Claire Lesley Lilian Miller v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 17 June 2024 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Register”) on the grounds that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”).

2. The Registrar reached this decision because of the Appellant’s behaviour and business practices in relation to students, in particular because of a complaint made on 24 March 2024, making a total of 6 complaints and 2 warnings within the last two years.

3. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The Appeal

4. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 9 July 2024 in summary sets out: a. She has worked as a driving instructor since July 2018 and has been instructing for nearly 6 years. b. The DVSA decision lacked evidence and the evidence it did have was not credible. This is because of conflicting opinions, the involvement of third parties and that the records are of 5 not 6 complaints one of which the DVSA dismissed. c. Since COVID it has been difficult to live up to the expectations of students, especially when the demand for examinations and tests in the UK has surged. The Appellant has nonetheless done work other instructors won’t do and has in last 2 years both won awards and been placed in the top 100 instructors of the country. d. The final complaint related to a case where the Appellant feels the ultimate reason for the issue was that the student moved the date of their test without informing the driving school and expected their dates to shift as well automatically. The Appellant had never even met this student.

5. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 14 November 2024 resists the appeal. The Registrar in summary says: a. As the regulator of Approved Driving Instructors, my primary role is to ensure that instruction provided by ADIs meets the required standard and that all ADIs have met, and continue to meet, the fit and proper criteria. This includes expecting ADIs to adhere to professional standards and business ethics when dealing with their customers. b. The Registrar receives many complaints from dissatisfied customers, but where these focus on contractual disputes this goes beyond their remit and area of expertise. So the advice given is always to seek redress through the civil courts and to obtain professional advice. c. In this case on 24 March 2024 the Registrar received a complaint concerning the conduct of the Appellant, and this is in the context that the Appellant had been the subject of previous complaints and issued with two prior warnings relating to her conduct and professionalism. d. Having carefully considered the representations made by the Appellant it remains the case that she has ceased to be a fit and proper person because: i. The Appellant has been the subject of multiple complaints concerning her unprofessional behaviour towards customers. These complaints focus on wholly or partially refused refunds, as well as allegations of lateness, unreasonable cancellations and the cutting short of lessons paid for. Anyone who is an Approved Driving Instructor is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. Teaching (Generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standards. ii. Registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is "Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor". Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person's character, behaviour and standard of conduct. iii. It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing professional behaviour, for me to ignore this unprofessional behaviour displayed by the Appellant. The Law

6. 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”).

7. 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).

8. The Registrar can refuse to enter a person’s name on the Register if they are not a fit and proper person to have their name on the Register ( section 125(2) (e) of the Act ). The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. 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.

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

10. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing an index and 33 numbered pages, as well as all the other additional submissions entered on to the file. This includes evidence of the original submissions provided to the Registrar by the Appellant as well as all the material submitted by the Appellant in support of the appeal. We heard submissions from the Registrar and from the Appellant.

11. The complaint that primarily led to this decision of the Registrar was received on the 24 March 2024 by email and is summarised below: a. A parent paying for an intensive driving course for their daughter who was a University student at the time. This was arranged through a third party driving school. b. The parent directly paid the third party driving school £465 to arrange the lessons and book the test. They connected the parent and student to the Appellant for the lessons. c. On the 22 June 2023 it was agreed the lessons would take place on 21-24 August 2023, and on 26 June 2023 the parent paid £800 directly to the Appellant for the lessons. d. At 1934 on Sunday 20 August 2023 the evening before the intensive week long course was due to start, the Appellant cancelled the course “due to last minute tests coming up” and was unable to do any instruction that week. The parent and student had organised their summer around the lessons commitment and so found this very frustrating. e. The student studied at University away from the area of the lessons and so was only available during the University holidays, after August the next opportunity therefore was over the Xmas period. The lessons were rebooked for 4-9 January 2024. f. On the 29 December 2023 the student sent the Appellant a reminder text about the booked lessons but received no reply. g. On the morning of 4 January 2024 when the lessons were due to start, the Appellant sent a text saying she thought the lessons were in February and must have ‘misread the message’. The Appellant stated that they could not do any lessons that week and offered the week of 15 January instead, but this was during University term time and so was unsuitable and the test had been booked for 11 January 2024 in any event. h. The parents were extremely unsatisfied with the service of both the third party driving school and with that of the Appellant and added that the Appellant will not answer her phone and only rarely responds to text messages. i. The parent sought to obtain a refund and although at first was unsuccessful the Appellant eventually agreed to provide a partial refund of £640 of the £800 paid to her for lessons that never took place. She offered the balance (£160) as post-test lessons. However, the parent believes this was a delaying action because the Appellant was never able to provide any reasonable timescale as to when the refund would be paid. The Appellant indicated in early March that the refund was being processed by the bank, but no refund was ever received by the parent. j. The parent then made the complaint because they believed that the Appellant “acted outside the bounds of what is reasonable for the provision of professional driving tuition”. Submissions

12. The representative of the Registrar in summary set out the following points: a. The Registrar was concerned that the Appellant did not meet the fit and proper person criteria for the reasons set out in the statement of case and which they continued to rely upon. b. The Registrar confirmed that since making the decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register, the Registrar has received 10 further complaints, from separate complainants, all of a similar nature against the Appellant. However, since the decision had already been made by the Registrar to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register, those further complaints have not yet been dealt with, pending the outcome of this appeal. c. The decision to remove the Appellant’s name was based primarily on the complaint from the 24 March 2024 in light of the fact that the Appellant had been issued two previous warnings about their business practices in this regard in both August 2022 and December 2023. By March 2024 the Appellant had been given sufficient time to improve their conduct and business practices but this further complaint on a similar matter led the Registrar to believe that they had failed to make the necessary change in behaviour to be a fit and proper person. The issues in each such complaint relate to one or more of the following: lessons unreasonably cancelled, lessons not delivered in whole or in part, money taken and not refunded.

13. In submissions and in response to questions asked, the Appellant told the Tribunal in summary: a. That during the relevant period the Appellant suffered a very considerable personal tragedy that, amongst other things, affected her ability to be available for tuition. b. That the Appellant has had considerable trouble over an extended period with several different third party driving schools. These businesses exist to advertise and sign up students that they then refer on to instructors like the Appellant for the actual delivery of the lessons. The Appellant has worked with 7 such third party companies over the years. She has complained to the DVSA about the practices of such firms because they treat both the instructors and the students badly. In one case she had to obtain a county court judgement in order to obtain from the third party the money she was owed for lessons delivered. In her view it is unfair because the problems are usually caused by the third party but they are difficult to challenge and so students unfairly make complaints against the ADI instead. c. The Appellant has since the date of the complaint pulled away from using such third parties for work, but has been threatened by some of those companies that they will make complaints about her if she will not take work from them. The Appellant would like DVSA to simply tell her whether she should or should not be involved with such companies given her bad experiences. The Appellant thinks the DVSA should tell ADIs they are not to work with such companies given the issue of professional standing. d. The Appellant also told the tribunal that these complaints can often be unjustified and just malice as a result of the ADI telling the student they are not ready to take a test yet. e. As regards the March 2024 complaint, the situation there was that the third party’s terms and conditions had been agreed to and under those terms as the student moved the test date they broke the terms and conditions. So the situation is to be treated as a cancellation with no refund due. The Appellant states she made this clear to the parent but said even though it is non-refundable she will still honour the hours. f. The Appellant said the cancellation in August 2023 was done on the instruction of the third party company who advised that as the test was not till March for the relevant student the lessons could be moved and the company had another student who needed to be prioritised instead that week. As a specialist intensive course instructor the key point of this style of teaching is to have an intensive tuition period shortly before a test and there is less value when the test is some period away. g. The Appellant stated that she had never agreed to lessons in January and that the parent and student had moved the test and lessons without ever telling the Appellant or the third party company. h. The Appellant stated that she nonetheless made a refund of £640 but paid this to the third party company not directly to the student or parent. When questioned why the Appellant did not pay this directly back to the person it had come from (the Parent) she wasn’t clear why this happened and was unable to provide an explanation nor any evidence of the payment being made to any party. The Appellant blamed the poor communications of the third party company for this and the fabrication of the student that there was ever a booking in January. i. The Appellant has some medical conditions that limit when she can work. j. Following this complaint the Appellant now refuses to work with such third party companies given the trouble she has repeatedly faced with them leading to this and other complaints. k. The Appellant accepted she had received previous complaints and warnings to improve her communications with students and practices. The Appellant was of the view that she had improved communications and behaviour since those complaints. l. The Appellant also asserted that many other ADIs were in the same position as her and being unfairly made to take the blame and burden for failings by the third party companies. However, she did not provide any evidence from any other such ADIs asserting that she could not breach confidentiality. C onclusions

14. The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.

15. The Tribunal also notes with disappointment that this case was subject to delay, in particular due to failures to abide by Case Management Directions. The Respondent is asked to take note of this and take appropriate action to do their best to prevent this happening again in future.

16. ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs will act professionally, reliably, and with integrity. The Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) Code of Practice provides that “Driver trainers will be professional, comply with the law, keep clients safe and treat them with respect.” While the Code is voluntary, it reflects the expectations placed upon those in the profession.

17. 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.

18. The Registrar has a duty to ensure that only those of appropriate standing are allowed entry on to the Register, and that those who are on it understand and uphold their responsibilities.

19. We found the detailed content of the March 2024 complaint both credible and sincere. In contrast the Appellant’s evidence was inconsistent and incongruous at times, in particular there is no logical explanation as to why the Appellant would pay a refund to anyone other than the person she received the payment from. There was no evidence produced that any such payment was ever made to any party by the Appellant, which stands in stark contrast to the very detailed evidence submitted by the Appellant in this case in relation to other payments owed to her as regards other students.

20. The Appellant was, by her own admission, at the time of this complaint well aware of the reputation and behaviour of the third party companies she complains about. She nonetheless chose to continue to work with these companies regardless of this, and in particular aware that she had already had to resort to court action to receive payment form one of them. She also chose to carry on such associations despite having already received two warnings about her business practices. The Appellant’s registration as an ADI is ultimately her responsibility, and had she decided to cease working for such companies after previous issues then this complaint may never have arisen.

21. In any event the behaviour complained about in the relevant case focuses very clearly on the actions and considerable inactions of the Appellant, where the third party is at most only indirectly relevant. Cancellations on the night before or morning of a course is anything but the upholding of high personal and professional standards. Nor is the failure to return calls, messages or refunds promptly and accurately. The Appellant’s behaviour represents a failure to adhere to the expected professional standards and business ethics and an overt breach of the Code of Practice. The number of previous complaints of a similar nature clearly demonstrate a pattern of behaviour over a period of time and it is not the case that the March 2024 complaint was an isolated or one-off incident.

22. The Appellant neither showed nor expressed genuine remorse nor even substantially acknowledged the position she had put the student and the DVSA in. Instead, she just sought to address all blame elsewhere.

23. Whilst the Tribunal has great sympathy for the Appellant’s personal family tragedy and her medical issues, neither would appear to have any significant impact on the particular behaviour under consideration (given the Appellant's own evidence on this point). While the Appellant has offered explanations we do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances in what was presented.

24. We therefore find that the Appellant does not 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’s name from the Register as she was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal. Signed Judge T Barr ett Date: 1/11/25