Mustafa Tavakolizaniani v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The appeal is REFUSED.

The hearing was conducted by a Judge, sitting alone. The appeal was determined on consideration of the papers alone. In his Notice of Appeal, the Appellant had ticked a box to indicate that he wanted his appeal to decided without a hearing

This appeal is from a trainee driving instructor who was granted two trainee licences under s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”) and was then refused a further licence at the end of the twelve months’ period. A licence under s.129(1) 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”.

The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in s.129 of the Act and in the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (“the Regulations”). In order to qualify as an approved driving instructor an applicant must pass the qualifying examination, which is in three parts: the written examination; the driving ability and fitness test; and the instructional ability and fitness test (see reg.3(2)). Each part must be passed in the stated order and before the next part is attempted. Three attempts at each part are permitted but the whole examination must be completed within two years of passing the written examination (but subject to reg.3(4)(c) which permits a further attempt at the Part Three test outside the period if the booking was made within it). Failure so to complete requires the whole examination to be retaken. A trainee licence may be granted under s.129 of the Act once the driving ability and fitness test has been passed. The holding of a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification; on the contrary, many applicants qualify without having held such a licence.

It is self-evident that the grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to instruct for payment before they are qualified. The Appellant did so and failed to pass the instructional ability and fitness test within the twelve months’ period. The Appellant applied for a further licence prior to the end of this period and by s.129(6) of the Act “where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of application, the previous licence shall not expire ….. until ….. an appeal is finally disposed of”. The effect of this is that the Appellant has been able to continue to instruct under his licence, despite the expiry dates. Of course, if prior to disposal of the appeal he passes the instructional ability and fitness test, he then ceases to be a trainee and is no longer eligible for a further trainee licence. If on the other hand he fails this test after three attempts, the appeal is itself also bound to fail since by reg.13(2)(d) of the Regulations a further trainee licence may not be granted if the instructional ability and fitness test has been failed “more than twice”.

When the Appellant applied for a trainee licence he signed an application form, which included a declaration that he had read the Department’s booklet ADI 14. This booklet contained the following advice:

“If you are not using the licence for any reason, you should return it to us. Although you will not receive a refund for lost training time, we will know that you have not had full use of the licence and this will be a factor in deciding whether to issue a subsequent licence.”

The Registrar gave the following general reasons for refusal:

“(i)

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;

(ii)

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.”

In addition, the Registrar added further reasons which were specific to the individual case. Those discrete reasons are set out in below

Two licences were granted to the Appellant under section 129 of the Act for the purposes of enabling him to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and were valid from 5 February 2024 to 4 February 2025. On 21 January 2025 the Registrar received an application from the Appellant for a third licence. Following notification to the Appellant that the Registrar was considering the refusal of his application for the third licence, the Appellant made representations to the Registrar. After considering those representations, the Registrar decided to refuse the application and notified the Appellant of that decision by way of correspondence dated 17 February 2025. The Appellant has appealed against the decision dated 17 February 2025.

In the Statement of Case the Registrar has set out the reasons for the refusal of the application. These included the general reasons set out in paragraph 5 and the following reasons specific to this Appellant:

I have a copy of the DVSA print-out, which shows that the Appellant failed the Part III test on 21 October 2024 and 10 March 2025. It also confirms that the Appellant cancelled the bookings for twelve more such tests on various dates.

In his Notice of Appeal, the Appellant made the following submissions:

The submissions made by the Appellant in his notice of appeal reflect parallel submissions made by him in his written representations to the Registrar.

As at the date of this decision the Appellant had had the benefit of a Trainee Licence for close to 19 months. This period includes the time from the date of the Appellant’s appeal against the Registrar’s decision. As was noted by the Registrar, 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

I have noted the Case Management Direction (CMD) issued by the Legal Officer (LO) on 30 June 2025. At paragraph 2 (a) of the CMD, the LO stated the following:

This Direction is important as it alerts the parties, including the Appellant, to forward any additional evidence on which they wish to rely to office of the GRC by 7 July 2025.

In his Notice of Appeal, the Appeal sets out several grounds of appeal, and adds:

It is clear to me that the Respondent has formed the view that he had sufficient evidence to support his decision to refuse the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence. Accordingly, the Respondent was under no duty to seek further evidence from the Appellant in connection with the submissions which he had made in his written representations to the Registrar and in his Notice of Appeal.

In his Notice of Appeal, the Appellant has made submissions in connection with his wife’s serious illness, his requirement to dedicate substantial time and attention to her care and the consequent impact on his ability to undertake training or adequately prepare for Part III examination. It seems to me that rather than rely on requests from the Registrar for evidence information or supporting documentation in relation to this ground, the Appellant, in order to make his case as fully as possible, would have advanced such corroborative evidence himself.

The same observation applies to his submission concerning lost training and preparation. There is in my view, a degree of incongruence between the Appellant’s assertion that he had not been able to focus of training and preparation and his further statement that:

The Appellant has submitted that:

Once again, this is inconsistent with the fact that the Appellant obtained twelve appointments for his Part III examination and cancelled each of these. No explanation has been offered for the high cancellation rate.

I have given credit to the Appellant for his stated commitment to a career as a Professional ADI.

I have noted the Registrar’s observation that when the Appellant applied for a trainee licence he signed an application form, which included a declaration that he had read the Department’s booklet ADI 14. In turn his booklet contained advice that if the Appellant was not using the licence for any reason it should be returned to the DSA. He was informed that this would mean that ‘…we will know that you have not had full use of the licence and this will be a factor in deciding whether to issue a subsequent licence.’ The Appellant chose not to return his licence.

The Appellant has failed the Part III examinations on two occasions.

In my judgment he has now had more than enough time in which to gain practical experience in giving instruction.

As was noted by the Registrar, 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.

I uphold the Registrar’s decision and accept and endorse the reasons given for that decision by the Registrar as set out in the Statement of Case. Accordingly, the appeal is REFUSED with immediate effect.