Jon Roost v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Mode of Hearing

1. The proceedings were held using CVP. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing this way.

2. The hearing was conducted by a Judge and two Tribunal Members in Chambers. The Appellant participated in the hearing and was not represented. The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors was represented by Mr Heard. General Background

3. The appeal is against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (ADIs) that the Appellant could not satisfy the statutory requirement to be a “fit and proper person”, with the result that the and the application of the Appellant to have his name entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors was refused under s.125(3) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 [“ the Act ”]. The burden of proving that an Appellant is not a fit and proper person is on the Registrar.

4. Conditions for entry or retention on the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant be a fit and proper person. 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.

5. Given that many pupils are just 17 years of age and the scheme as a whole relies upon the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs, it is clear that substantial trust will be placed in ADIs by pupils, parents, other ADIs and road users, the public and the Agency. It is the Registrar’s function to ensure that the persons whose names appear in the Register are worthy of that trust and are fit and proper persons to have their names entered therein.

6. 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 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.

7. Additionally, in cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the Register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence 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.

8. In the Registrar’s statement of case, he points out that registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is ‘Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor’, [“ADI”]. Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct. In view of this, he expressed concern that the good name of the Register would be tarnished and the public’s confidence undermined if it was generally known that he had allowed the Appellant’s name to be re-entered on the Register when he had been convicted of an offence. He added that it would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law to ignore this offence. The Registrar’s approach was approved by the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (2010 EWCA Civ 808), in which Richards LJ said:- “….. 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 …..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. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.”

9. Applicants to become driving instructors are notified that the DVSA is entitled to ask for information about spent convictions and as a result they lose the protection provided by s.4(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 . This arises in consequence of paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 as amended which states that “none of the provisions of s.4(2) of the Act shall apply in relation to … any question asked … in order to assess the suitability … of the person to whom the question relates for any office or employment specified in Part II of the said Schedule 1 … where the person questioned is informed at the time the question is asked that, by virtue of this Order, spent convictions are to be disclosed”. Paragraph 14 of Part II of Schedule 1 states that “offices, employment and work” include “any work which is work in a regulated position” and by Part IV of Schedule 1 “regulated position” is “a position which is a regulated position for the purposes of Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 ”. Paragraph 36(c) of Part II of the latter Act provides that “the regulated positions for the purposes of this Part are … a position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children”; and by paragraph 42 of Part II “child” means a person under the age of 18. Since driving instructors may teach pupils aged 17 (or 16 if disabled) it follows that the DVSA is entitled to take spent convictions into account. Factual background

10. The background to this appeal is that the Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in April 2021 and in the normal course of events his certificate expired on the last day of April 2025.

11. On 11 April 2025, the Appellant submitted an on-line application to extend his period of registration, on which he declared a fixed penalty notice on 6 June 2024, for breach of the requirements as to control of the vehicle (includes mobile phone) resulting in the endorsement of his driving licence with 6 penalty points.

12. In his Statement of case, the Registrar has noted that a check of the DVLA database confirmed the offence. Further the Registrar observed that the Appellant had failed to notify him, the Registrar, of the offence within 7 days, which was a clear breach of the declaration which he had made on his application, dated 21 December 2020, to have his name entered in the Register.

13. By way of email correspondence dated 6 May 2025, the Registrar gave the Appellant notice that he, the Registrar, was considering the refusal of his application to have his name re-entered in the Register on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have her name entered in it. The Registrar invited the Appellant to make representations to the Registrar within 28 days which the Registrar submitted would be taken into consideration by him before reaching a decision.

14. In email correspondence dated 11 May 2025, the Appellant made representations. Those representations are set out in more detail below.

15. In the Statement of Case, the Registrar has stated that he carefully considered these representations but came to the view that the Appellant’s name should be removed from the Register. The Registrar noted that while the Appellant appeared to have shown remorse, he had admitted to handling his phone whilst conducting a driving lesson. Accordingly, the Registrar made a decision that the Appellant could not satisfy the condition set out in section 128(2) (e) of the Act in that he ceased, apart from fulfilment of any of the preceding conditions to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register.

16. The Appellant was notified of the Registrar's decision on 4 June 2025.

17. A notice of appeal against the decision of the Registrar dated 6 October 2023, was subsequently received in the office of the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) of the First-tier Tribunal. The submissions of the parties The Registrar

18. At the remote oral hearing, Mr Heard appeared on behalf of the Registrar. He outlined the Registrar’s case, summarising the background to the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. That background was set out in more detail in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Statement of Case. Mr Heard also summarised the reasons for the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. These were: (a) The appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having accepted a fixed penalty notice for the offence of a breach of the requirements as to control of the vehicle (includes mobile phone offences). He failed to notify me of the offence within 7 Days. The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. As such, account is taken of a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct. Anyone who is an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the 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 and a keen regard for road safety. I would therefore be failing in my public duty if I allowed a person who had committed this offence whilst providing professional tuition to have his name retained in the Register. (b) The Government increased the payment levels for serious road safety offences such as speeding, the requirement to control a vehicle (including mobile phone use), passing red traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and wearing a seatbelt. These offences contribute to a significant number of casualties. For example, in 2020 excessive speed contributed to 219 deaths, 1,674 serious injuries and 4666 minor accidents, using a mobile phone contributed to 17 deaths, 119 serious injuries and 308 minor accidents; and careless driving, reckless, or in a hurry contributed to 204 deaths, 3,487 serious injuries and 11,126 minor accidents. (c) As an officer of the Secretary of State charged with compiling and maintaining the register on his behalf, I do not consider that I can condone motoring offences of this nature. To do so would effectively sanction such behaviour, if those who transgress were allowed to remain on an official register that allows them to teach others. It would send out wrong messages to learner and novice drivers about the standards expected of them on the road. (d) It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, for me to ignore this offence.’ The Appellant The written representations

19. In the written representations forwarded to the office of the Registrar, the Appellant made the following submissions: ‘My name is Jon Roost, and I have been working as an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) since 2020. Firstly, I would like to express my sincere apologies that you are having to review this matter. I understand that my renewal is currently being considered for refusal, and I want to take this opportunity to explain the circumstances and respectfully request your reconsideration. This role is not just a career but a vital part of supporting my family, and I am committed to continuing to provide high-quality instruction to my pupils for many more years, should my renewal be granted. The offence in question (CU80) occurred while I was teaching: a pupil, Mr …, who is in his late twenties to early thirties and, at the time, a highly capable and experienced learner. We were in slow moving traffic within a 20 mph zone. My phone battery was critically low and I attempted to connect it to a charger. I use my phone to access essential apps, including my diary and pupil records, which are important tools in managing my daily schedule. Unfortunately, during this moment, a cyclist captured an image of me with his helmet camera while I was handling my phone. I now fully recognise that, regardless of the circumstances, this was a breach of the law, and I deeply regret my actions. At the time, it was an instinctive and unintended lapse in judgment. Upon receiving the offence notification, I was initially in disbelief, as I pride myself on maintaining professional standards and avoiding phone use while instructing, However, after seeing the evidence, I accepted full responsibility and paid the associated fine. This incident was a wake-up call and left me feeling shocked and ashamed. I work hard to provide for my family, and I take my responsibilities as an instructor very seriously. I briefly considered contesting the charge in court but was advised it would not change the outcome. I was unaware I should have notified the DVSA immediately about the points on my licence. I believed that declaring the offence on my renewal application and notifying my insurance company was sufficient. I sincerely regret this oversight I truly enjoy my work as an instructor and am proud of the positive feedback I have received from my pupils over the years. I always strive to act in their best Interest and to uphold the standards expected of an ADI, I respectfully ask that ·you consider my application for renewal. I acknowledge my mistake and assure you it has only strengthened my commitment to safe, lawful, and professional conduct on the road.’ The grounds of appeal

20. In the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant set out the following grounds of appeal: The finding that I was not a fit and proper person is wrong. I have an unblemished record and the CU80 was a one-off, I was not using my phone I was simply plugging it back in. I have multiple character references/statements from pupils past and present including Mr WB who was my pupil I was with during the CU80 offence. Losing this job will have a detrimental effect on my family and the pupils who I currently teach. The job's flexible hours also allows me to support at least 5 hours a week to my local community, as a volunteer for gir1s football coach. This was a genuine mistake. After seeking legal advice in advance of this hearing, I now regret not challenging the number of points I was given when the offence first occurred. I had always maintained a clean record. and I naively believed that allowing the points to expire over time would be sufficient. In hindsight, I realise I should have taken a more proactive approach. I’m simply asking for an opportunity to prove that this was a one-off mistake. Ending my career over this would not only be a personal loss. but would also have a negative impact on everyone connected to me. I'm sorry for the mistake on my part but I have used this whole process as a chance to learn from this experience.’

21. As noted in his Notice of Appeal, the Appellant submitted character references in support of his appeal, including one from the pupil who was driving at the time of the commission of the offence. The remote oral hearing

22. As noted above, the Appellant participated in the remote oral hearing and gave evidence and made additional submissions. He repeated his regret at what had occurred and stated that he understood the Registrar’s position. He had made a mistake which had led to a steep learning curve for him. He did not believe that he was not a fit and proper person. His failure to report the acceptance of the fixed penalty notice with 7 days was a mistake on his part. He had informed his insurance company and declared it on his application to have his name entered in the Register. He had a clean driving record until the recent offence and had not come to the attention of the Registrar before this. He was a good and respected ADI and noted the character references which he had provided in support. His pass rate was high. He was in shock when he received the notification. He put his hands up and didn’t have an excuse. It would not be repeated.

23. The incident occurred because of a lack of judgment on his part. The motor vehicle was hardly moving in slow-moving traffic. He submitted that the incident had a massive impact on him and his family. He shared his vehicle with his partner.

24. He had changed his manner of working and now kept a diary. He writes everything which he needs for his lessons on paper. He has a break of half an hour between lessons to check where he is going next. He did not have electronic technology in the front of the car.

25. In response to questions, the Appellant accepted that it did not matter that his pupil was experienced. It was his lack of judgment and he was aware of how wrong he was. He did not use his phone when driving. He used it to check his schedule between lessons. He typed the address for his next pupil into the satellite navigation system. He did not use technology for every lesson but only when parked at the side of the road in a safe place and not when driving. He was not going to make a telephone call.

26. He was the main earner for his family. He would always make sure that his family was looked after. The incident had a significant impact on his mental health. He had telephoned his insurance company and he had not checked that he was required to inform the registrar within 7 days. That was a wake up call for him and he now spent time reading through the appropriate guidance.

27. In general terms, and having heard from and seen the Appellant, we found him to be wholly honest and credible. Analysis

28. We have reminded ourselves of the benchmarks which are expected of ADIs, their character, behaviour, general standards of conduct including as drivers themselves, the requirement to have standards of driving above that of the ordinary motorist and the need for ADIs to promote high standards of driving while instructing their pupils and to ensure public safety. To repeat what was stated at paragraph 6 above: ‘6. 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 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.’

29. We cannot ignore that the offence is a serious one and we have noted the statistics on road safety which the Registrar has set out in paragraph 6(c) of his Statement of Case.

30. We also cannot disregard that the offence was committed during the course of a driving lesson and, no matter how experienced the pupil was, demonstrated an evident disregard for the road traffic laws and professional standards. The Appellant has asserted that the battery levels on his mobile telephone were ‘critically’ low and that he made extensive use of his telephone in his professional work. In those circumstances we find it difficult to understand why he had not checked the battery levels earlier in his working day and/or made use of an ancillary power ‘bank.’

31. We have also observed that the Appellant failed to notify the Registrar of the offence within 7 days, which was a clear breach of the declaration which he had made on his application, dated 21 December 2020, to have his name entered in the Register. The Appellant has stated that he was unaware of this requirement which does not represent a commitment to professional standards.

32. Given all of that, the argument for the refusal of the Appellant’s application for the entry of his name into the Register is a powerful one.

33. Against that, however, we are of the view that there are equally convincing grounds for the retention of the Appellant’s name on the Register.

34. We repeat that having heard from and seen the Appellant and having assessed his written representations and grounds of appeal, we have found him to be wholly honest and credible. As such, we list the following factors which are, in our view, in the Appellant’s favour: • The Appellant’s clean driving record until this endorsement of his driving licence, with no reoffending and with no propensity to fail to adhere to the driving laws • His career as an ADI with no other regulatory interventions by the Registrar, particularly with respect to fitness • His commitment to the ADI profession and its professional standards, evidenced by his high pass rate and commendations from his pupils including the pupil who was driving at the time of this offence • His good character as evidenced by the references provided by his pupils and others • His declaration of the offence on his application, itself dated 11 April 2025, to extend his period of registration • Our acceptance that the offence was a ‘one-off’ lapse of judgment on his part, which was entirely his own fault and for which he expressed contrition and regret • His recognition that the offence was absolute despite its commission in slow-moving traffic and only involved the plugging in of his mobile telephone and not its actual use • His understanding of the Registrar’s position with respect to his professional standards and the integrity of the Register • His statement that he has learned from his mistake and a consequent implementation of changes in his professional practice and procedures to ensure (i) that there would be no repetition of the circumstances which gave rise to the offence and (ii) to improve his understanding of the regulatory process • The impact of the offence on his personal mental health and on his family’s circumstances and his concern about his ability to continue to make provision for them if he was to lose his professional career • His dedication to his local community

35. We are asked to determine whether the Appellant has failed the statutory test to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register. On balance, we find that the Appellant has not failed that test. There is, in our view, no risk to the integrity of the Register and the standing of the Register will not be substantially diminished by the retention of the Appellant’s name on it. Disposal

36. For the reasons which are set out above, the appeal is allowed.

37. 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 professional career and employment. It should be self-evident that there are significant learning outcomes from this process and that any future legal or professional transgressions are likely to have considerable adverse consequences. Kenneth Mullan Judge of the Upper Tribunal 22 January 2026