Dashtawan Ahmad 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 18 November 2024 to 17 May 2025. He was refused a second trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 2 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 12 May 2025 the Registrar informed the Appellant that he was considering refusing his application for a second trainee licence. The Appellant made representations on 12 May 2025 that: (a) He booked a Part 3 test on 28 January 2025 and was given a date of 4 April but this was cancelled by the DVSA. (b) He rescheduled for another date on 2 May 2025 but was not able to make the booking “due to a lack of learners at the appropriate level available at the time” . (c) He had “put himself on hold” for tests in two test centres but there had not been any availability for the past 2 months.

10. On 2 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 13 June 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal: (a) He booked a Part 3 test on 28 January 2025 and was given a date of 4 April but this was cancelled by the DVSA. (b) He rescheduled for another date on 2 May 2025 but was not able to make the booking “due to a lack of learners at the appropriate level available at the time” . (c) He had booked another test for 15 August 2025 and wanted an extension to enable him to prepare for that test. (d) He had made efforts to organise a test following the cancellation but had been unable. (e) He was making every effort to become approved.

12. The Registrar’s statement of case dated 23 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: 17 of the 20 required hours were late. (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. (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. 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. (d) Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once and cancelled a test booked for 2 May 2025. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. (e) 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 40 pages, including the Appellants full trainee licence history from the Registrar.

14. The Appellant clarified at the hearing that the 2 May test was scheduled at the Rotherham test centre, which was then an unfamiliar area both to him and his learners. He explained that it is a particularly challenging test location, being located in an industrial area with 40mph zones and a multi-lane roundabout. He said that he cancelled this test because he did not feel sufficiently prepared to take the test in an area in which he had not had opportunity to teach learners.

15. He said that he then placed himself “on hold” for his two preferred test centres in Sheffield. Unfortunately, no test date was available until 15 August 2025, which he unfortunately failed.

16. He further confirmed that the same day that he failed the test, he again placed himself on hold for a further test. Only in recent weeks has he been given a new date for 8 January 2026. Tribunal’s Findings of Fact

17. The Appellant passed his Part 1 Test on 6 June 2024 and Part 2 Test on 4 October 2024. The Appellant’s first trainee licence was granted on 18 November 2024 for a period of six months. The Appellant’s record of training begins on 18 January 2025 and ends on 10 April 2025. On 28 January 2025, the Appellant booked a Part 3 test, which was scheduled for 15 April 2025. Unfortunately, the DVSA cancelled this test. He then cancelled a test scheduled for 2 May 2025 because it was in an unfamiliar area. No date was available in the area in which he had trained learners until 15 August 2025. Unfortunately, he failed that test. He attempted to book a test the very same day but has only recently been given a test date of 8 January 2026.

18. Although 17 of the learning log hours were outside the first three months of his first licence, this is not the reason that the Appellant was not able to pass his Part 3 test within the period of that licence. The reason that the Appellant was not able to pass the test, and has still yet to pass the test, is that he has been offered only one test at his two preferred test centres, and that was considerably outside the initial 6-month licence period. Simply put, the Appellant has not been given the opportunity to have three attempts at the test, as is envisaged, because of delays outside his control. Conclusions

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

20. 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.

21. The Appellant has already had the benefit of one trainee licence covering a period of six months from 18 November 2024 to 17 May 2025. Additionally, by applying for a second trainee licence the Appellant has had the benefit of s.129(6) (b) of the Act extending the first trainee licence until this appeal is disposed of (i.e. a total period of twelve months to date). Had the second trainee licence been granted this would have expired yesterday.

22. A trainee licence must not become an alternative to qualification by passing the Part 3 test. It was not the intention of Parliament that trainee licences be renewed until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken.

23. However, the reason that the Appellant was not able to have three attempts at the Part 3 test, as is envisaged, within the six-month period of his first licence, is the delay in offering test dates at the Appellant’s two preferred locations. The Registrar failed to engage with that fact, which was wrong.

24. I have considered the decision afresh. It would be unjust not to allow a second licence in these circumstances, which are beyond the Appellant’s control. Licensees should not bear the brunt of delays in offering test dates.

25. I therefore allow this appeal and substitute a decision granting a second licence for a period of six months from today, 18 November 2025, to allow the Appellant to obtain further practical experience before his second attempt at the Part 3 test. Signed Date: 18 November 2025 Judge Taft