Michael Kemp v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
[2024] UKFTT 523 (GRC)
Rakesh Sood v Registrar Of Approved Driving Instructors
27 August 2024
[2024] UKFTT 760 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A driving instructor's license was wrongly taken away because the governing body didn't give good enough reasons. The instructor won the appeal because the governing body failed to cooperate with the court. The instructor's request for the governing body to pay their legal fees was denied because the governing body’s lack of cooperation meant they could not properly process the request.
Key Facts
- •Rakesh Sood's name was removed from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (ADIs).
- •The removal was based on an alleged complaint by Paul Sheridan, a Test Centre Manager.
- •Sood appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the 'unfit and proper person' determination and that the decision breached his Article 8 rights.
- •The Respondent (Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors) failed to comply with multiple Tribunal Directions and was barred from further participation.
- •The Tribunal heard oral submissions from Sood's representative but received no response from the Respondent.
Legal Principles
A person on the Register of ADIs must be and remain a "fit and proper person."
Road Traffic Act 1988, s.125(3) and s.129(4)
The burden of proving a person is not a "fit and proper person" rests on the Respondent.
Implicit in the Road Traffic Act 1988
"Fit and proper person" means fit and proper to have their name entered on the Register, not just to be a driving instructor.
Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 8082
Appeals are re-hearings; the Tribunal considers the evidence afresh, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent's reasons.
Implicit in Tribunal procedure
Tribunal costs orders are governed by Rule 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, which requires written applications and Respondent's input, barring exceptional circumstances.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, Rule 10
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Insufficient evidence from the Respondent to support the decision to remove Sood's name from the Register. The Respondent's non-compliance prevented the Tribunal from assessing the details of the alleged complaint.
Costs application refused.
The Respondent's barring from participation made a compliant costs application impossible.
Similar Cases
Andrew Rayson v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
[2024] UKFTT 771 (GRC)
Daniel Zelalem Temesegen v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
[2024] UKFTT 553 (GRC)
Jaswant Dhillon v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
[2024] UKFTT 457 (GRC)
Anu Modgill v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
[2024] UKFTT 991 (GRC)