.

14. She argued that there is no dishonesty or attempt to mislead the Registrar involved in this conviction, but that it was an administrative oversight. She reflected that she had learned a huge lesson from the most recent conviction, as a result of which she has removed her name from the family car to ensure that this cannot happen again, as well as checking her mail promptly and in the morning as well as the evening.

15. We also heard submissions from the Registrar at the hearing. The relevant facts

16. On 2 September 2025 the Registrar received a report from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency showing that the appellant had accepted a conviction for motoring offence MS90, failure to give information as to identity of the driver, resulting in 6 penalty points endorsed on her driving licence.

17. The Registrar, by email dated 8 September 2025, gave the Appellant written notice that he was considering removing her name from the Register on the grounds she had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have her name retained on it. The Appellant was given 28 days to make representations. As the Appellant did not receive this email, the Registrar emailed her again on 30 September 2025.

18. The Appellant made representations by email on 1 October 2025. She said the conviction was related to an offence in which her son was driving her vehicle without her knowledge. She was not informed about the speeding ticket he received, he had been embarrassed and withheld the information from her trying to deal with it himself, and as a result, she as the registered keeper had failed to identify the driver, leading to 6 penalty points on her licence. She stated that the incident was purely an oversight, and she had no intention of neglecting her responsibilities. She said that she was the primary breadwinner for the family and has seven children who depend on her. Losing her ability to work as a driving instructor would cause significant hardship for her family.

19. By email dated 2 October 2025 the appellant provided further representations in the form of a character reference.

20. The Registrar checked the Appellant’s record which showed she had previously been convicted of the same motoring offence on the 04 July 2019, while she was the holder of a trainee licence. After considering her representations where she explained that her vehicle was in the care of a repair centre at the time of the offence, on that occasion the Registrar decided to allow the appellant to continue the qualification process with a warning.

21. The Registrar gave notice on 7 October 2025 that he had decided to remove the Appellant from the Register. Conclusions

22. If an ADI’s name is allowed to be put on or remain on the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public’s confidence in the Register. This includes behaviour relating to driving.

23. ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of motoring, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. Teaching people of all ages 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.

24. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. It is essential that ADIs follow the law that they are supposed to be teaching to often young and impressionable pupils. We are aware that the Registrar consistently views six points on a driving licence as a serious matter which means someone is not a fit and proper person.

25. However, in the circumstances of this case, we do not accept that the Appellant has not learned any lessons from her convictions, because she was able to demonstrate that after each conviction she has improved the processes and safeguards in place to prevent re-occurrence. We also find that the Appellant has not misled or been dishonest with the Registrar, nor is there any pattern of behaviour to indicate that the Appellant is unfit either technically or in conduct to be registered. We find that the conviction resulted from administrative oversight which was not within the Appellant’s control at the time of the offence. Although it was a finely-balanced decision, on balance of probabilities we consider that the facts surrounding the Appellant’s conviction amount to circumstances which would justify allowing the Appellant to remain on the Register after committing an offence of this nature.

26. We find on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant does currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant from the Register as she was not a fit and proper person was not correct and we allow the appeal.