Raja Wajahat v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

REASONS

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 3 July 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

2. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who has previously been granted two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”). The first and second licences ran consecutively between 10 June 2024 and 9 June 2025. The Appellant applied for a third trainee licence on 4 June 2025 (although the application is dated 3 June 2025). This application was refused by the Registrar on 3 July 2025. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

3. The hearing was listed to held by CVP at 10am today. The parties were informed of the hearing mode, date and time by email from the Tribunal dated 21 August 2025 which was sent to the email address the Appellant provided on his appeal documents. The Appellant did not attend at 10am for the hearing. The Tribunal’s clerk attempted twice to contact the Appellant on the telephone number provided but could not reach the Appellant.

4. I waited until 10.15 and in the absence of any written or telephone communication from the Appellant (and also in the absence of the Registrar, who also does not ordinarily attend trainee licence hearings, as he has previously informed the Tribunal), I cancelled the hearing.

5. I have considered whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Appellant in accordance with r.36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended). I am satisfied that both parties have been notified of the hearing. I also consider that is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the Appellant’s absence. The interests of justice require the fair and efficient allocation of the Tribunal’s resources. In the absence of any explanation from the Appellant as to his failure to attend the hearing, I consider that I should now proceed to determine the case on the papers and have done so.. The Appeal

6. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was filed on 15 July 2025 (but incorrectly dated 15 May 2025). It relies on two grounds which can be summarised as follows: a. First, the Appellant’s ability to practice has been significantly limited by his part time work on another job. This has restricted his ability to teach pupils. His franchise has been unable to provide pupils that align with his schedule. Pupils that have been provided have either been test-ready or only required a few lessons. In some cases, his pupils have cancelled or changed their minds before lessons could commence. b. Second, and relatedly, these challenges have considerably impacted the Appellant’s ability to train, and hindered his ability to develop the necessary skills to pass his test of instructional ability or “Part 3” test. He failed his second attempt at the Part 3 test on 24 March 2025.

7. The Registrar has filed a Statement of Case dated 21 November 2025 in which he resists the appeal. The Registrar says that he was correct to refuse the application for a third trainee licence because: a. The Appellant would have been aware of his personal circumstances, including other employment commitments, prior to applying for his trainee licences. He has already had the benefit of two trainee licences for twelve months. b. The purpose of the provisions governing the issue of trainee 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 an alternative to the system of registration. c. The purpose of a trainee licence is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the exams but to allow a confined period of experience of instruction. Six months is ordinarily a very reasonable period in which to reach the necessary standard and in particular to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. The Appellant has already had two trainee licences, and by virtue of his appeal in respect of his latest application, his second licence has remained in force, which allows him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal. d. Since passing his driving ability test, the Appellant has failed the Part 3 test twice and “cancelled” two more tests in November and December 2024 (the latter of which was not completed due to a late cancellation). The Registrar contends that the Appellant has had ample time to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). e. The refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting to pass his Part 3 test and a licence is not required for that purpose. It is not essential for the Appellant to give professional tuition under licences for in order to obtain further training. He could attend a training course, or study and practice with an ADI, or give tuition on his own, providing that he does not receive payment of any kind. These are alternatives which do not require any licence.

8. The Registrar notes that the Appellant has booked his final attempt at a Part 3 test but is awaiting an available date. The law

9. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in section 129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

10. 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 ”.

11. In order to qualify as an ADI, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This is made up of: the written examination (Part 1); the driving ability and fitness test (Part 2); and the instructional ability and fitness test (Part 3). Three attempts are permitted at each part.

12. The Part 3 test which the trainee must pass to qualify must be booked within two years of passing Part 1, otherwise the whole examination has to be retaken – see r.3(4)(c) and (d) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

13. A candidate may be granted a trainee licence if they have passed Part 2. However, holding a trainee licence is not necessary in order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, and many people qualify without having held a trainee licence.

14. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act . The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit ( section 131(3) ). 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 evidence

15. I have considered a bundle of evidence containing 26 pages.

16. I have carefully considered all of the evidence in the hearing bundle. That evidence also includes a printout from the Appellant’s records from the Registrar. This shows that the Appellant passed his Part 1 test on 26 February 2024 and passed his Part 2 test on 10 May 2024. He failed a Part 3 test on 13 November 2024, cancelled a Part 3 test on 21 November 2024, did not complete a Part 3 test on 9 December 2024, and finally failed his second attempt at the Part 3 test on 24 March 2025.

17. Part of the evidence provided by the Appellant included a letter from his driving instructor franchise dated 17 June 2025. This corroborates the Appellant’s evidence as to his part time job and the limited opportunities with which the franchise could provide him as a result. It states that the Appellant has now left his part time other job. This has led to him having greater availability and consequently he has been able to take on more pupils so as to obtain the necessary skills. Discussion and Conclusion

18. I have given careful consideration to all of the evidence in this case. I am conscious that in some cases, personal circumstances, including the need to provide for a family or spouse, may mean that trainee ADIs may need to work alongside their training in order to earn sufficient money for themselves and for their families or dependants. That applies all the more when, as this Tribunal has seen on numerous appeals, there is a well-established shortage of tests for trainee ADIs to take and often frequent delays and cancellations in the process. Each case and application for a further trainee licence, including a third trainee licence, should therefore be considered on its own facts.

19. In these circumstances, depending on the Appellant’s evidence and personal circumstances, I might have been minded to consider that the Registrar was wrong to refuse to award him a third trainee licence. However, by the very nature of his “in-time” appeal, the Appellant has, in practice, had the benefit of a third trainee licence which would have expired today had it originally been granted by the Registrar.

20. The Appellant has not provided the Tribunal with any evidence as to (a) when he booked his third Part 3 test, (b) how long he has been waiting for his third Part 3 test or (c) when his third Part 3 test will take place. There is also an absence of evidence about his own personal circumstances beyond the limited averment as to his part time job. This means that there is a limit to the weight which the Tribunal can put on the value of the evidence which he has provided because it lacks any relevant context.

21. Accordingly, in all the circumstances and where the Appellant has had, by virtue of his appeal, the very benefit which he originally sought, I have decided to refuse the appeal. It is academic in the circumstances and there is no evidential basis for me to further extend the Appellant’s licence beyond today.