Mohammed Hamza Azad v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Background

1. This appeal was listed for remote oral hearing on 21 January 2026 by CVP.

2. The Appellant appeared by CVP and gave oral evidence and submissions.

3. Oral evidence and submissions were made, too, by the Respondent’s representative.

4. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 23 June 2025 to remove his name from the Register (‘the Register’) of Approved Driving Instructors (‘ADIs’), pursuant to section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’) on the basis that he was no longer a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the Register due to a complaint made against him by a driving instruction pupil of his, a female, who had a history of domestic abuse, stated mental health problems and who was a single mother of four young girls, concerning his behaviour, including sending the complainant what was regarded by the Respondent to be an inappropriate photograph of himself and inappropriate texts, as set out in a letter from the Respondent to the Appellant dated 23 May 2025.

5. The Respondent, in the decision under appeal, submitted that it took account of written representations made by the Appellant, by email, received on 9 June 2025 before making the said decision. Those detailed representations, in summary, were as follows: - that the complainant had commenced driving lessons with him at the end of February 2025 and only had three 1-hour lessons [but, in other written and oral evidence, indicated what had to be a different account in this regard]; - that he had accidentally sent a topless photograph of himself, with his body measurements, to the complainant, having intended to send it to another female [who had the forename of the complainant as one of her (the other female), three forenames] with whom he used to physically train, he and she being in a relationship from time to time; - that he realised his error in seconds and had deleted the photograph and messaged the complainant to apologise and explain that the photograph had been sent in error [but had not retained a copy of that message] and the complainant had replied to say ‘no problem’ and that she said she had deleted it in any event and, at the request of the Appellant, later confirmed that she had done so; - that the Appellant said nothing about the incident despite the lapse of two weeks and two more lessons, after which she stopped taking lessons with the Appellant because, he stated, she lacked time as she was starting a job; - that the complainant, however, initiated conversations with him later [presumably by electronic messaging] concerning his gym routine; how he ‘got larger’, whether he took supplements and ‘whether he needed steroids in his penis’, to which he, the Appellant, replied, ‘Not needed’; - that the complainant, who was no longer his driving instruction pupil at this stage, was deleting messages ‘to give the appearance of a one-way conversation’; - that he admitted to the Respondent’s investigator that this was not an acceptable conversation; - that five days later, the Appellant experienced verbal abuse, followed by abusive texts, and demands for money from him from the complainant’s sister who had in her possession, the Appellant stated, CCTV images provided by him to the Respondent’s investigator; - that the complainant told the Appellant she had no idea that her sister was engaged in such behaviour; - that he was ‘extremely disappointed in himself and was extremely apologetic’, having ‘got carried away with the fact that the complainant was no longer his pupil’ and continued a conversation with her not realising that this was contrary to the Approved Driving Instructor’s (‘ADI’) Code of Practice; - that he had ‘taken measures to ensure that there was no repetition’; - that if his name were removed from the Register, his livelihood would be affected in circumstances where he supported his single mother and younger sister; - that he was an extremely good ADI as shown by his character references; - that he wished to be given ‘another chance’. However, despite these detailed representations being considered by the Respondent, the Respondent did not change its said decision. Notice of Appeal

6. The Appellant submitted an appeal dated 21 July 2025 against the Respondent’s said decision, that, essentially, was a reiteration the said representations made to the Respondent relying, in particular, on a bundle of character references submitted by him; that he had undertaken a Safeguarding Programme and had put safeguarding measures in place. He submitted that what had occurred was an isolated, accidental occurrence with no ‘appropriate’ intent [presumably intended to read ‘inappropriate’ intent]; that removal of his name from the Register would be a disproportionate sanction, that would result in severe financial, professional and family consequences contrary to sections 6 [right to a fair trial] and 8 [right to private and family life] of the Human Rights Act 1998 ; that he had an unblemished ADI record of some 8 years, and had instructed hundreds of pupils with no complaints or safeguarding issues and that he was committed to the ADI Code of Practice.

7. In his oral evidence, the Appellant confirmed that he did not refute the findings of the Respondent’s investigation report and accepted that his conduct did fall below professional standards and would impact on public confidence in the Register. However, he stated, he had put measures in place, including: - CPD training in ethics and professional boundaries; - seminar work; - splitting his work mobile telephone from his personal mobile telephone; - safeguarding training.

8. In response to questions of clarification from the Tribunal, the Appellant confirmed that his older brother was the proprietor of his driving school. He stated he had no intention to keep the message of apology he sent to the complainant and accepted he should not have engaged in any conversation with the complainant, describing this as a mistake on his part. He stated he was extremely disappointed in behaving as he did as he understood professional responsibilities and ‘blurring of boundaries’, that is, he now understood the issues. He submitted that he should be given another chance; that what had occurred was an isolated lapse on his part, that had not, and would not, be repeated; that he was remorseful and had taken remediation steps. He stated that he had not known of the complainant’s vulnerabilities at the time but did now. He stated that he knew he could re-apply to have his name re-entered onto the Register.

9. The Appellant confirmed that, during his interview with the Respondent’s investigator, he stated that he was in talks with the intended recipient’ of the offending photograph and messages. He explained that this individual was his ex-partner, with whom he had an on/off relationship, and that they also undertook physical training together. He stated that, in the case of a new starter driving instruction pupil, such as the complainant, he would make introductions, devise a “Progress Sheet”, and take the individual to a quiet location. From there, he would proceed with instruction, depending on how quickly the lessons progressed. He believed the complainant had four to five lessons, one per week. The Appellant stated that the offending photograph was sent to the complainant in error after the third or fourth lesson, on 10 March 2025. He said that the complainant had two further lessons with him before deciding not to continue. [This account was somewhat inconsistent on the part of the Appellant]. He maintained that many more messages were sent to him by the complainant than were included in the bundle, which contained only one message and two screenshots. He stated that it had never occurred to him that the complainant ended her lessons because he sent the offending photograph, adding that if this had been the reason, he would have expected her to end the lessons sooner. The Appellant denied that any conversation took place with the complainant regarding the ‘type of men she was into’. He also stated that he did not report the alleged abusive behaviour of the complainant’s sister to the police, as he ‘did not want to exacerbate the situation’. When asked why he offered to send another photograph to the complainant, despite asserting that the original incident was an isolated and accidental occurrence, the Appellant said that he had become ‘sidetracked’. He accepted that this also amounted to a lapse in standards. Finally, the Appellant confirmed that he had obtained the complainant’s statements from the Respondent and had asked the Respondent to be more specific. He stated that he attended the said safeguarding course via Zoom.

10. In response to questions from the Respondent’s representative, the Appellant suggested there was a contradiction between the contents of page 33 and page 39 of the ADI Code of Practice, that ‘boundaries were blurred at the time’, and that he had made a ‘big mistake’ at the time by confusing the name of the complainant with another female who had the same forename in three forenames by which she was known. The Respondent’s Case

11. The Respondent’s case was set out in his Response document dated 16 January 2026. He confirmed that the Appellant’s name had first been entered onto the Register in January 2018 and re-entered in February 2022, an entry that would, ordinarily, have expired, in the ordinary course of events, on 28 February 2026. The said complaint was received on 9 April 2025; a statement was taken from the complainant on 1 May 2025 and from the Appellant on 20 May 2025, following which an investigation report dated 22 May 2025 was issued to the Respondent. The report essentially confirmed what the Appellant would subsequently say in his written representations to the Respondent but, in addition, maintained that there had been a mutual exchange of flirtatious messages until the complainant’s driving lessons with the Appellant ended and that, by way of apology, the Appellant offered to pay the complainant for ‘her lesson’, stating that he was embarrassed, disappointed, had been ‘stupid’ and that the facts giving rise to the complaint should never have happened.

12. The Respondent, however, taking account of the Appellant’s said representations, decided that the Appellant was no longer a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the Register as he had engaged in an inappropriate course of conduct as an ADI with a pupil, a course of action that was unprofessional: he admitted he had sent the offending messages and, while he maintained this was in error, he continued further conversations with the complainant concerning graphic detail in the said photograph and, in interview, offered to pay for the complainant’s driving lessons by way of an apology, and so on, as set out in the preceding paragraph, including that the Appellant admitted sending the offending photograph and messages to the complainant, but in error. He submitted that the Appellant’s actions represented extremely unacceptable behaviour on the part of an ADI and was behaviour contrary to the ADI Code of Practice. He further submitted that registration as an ADI was an official seal of approval bestowed on an ADI and referred to the issue of public confidence in the Register.

13. The Respondent submitted that an ADI had to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered upon, or remain, on the Register; that teaching people to drive was a responsible and demanding task that should only entrusted to those with high standards; that he would be failing in his public duty if an ADI who had conducted himself in the manner of the Appellant was to have his name retained on the Register; that registration represents official approval of a person to be an ADI and regard must be had not only to instructional ability alone but to his character, conduct and behaviour; that the Respondent’s good name would be tarnished and public confidence in the [integrity of the] Register would be undermined if it became generally known [as it would] that the Appellant’s name was allowed to remain on the Register in these circumstances, and, finally, that if the Appellant’s conduct were to be ignored, that would be offensive to other ADIs, or aspiring ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing professional behaviour.

14. In oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Respondent’s representative confirmed the contents of the Respondent’s written Response document, including that the Appellant admitted sending the offending photograph and messages to the complainant, but in error. He submitted that the Appellant’s actions represented extremely unacceptable behaviour on the part of an ADI and was behaviour contrary to the ADI Code of Practice. He further submitted that registration as an ADI was an official seal of approval bestowed on an ADI and referred to the issue of public confidence in the Register.

15. In response to questions from the Tribunal, the Respondent’s representative noted that while the Appellant stated he had sent the offending photograph to the complainant in error, intending to have sent it to another female, who was not his driving instructor pupil, he later sent other messages to the complainant. He submitted that the key issues for the Respondent in making the decision under appeal were: - the fact of a complaint being made; - that the ADI Code of Conduct, while a non-enforceable voluntary guide, advised ADIs: - to avoid the use of inappropriate language to a client; - to avoid inappropriate personal discussions with a client; - to avoid situations that could be perceived as inappropriate. The Respondent’s representative confirmed that the substance of the investigation was the messages set by the Appellant to the complainant. He confirmed, too, that the Respondent considered all representations made by, or on behalf of, the Appellant and considered too the Witness Statement of the complainant to consider the impact of the Appellant’s conduct on her. He emphasised that the instructor/pupil relationship was of crucial significance. He advised that, in circumstances such as these, the Respondent attached little weight to character references, but that ‘intent’ was a relevant factor.

16. The Respondent’s representative confirmed that as part of an investigation such as that undertaken here, a questionnaire, which was gender-specific, was sent out to random pupils of the Appellant but that only 1 reply had been received. He stated that the alleged actions of the complainant’s sister were not the subject of the complaint made against the Appellant [in circumstances where the Appellant had stated in his written evidence that the CCTV still images were provided by him to the Respondent’s investigator, images of the complainant’s sister calling at the Appellant’s home were not in the bundle even though they were submitted by the Appellant as part of his appeal case]. The Respondent’s representative denied that such images were submitted by the Appellant as part of his case, or at all, (even though they were referred to as part of the Respondent’s Response document). The Respondent’s representative submitted that the proper course for the Appellant was to refer the complainant’s sister’s alleged actions to the police.

17. The Appellant had no questions for the Respondent’s representative.

18. In closing, the Respondent’s representative confirmed he had nothing further to add, save that the Appellant’s conduct and behaviour did not meet the guidance contained in the ADI Code of Conduct.

19. In closing, the Appellant again stated that he fully accepted the contents of the Respondent’s Response document, that he regretted what had occurred but had taken remediation steps and now had insight.

20. The basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant did not fulfil the criteria to be a ‘fit and proper person’, as required by s.128(2) (e) of the Act , namely, “that he ceased …. to be a fit and proper person to have his name included in the register”.

21. Conditions require that an ADI (the Appellant in this case) be a ‘fit and proper person’. This requires account to be taken of an ADI’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including professionalism and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate. The Respondent may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances.

22. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

23. As a matter of law, the standing of the Respondent could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence in the integrity of the Register undermined, if it were known that a person whose name was included on the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours substantially material to the question of fitness. This can be in respect of behaviour pertaining to matters of responsibility, and prudence; indeed, it would, indeed, be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in observing professional behaviour if such matters were ignored or overlooked.

24. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 confirmed that - “..... 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, ….”.

25. The thrust of the Appellant’s case was that he made a mistake in sending the offending photograph and messages to the complainant; that he had apologised and taken remediation steps and should be allowed a second chance.

26. In these Tribunal proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the Appellant to prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that, on the balance of probabilities, he remained a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the Register despite having engaged in unacceptable and unprofessional conduct with a pupil who was a female with vulnerabilities.

27. This appeal revolved around the issue of a lack of professionalism by the Appellant. The Appellant should have known how to conduct himself with a pupil but failed to do so.

28. The very highest standards, not only of driving instructional ability, but of character, behaviour and standards of conduct are expected of an ADI.

29. While seeing and hearing from the Appellant allowed him to appear somewhat more credible there was an insufficient basis upon which to allow the appeal - even on the balance of probabilities.

30. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal decided that if the Appellant’s name were not to be removed from the Register at this stage, too great a potential of risk to the public would exist or be perceived to exist.

31. In reaching its Decision, the Tribunal considered all the evidence and submissions before it and took into account all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

32. The Tribunal must bear in mind the significant importance which attaches to the integrity of the Register. For the public to have trust in the integrity of the Register, the Respondent must act in a way that encourages belief that those whose names were entered onto it, had high standards. Allowing those who do not meet those standards would undermine the trust placed in it with serious consequences for those who do maintain the necessary high standards. These are matters of wider, and public interest, which attract significant weight even where, as in this case, having his name removed from the Register may, potentially, have significant consequences, financial or otherwise, for the Appellant.

33. Taking all of these factors into account and, noting that the Tribunal needs to maintain public trust in the Register and to prioritise consumer protection over the interests of the Appellant as an individual ADI, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant, at the time of the decision under appeal, was not a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the ADI Register.

34. The Tribunal found that sections 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 were not engaged.

35. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.