Tribunal dismisses driving instructor's appeal

Background

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) delivered its judgment on 13 March 2025, dismissing the appeal of Daniel Zelalem Temesegen against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors. The appeal was heard via Cloud Video Platform on 24 February 2024, with Judge Damien McMahon presiding, alongside Tribunal Members David Rawsthorn and Martin Smith.

Case Details

The appellant, Daniel Zelalem Temesegen, sought to challenge the decision made on 23 August 2024, which refused his application for re-registration onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. This decision was based on his failure to meet the 'fit and proper person' criteria due to multiple motoring convictions.

Temesegen had been convicted of speeding on 27 March 2023, relating to an offence on 31 October 2021, which resulted in three penalty points and a £220 fine. Additionally, he was convicted twice for failing to provide information regarding the identity of the driver of his vehicle, resulting in six penalty points and a £660 fine for each instance. These offences led to a disqualification from driving for six months, which expired on 18 January 2024.

Appellant's Arguments

Temesegen argued that the offences occurred during a difficult personal period following a family bereavement. He contended that these incidents did not reflect his usual driving behaviour, as he had no prior or subsequent convictions. He emphasised his commitment to safe driving and his abstention from alcohol and drugs. Despite having served his disqualification period, he continued to pay fines amounting to £2,000.

Tribunal's Consideration

The Tribunal considered all evidence and submissions, both written and oral. It noted that the appellant had not informed the Registrar of his convictions, which were discovered through DVLA records. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, which requires high standards of conduct and character.

Decision

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not meet the criteria of a 'fit and proper person' due to his motoring convictions. It acknowledged the appellant's personal circumstances but determined that the seriousness of the offences and the need to uphold public trust justified the refusal of re-registration. The Tribunal noted that the decision prioritised consumer protection and the integrity of the Register over the appellant's individual interests.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal affirming the decision of the Registrar. The judgment underscored the necessity for driving instructors to adhere to higher standards than ordinary motorists, reflecting the responsible nature of their role.

Implications

This case highlights the stringent requirements for driving instructors in the UK, particularly regarding character and conduct. It serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and the potential consequences of failing to disclose relevant information to regulatory bodies.