The move would radically alter the nascent civil sanctions regime; Mr Letwin said regulators imposing sanctions directly without recourse to the courts was “intolerable”.
Forcing firms who wish to appeal to face “the full weight of the regulators solicitors” was an unacceptable prospect, he argued.
‘Sloppy regulation’
Mr Letwin added that bypassing the judicial process would lead to “sloppy regulation”. Sanctions would be based on flimsy evidence if the current approach continues, he believes. But this view disregards the strong protections provided by the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008.
Only regulators deemed by the Better Regulation Executive, part of the business department (BIS), to be transparent and accountable, with proportionate and consistent enforcement, can issue sanctions.
Appeals Process
Currently an ADI has the option to appeal any decision made by the Registrar with regards to removal from the register. Any appeal is heard by the First Tier of the Transport Tribunal.
The appeals process would still be available to any instructor issued with a civil sanction, however there s a sting in the tail.
Only grounds for appeal;
a. That the decision to impose the penalty was based on an error of fact
b. That the decision was wrong in law;
c. That the decision was unreasonable.
Currently win or lose there is no cost to the ADI, if civil sanction come in this changes. An instructor taking his/her case to the Transport Tribunal and loses would have to pick up the bill for the tribunals and DSA costs. From the pilot consultation on civil sanctions it was estimated these costs would be £3860, plus the civil sanction.