Ben Hough
Introduction
Ben Hough worked as a supply teacher through Time Plan Education Group Limited, a Southampton recruitment agency which engaged him between 3 March 2020 and 23 September 2020 and placed him as a PE teacher and/or supply teacher at a number of schools. In August 2025 a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found all four allegations against him proved: a 2008 conviction for driving with excess alcohol, consuming cocaine while working through the agency, and two drug-driving convictions covering four counts. The panel recommended a prohibition order, and the decision maker, David Oatley, prohibited Hough from teaching indefinitely, with a seven-year review period.
Background Information
The case surfaced through a witness identified in the decision only as Witness A, who attended the scene of an incident on 20 June 2020, when Hough was found on the floor after a suspected seizure, and who later made a safeguarding referral, concerned that the role of a teacher placed Hough in a position of trust. On 2 February 2021 the agency itself submitted a [REDACTED] referral in relation to Hough. The TRA issued its notice of proceedings on 10 April 2025, and the panel convened on 4 and 5 August 2025 by way of a virtual hearing. Hough was not present and was not represented, so the panel treated the allegations as though they were denied.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Old convictions, recent cocaine use, and a repeated pattern of drug-driving.
The first allegation concerned 25 February 2008, when Hough was convicted at Chichester Magistrates Court of driving a motor car with excess alcohol on 1 January 2008, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He was fined £200 and disqualified for 16 months, and the decision records a blood test reading of 135mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood. The panel accepted a certified court extract as conclusive proof and found the allegation proved.
The second allegation was that, while working as a teacher through the agency, on or around 20 June 2020, he consumed a Class A drug (cocaine). Witness A, who described Hough as being in a postictal state, said Hough told him he had taken one gram of cocaine at around 14.30, told him during a telephone conversation that he was a ‘regular user of cocaine.’, and claimed he would continue to use cocaine; Witness A also saw drug paraphernalia including a ‘melting spoon’ and IV needles. On the balance of probability the panel found this allegation proved. It determined that consuming Class A drugs whilst engaged by an agency to provide supply teaching services fell significantly below the standard expected, amounting to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
The third and fourth allegations were convictions at East Hampshire Magistrates Court: on 5 November 2020, two counts of driving a motor vehicle with the proportion of specified controlled drug above the specified limit on 29 February 2020, for which he was disqualified for 18 months and fined £750 for one offence; and on 26 April 2021, two counts relating to 14 August 2020, for which he received a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, an unpaid work requirement and an 18-month disqualification. The panel accepted the certified memoranda of conviction as conclusive proof and found these were convictions of relevant offences: “The panel determined that both the nature and gravity of these offences were serious. The panel noted that Mr Hough’s conduct (by taking class A drugs and driving) was repeated and sustained.” It further found that “Mr Hough failed to demonstrate insight into his behaviour”, that “There was no evidence that Mr Hough had shown remorse for his behaviour”, and that there was a high risk of repetition.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published decision is a regulatory record and contains no press coverage. The only mitigating factor the panel identified was that there had been no prior adverse findings; against that it set deliberate actions, a sustained pattern of behaviour, a disregard for the law on multiple occasions, and the absence of remorse, insight or remediation. “The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Hough. The persistency of Mr Hough’s offending and his failure to engage with these proceedings was a significant factor in forming that opinion.” The panel accordingly recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and a review period of seven years.
David Oatley, deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State, imposed the prohibition order, dating his decision 6 August 2025 following the determination of 5 August 2025. The concrete consequences are the indefinite ban from teaching in England and the published findings themselves.
Current Status
Hough is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 6 August 2032 — seven years from the date of the order — at the earliest, and this is not an automatic right: if he does apply, a fresh panel will consider whether the order should be set aside, and without a successful application he remains prohibited indefinitely. The order takes effect from the date it is served on him, and he had a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he was given notice of it.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition order ends any teaching career in England unless the 2032 application route succeeds. The panel “was not provided with any evidence regarding Mr Hough’s competence as an educator nor were any character references provided”, and Hough played no part in the proceedings that ended his career. The decision maker placed considerable weight on the absence of insight and remorse and the high risk of repetition. “A period of 7 years will afford Mr Hough sufficient time and opportunity, should he wish to do so, to take steps to fully rehabilitate and remediate his conduct and demonstrate that he has insight into the nature, cause and effect of his conduct.”