Shorof Ahmed 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 2 nd June 2025, to refuse to grant the Appellant a second trainee licence.

2. The matter was decided on the papers, by agreement. Legal Framework

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

4. 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.

5. 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.’

6. 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’).

7. Three attempts are permitted at each part. The final Part 3 test, must be booked within 2 years of passing Part 1. If it is not passed, the whole Qualifying Examination has 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. 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.

10. 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.

11. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant. Factual Background to the Appeal

12. The Appellant had not previously been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

13. The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 10 th November 2023 and Part 2 on 28 th November 2024.

14. The Appellant was in receipt of a trainee licence which was valid from 7 th October 2024 to 6 th April 2025.

15. On 8 th March 2025 the Appellant was involved in a car accident in which his vehicle was written off and he was injured. According to his claim form he continued to train and prepare for his test at that time.

16. On 25 th March 2025 an attempt at the Part 3 test was cancelled by the Appellant.

17. On 22 nd April 2025 the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence. This application was therefore made after the expiry of the first trainee license.

18. On 15 th May 2025 the Appellant was informed, by the Respondent, that he was considering refusing the application and invited to make representations.

19. The Appellant made representations to the Respondent on 20 th May 2025. He provided details of the car accident and subsequent medical procedure. He said that, owing to the stress of the accident and having to obtain another vehicle his training had been disrupted.

20. The application was refused on 2 nd June 2025.

21. The reasons for the Respondent’s decision, in summary, were that he had failed to comply with the conditions of his first license.

22. On 8 th July 2025 the Appellant failed his first Part 3 test attempt.

23. A further test was booked on 28 th October 2025. The outcome is not known to me. Appeal to the Tribunal

24. The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 10 th June 2025.

25. The grounds of appeal were, in summary, that: a. the Appellant made an error in the documents provided and had, in fact, completed the relevant training and complied with his first license; b. Post-accident stress and the birth of his child meant that he made an error in the training logs that were provided to the Respondent when he was required to; c. when the Appellant applied for his first test he was put on hold and not given a test date until 25 th March 2025 which he had to postpone because he was in a “difficult time period”; d. the Appellant had an operation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in April 2025 which meant that he could not prepare or train students for some time.

26. The Respondent, in his response, stated: a. the Appellant had not complied with the conditions of the first license as the requisite training requirement had not been completed in the first 3 months; b. there was no evidence of lost training time given that the medical evidence was dated two days prior to the expiry of the license; c. the system of issuing licences is not an alternative to the system of registration; d. the Appellant has had sufficient time to prepare, from the granting of the license to the determination of the appeal; e. despite having had ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; and f. the refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations.

27. It should be noted that the Respondent included a standard paragraph in its response at 6(ii) in which he stated that the Appellant had applied for his second license before the expiry of the first one and he was therefore allowed to continue paid instruction until the determination of this appeal. That is incorrect. The application was made after the expiry of the license and the Appellant was (and is) not lawfully entitled to give paid instruction. Evidence

28. I read and took account of a bundle of documents prepared by the Respondent. Discussion and Conclusions

29. I may overturn the decision of the Respondent if I am of the opinion that it was wrong. The burden is on the Appellant to show this.

30. I accept the evidence of the Appellant with regard to the difficulties faced after his car accident.

31. However the Appellant has not provided any evidence of the training completed within the first three months of his first trainee license. He has not, therefore, persuaded me that the decision of the registrar was wrong.

32. The Appeal is dismissed.