Shahed Miah v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 13 March 2025 to remove the Appellant from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”) on the basis that he failed to meet a condition of continued registration, namely that he failed to pass a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction (“the check test”) as required by section 128(2)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 on four consecutive occasions.

The Appellant and Respondent both joined the hearing remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

In accordance with section 128(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Registrar gave notice in writing to the Appellant of his decision to remove his name from the Register on 13 March 2025.

The notice stated that the Registrar had reached the conclusion to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register as the Appellant had failed the check test on four consecutive occasions, namely on 28 November 2022, 14 March 2023, 18 October 2023 and 31 January 2025.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 01 April 2025, relied on the following grounds:

The Statement of the Registrar, dated 28 August 2025, resisted the appeal and stated the following:

Section 125(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 imposes a condition for an Approved Driving Instructor to submit themselves for a test of continued fitness and ability if required to do so by the Registrar.

Where an Approved Driving Instructor fails such a test, the Registrar may remove that person from the Register under section 128(1) and section 128(2)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Although the Road Traffic Act 1988 only requires one test, it is the Registrar’s normal practice to allow three attempts for the Approved Driving Instructor to reach the required standard.

An appeal against the conduct of a check test by a person who has failed it must be made to the Magistrates’ Court and not to this Tribunal.

The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Tribunal may make such order for the grant or refusal of the application, or for the removal or the retention of the name in the register, or the revocation or continuation of the licence (as the case may be), as it thinks fit (section 131(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988).

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.

I have considered a bundle of evidence containing 85 pages (including the index). I also heard representations from the Appellant and from the Respondent during the hearing.

The Appellant was first entered in the Register in July 2019. His current period of registration will expire on 31 July 2027.

The bundle of evidence included the record of the Standards Checks that had taken place. It stated that each of the four check tests had been conducted by a different examiner (“JM”, “BC”, “SO” and “CoC”).

During the remote hearing, the Appellant stated that the examiner who had conducted the fourth check test (CoC) had also been present during his first check test. He stated that he had made multiple complaints about CoC, and so felt that it was wholly inappropriate that CoC had conducted his final test as he was biased against him.

The Appellant stated that repeated racist comments had been made towards him and towards his students by members of DVSA staff. He stated that he had been targeted and had been treated unfairly. He stated that the circumstances that surrounded his failed tests meant that it would have been impossible for him to pass them.

The Appellant also asserted that he had not received any feedback following his previous test attempts, despite asking for it to be provided to him. He stated that he was entirely capable of performing his job.

I have carefully considered all of the evidence and submissions in this appeal.

It is not disputed that the Appellant has failed the check test on four occasions over a period of approximately twenty-six months.

The Appellant complains about the conduct of his check tests, particularly the first, third and fourth ones. I note that his complaints in respect of his third check test were not upheld by the DVSA or by the Independent Complaints Assessor. I also note that the Appellant has not appealed to the Magistrates’ Court to challenge the conduct of the fourth check test, which is the appropriate jurisdiction in which to do so. This Tribunal cannot overturn the result of the fourth check test and this is also not the appropriate forum to make a complaint against an examiner.

Whilst I note the Appellant’s submissions that the fourth examiner was biased against him from the start, and that the same examiner had also been involved to some extent in his first check test, it is clear that four separate examiners have all reached the conclusion that, following a check test, the Appellant did not meet the required standard for continuation as an Approved Driving Instructor. I also note that, notwithstanding the Appellant’s contention that he did not receive any feedback after each check test, the scoring records for the first three check tests show that he received feedback in the form of both a breakdown of his scores and via written comments.

In considering afresh whether the decision to remove the Appellant from the Register was correct, I bear in mind the significant importance which attaches to the integrity of the Register. Entry onto and remaining on the Register is a public endorsement of a high standard of competence on the part of the Registrar. Those on the Register must have and maintain such high standards, and the requirement to pass regular tests is one way of achieving that objective. Allowing those who do not meet the standards to remain on the Register would undermine the trust placed in it. This is a matter of significant weight, even if removal from the Register will have consequences for an individual, as I accept is the case here. It cannot be ignored that the Appellant has now failed the check test on four separate occasions.

Having considered all of the facts and circumstances, I consider that the Registrar’s decision was clearly correct and that removal from the Register is the appropriate sanction.

I therefore dismiss this appeal.