Muhammad Kamran v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), for one six-month period from 28 October 2024 to 27 April 2025. He was refused a second trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 4 June 2025. The Appellant now appeals that decision. Legal Framework

2. In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’ comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’). The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part

1. Only three attempts are allowed for each Part. The whole examination must be retaken if an applicant fails Part 2 or Part 3 three times or does not pass both within the two years.

3. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a licence under section 129(1) of the Act: ‘for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination… as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.’

4. This is commonly known as a trainee licence. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

5. By section 129(3) of the Act "The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued."

6. By section 129(8)(c) of the Act "before deciding whether or not to refuse the application, the Registrar must take into consideration any such representations made within that period."

7. By section 129(6) of the Act:- "Notwithstanding any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above prescribing the period for which a licence is to be in force, where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of the application, the previous licence shall not expire— (a)until the commencement of the new licence, or (b) if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limited for an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of."

8. Section 131 of the Act gives a right of appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit. In doing so, the Tribunal must consider whether the Registrar’s decision was wrong. The Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it but must give appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant. The Decision

9. On 6 May 2025 the Registrar informed the Appellant that he was considering refusing his application for a second trainee licence. The Appellant made representations on 6 May 2025 that: (a) His driving school “Pass N Go” had deducted money from his fees to cover training but could not supply a trainer to him to enable him to complete his 20 hours within the 3 months required; (b) In April he was offered training with an inexperienced trainer; (c) Before a test booked on 29 April, he paid for a private training session with a well known trainer who advised him to cancel his test and complain about the Pass N Go trainer; (d) He complained to DVSA who refunded his test fee; (e) Pass N Go continued to deduct money to cover training they were not supplying; (f) He then left Pass N Go and joined a new driving school; (g) He was happy to do more training and take an additional 20 hours with a new trainer; and (h) He wanted a second licence to enable him to keep practising before his Part 3 test.

10. On 4 June 2025, the Registrar notified the Appellant that it refused his application for a second trainee licence. The notice of refusal states the reasons for the refusal as: (a) The Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the first licence. (b) The Appellant had already been granted one trainee licence of six months duration which is considered to be a more than adequate period of time. (c) It was not Parliament’s intention that the candidates should be issued licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination and the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor. The Appeal

11. The Appellant’s notice of appeal dated 16 June 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal: (a) His driving school “Pass N Go” had deducted money from his fees to cover training but could not supply a trainer to him to enable him to complete his 20 hours within the 3 months required; (b) He could not pay for a private trainer because Pass N Go continued to deduct money from his fees so his only option was to wait for them to provide a trainer.

12. The Registrar’s statement of case dated 28 October 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that: (a) The Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of his first licence as the training objectives on his ADI 21 AT training record form were not all completed within the first three months of the licence period. (b) He provided no evidence of lost training time. (c) The purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavouring to achieve registration. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration. (d) The licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the first, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal. (e) Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice and cancelled four tests. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. (f) The refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. He does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on his own (provided that he does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all. The evidence

13. The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence containing 24 pages, including the Appellants full trainee licence history from the Registrar.

14. At the hearing, the Appellant explained that the private trainer he engaged before his test booked in April informed him that he was not ready for the test, and suggested that the training he had received was inadequate. When the Appellant told him the name of his previous trainer, the private trainer informed the Appellant that he was aware that he had only recently passed his ADI test as he himself had trained him. The private trainer suggested that the Appellant cancel his test and complain to the DVSA about the training he had received.

15. The Appellant further explained that because he had not applied for his second licence before the expiry of his first, he had not had the benefit of an extension to his first licence so had been unable to practice with real learners since April.

16. He further explained that he had cancelled tests in March that had been scheduled for an unfamiliar area and that the tests he took and failed in May were also in an unfamiliar area. A further test in June was not completed because the learner did not show up.

17. He further explained that whilst he had not been able to practice with real learners, he had taken private tuition. The test he had booked for 21 November has been rearranged for 3 December but his trainer has suggested that he spend 3-4 months consolidating his learning with real learners, for which he will need a second licence. Tribunal’s Findings of Fact

18. The Appellant passed his Part 1 Test on 2 April 2024 and Part 2 Test on 18 July 2024. The Appellant’s first trainee licence was granted on 28 October 2024 for a period of six months. The Appellant’s record of training begins on 14 April 2025 and ends on 15 April 2025.

19. The Appellant was not able to complete his record of training within 3 months because his driving school did not provide a trainer during that time. The trainer they did provide was so inadequate that the Appellant was not ready to complete his Part 3 test by the time his licence expired on 27 April 2025. He complained to the DVSA and had his test fee refunded.

20. The Appellant applied for a second licence only on 28 April 2025 so has not had the benefit of an extension to his first licence.

21. He failed two attempts at the Part 3 Test on 12 and 22 May 2025. He cancelled tests scheduled for 14 March, 21 March, 17 April and 22 May.

22. Since his licence expired, the Appellant has paid for private tuition but has been advised that he would benefit from 3-4 months experience teaching real learners in order to give him the best opportunity of passing the Part 3 test. Conclusions

23. The Tribunal considered the Appellant’s points of appeal.

24. The six-month period of trainee licences is set on the basis that this is considered to be an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 Test.

25. The Appellant has already had the benefit of one trainee licence covering a period of six months from 28 October 2024 to 27 April 2024. He has not had the benefit of s.129(6)(b) of the Act extending the first trainee licence until this appeal is disposed of because he did not apply for his second licence until 28 April 2025.

26. The Appellant was not able to make any attempts at passing his Part 3 test during the period of his licence through no fault of his own. He paid for training that he did not receive within the timescale required to comply with the conditions of his first licence. The training that was supplied was so inadequate that another trainer encouraged the Appellant to complain to the DVSA, who refunded his test fee.

27. Whilst it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence to prepare for the Part 3 test, the system of trainee licences is designed to allow trainee instructors to practice with real life learners. Trainee instructors do not need a licence to practice with learners without charging a fee but this would only be possible if they were able to find a learner willing to take instruction from them. Holding a trainee licence enables a trainee instructor to source real life learners through a driving school.

28. Of the four cancelled tests, two were scheduled before the Appellant was supplied with training by his driving school, one was only 2 days after that training was supplied and the fourth was the same day as a test taken – i.e. simply rescheduling the test for a different time on the same day. This is not a situation of a trainee instructor repeatedly cancelling tests without explanation.

29. The Appellant was not given adequate training during the period of his first licence through no fault of his own. The Registrar’s decision failed to take that into account and was wrong.

30. I have considered the decision afresh. Contrary to what is stated in the Registrar’s boilerplate Response to the Appeal, the Appellant has not been able to practice with real life learners since April 2025 because he has not had the benefit of an extension to his licence. This has affected his ability to prepare for the Part 3 test.

31. It would be unjust not to allow a second licence in these circumstances, which are beyond the Appellant’s control save in respect of the very short delay in applying for a second licence. The Appellant has not, through not fault of his own, had opportunity to practice with real life learners after receiving adequate training.

32. The Appellant passed his Part 1 test on 2 April 2024 and so the two-year period within which he must have passed Part 3 test expires on 1 April 2026. Whilst I consider that the Registrar’s decision is wrong, it would also be wrong to grant a second licence that would exceed the two-year period from the date the Appellant passed his Part 1 test.

33. I therefore allow this appeal and substitute a decision granting a third licence from today, 18 November 2025, to allow the Appellant to obtain further practical experience before his second attempt at the Part 3 test. That licence must however expire on 1 April 2026. SignedDate: 18 November 2025 Judge Taft