Abdur Rahim Mizan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), for two consecutive six-month periods from 24 June 2024 to 23 June 2025. They were refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 11 August 2025 . The Appellant now appeals that decision.

2. The parties have agreed to a paper determination of the appeal. The Tribunal is satisfied that it can properly determine the issues without a hearing within rule 32(1)(b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended).

3. What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference by us to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered. Legal Framework

4. The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and is therefore prohibited from giving paid driving instructions by section 123 (1) of the Act unless they hold a trainee licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act .

5. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. A trainee licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted: ‘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.’

6. 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’).

7. The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1, and only three attempts are allowed for each Part, failure to comply with either of these requirements results in the whole examination needing to be retaken.

8. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted 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.

9. 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."

10. 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."

11. 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."

12. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act . The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

13. When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving 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 Appeal

14. The Appellant’s notice of appeal dated 18 August 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal: a. The Appellant did not get enough pupils at the start of this process. b. The Appellant didn’t get much practice either because they were still doing another job full time then. c. The Appellant didn’t originally know how the process worked, but now following more reading and training the Appellant is fully confident to pass the Part 3 test. So, they would like another licence so they can complete Part 3.

15. The Appellant’s notice of appeal also stated that the desired outcome of the appeal is “I would like a further licence grant(ed) ”.

16. The Appellant’s representations to the Registrar of the 16 July 2025 additionally sets out that if the request to have a further trainee licence is refused it will have significant financial consequences, as they have invested heavily in this training and the students they take are the Appellant’s only source of income. The Appellant also noted that they had undertaken further intensive training sessions but the test date remains on hold by the DVSA

17. The Registrar’s notice of refusal dated 11 August 2025, takes the representations made by the Appellant in various correspondence into consideration and states the reasons for the refusal as: a. The Appellant provided no evidence to support the claim of a lack of pupils or practice time and the Appellant appears to be using the licence as a source of income. b. The Appellant had already been granted two trainee licences each 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.

18. The Registrar’s statement of case dated 6 November 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar, in summary, states that: a. The Appellant provided no evidence of lost training time or a lack of pupils and has had the benefit of two trainee licenses for a total period of 12 months (para 5). b. 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 (para 6(i)). c. 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. The Appellant has already had two trainee licences which cover a period of 12 months. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a third licence before the expiry date of the second, 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 (para 6(ii)). d. Since passing the driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice and cancelled one more such test as well as a further non-completed test due to bad weather. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. (para 6(iii)). e. The refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. They do not need to hold a trainee licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for them 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 their own (provided that they do not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all (para 6(iv)). The evidence

19. We considered a bundle of evidence containing 22 numbered pages. Conclusions

20. We have considered the Appellant’s points of appeal.

21. The trainee licence provisions do not exist primarily to provide a source of income but instead exist to assist individuals in obtaining the full qualification necessary for a career as an ADI. It is also notable that these trainee licences are always time limited and there should be no expectation that additional licences after the first will always be granted. Individuals undergoing the process of training to be an ADI must therefore ensure that they have the necessary income to support themselves from other sources in light of these facts.

22. We are aware that it can be difficult to book a Part 3 test (and in fact other related tests), but that in itself is not a reason to grant further licences given it is not necessary to have such a licence in order to take and pass the Part 3 test.

23. Despite it being a common misunderstanding, it is not the case that individuals are entitled to continual renewal of trainee licences until they pass their Part 3 test. The six month period of such licences is set on the basis this is in itself an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 Test, and it is not necessary to hold a Trainee Licence in order to either prepare for or to take the Part 3 test.

24. We note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a total period of 12 months from 24 June 2024 to 23 June 2025. Additionally, because of the rules regarding appeals set out above the Appellant has additionally benefited from a further period of over 5 months where the last Trainee Licence was extended till this appeal has been determined. It is not necessary for an individual to have a trainee licence in order to take the Part 3 test and some candidates take and pass part 3 without providing training for payment at all. The Appellant has had nearly triple the period within which to fit the same experience in, that many do in just 6 months.

25. The Appellant has not persuaded us that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, we agree with the Registrar’s decision and dismiss this appeal. Signed Tribunal Judge T Barrett Date: 2/12/2025