Mohammad Abid Gulzar v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 6 November 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence. Legal Framework

2. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.

3. A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

4. A 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.’

5. In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

6. Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. Factual Background to the Appeal

10. The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 6 August 2024. He passed Part 2 on 2 September 2024. He failed a first attempt at the Part 3 on 8 March 2025 and failed a second attempt at the Part 3 test on 8 September 2025.

11. The Appellant has one remaining attempt at the Part 3 test and this test is booked for 26 April 2026.

12. The Appellant applied for a trainee licence which was granted and was valid from 14 October 2024 to 13 October 2025 following an application for a second licence.

13. The Appellant, applied for a third trainee licence on 3 October 2025 which was refused by the Registrar.

14. The reasons for the Registrar’s decision, in summary, were that th e Appellant provided no evidence to support loss of training time, the Appellant appeared to be using the licence as a source of income, the Appellant had the benefit of two trainee licences for a period of 12 months, which is considered more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass a Part 3 test, it was not Parliament’s intention to licence candidates for as long as it takes them to pass the examination and that the trainee licence must not become an alternative to registration as a fully qualified ADI. Appeal to the Tribunal

15. The grounds of appeal are, in summary the Appellant has faced significant challenges due to physical and psychological injuries arising from a road traffic accident in which he was shunted from the rear whilst delivering a lesson to a pupil. This caused lost time in practice and losing his licence at this stage would cause significant hardship.

16. The Registrar in his response states: a. 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. b. 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. c. Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice. Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. d. The refusal of a third 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. e. The Appellant has a final attempt at the Part 3 test booked for 26 April 2026. Evidence

17. I read and took account of a bundle of documents from the Respondent and a bundle provided by the Appellant. Discussion and Conclusions

18. I accept that the Appellant has faced difficulties arising from the physical and psychological injuries sustained due to the the road traffic accident he was involved in during the period of his previous licence. However, I also note that at the time of lodging this appeal, the Appellant considered that he had addressed the issues arising from the road traffic accident and was able to now provide proper tuition and practice.

19. The Appellant has failed two Part 3 tests. However, I note that, at the time the bundle was prepared, the Appellant had secured a further date for his final attempt at the Part 3 test to take place in April 2026.

20. I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licence covering a period of 12 months. Moreover, by virtue of his application for a third licence prior to the expiry of his second licence, the Appellant has retained his trainee licence until the date of this decision and has been permitted to provide paid instruction during this time.

21. However, I accept that the circumstances of the Appellant have meant that she has not had reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act .

22. Having weighed all matters in the balance, I am persuaded that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in that the Registrar failed to give adequate regard to the Appellant’s circumstances which explained why he had not been able to gain the necessary skills and experience to pass his Part 3 test earlier. These are relevant factors which should have been taken into account by the Registrar. I also consider that the Registrar was wrong in determining that the evidence provided by the appellant did not show lost training time.

23. I am mindful that, because this appeal was lodged “in time,” the appellant has in effect already benefited from the continued validity of his licence pending the outcome of the Appeal. This has extended his licence by over 4 months. In practical terms, the appellant has already partly received the advantage he sought. I have also considered the points raised by the Registrar regarding the intended purpose of a trainee driving licence.

24. I note that the appellant has his final attempt at the Part 3 test booked for 26 April 2026. In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to extend the appellant’s trainee licence to 26 April 2026, at which point he will have hopefully passed the Part 3 test and if not, would not be permitted to hold a trainee licence in any event given that only three attempts of the Part 3 test are permitted.

25. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and direct that the Appellant’s trainee licence is extended until 26 April 2026.