Atif Hussain v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 31 March 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

The proceedings were held by online video (CVP). The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The Appellant joined remotely. The Registrar did not attend. Notice of Hearing was sent by email to the Registrar with correct details on 10 June 2025. It was indicated in advance that the Registrar did not intend to be represented at a hearing of this type. That being so, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in their absence. In reaching a decision, the Tribunal has fully considered the Respondent’s written submissions.

In the decision, the Registrar says that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences lasting 12 months. The Registrar considers that this has given the Appellant sufficient opportunity to gain the necessary experience to pass the Qualifying Examination to become an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). They have failed to provide any evidence to support lost training time or a lack of pupils.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal is dated 13 April 2025. It essentially relies upon the cancellation by the DVSA of their second attempt at the Part 3 test scheduled for 25 February 2025. By the time the test was re-scheduled on 17 May 2025, there was limited time to pass the test before expiry of their theory test certificate.

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 29 September 2025 resists the appeal. The Appellant did not provide a reply.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified as an ADI. A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

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.’

The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 set out that to qualify as an ADI, 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’). Three attempts at Part 3 are permitted. The whole examination must be completed (or application made to take the Part 3 test) within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination must be retaken (regulation 3(4)(c)).

If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. However, holding a trainee licence is not necessary in order to qualify as an ADI, and many people qualify without having held a trainee licence.

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 Tribunal has considered a bundle of evidence composed of 21 pages plus index.

This includes evidence of the Appellant’s full licence history. It records that the Appellant has failed the Part 3 test twice and had two tests cancelled by DVSA. A further test date is booked for 3 November 2025.

At the hearing, the Appellant explained that he considers it unfair that a third trainee licence was refused when it was the DVSA who had cancelled his Part 3 test on two occasions. This had prolonged the process. The Appellant had not cancelled any test dates himself.

In answer to the Registrar’s point that the Appellant had failed to provide any evidence of lost training time or lack of pupils, the Appellant said that he had not lost training time and did not have a lack of pupils.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 17 May 2023 and passed Part 2 on 30 October 2023.

The Appellant is not now and never has been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

Two licences were granted to the Appellant under section 129 of the Act to gain practical experience to assist in passing Part 3 of the Qualifying Examination. The licences were valid from 4 March 2024 to 3 March 2025.

On 26 February 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. As the Appellant applied before their second licence expired, the Appellant has had the benefit of a trainee licence for over 19 months by the time of the hearing.

By email sent on 6 March 2025 the Registrar notified the Appellant that he was considering refusal of the application for a third licence.

The Appellant made representations in response on 19 March 2025 explaining the impact of the DVSA cancelling their second attempt at the Part 3 test, and their need to qualify as an ADI in order to support their family.

Having considered those representations, the Registrar gave notice to refuse the licence application on 31 March 2025.

In summary, the reasons for the Registrar’s decision were:

The Appellant’s grounds of appeal may be summarised as follows:

The outcome sought in the Notice of Appeal is an extension of the trainee licence until the Appellant’s third and final attempt at the Part 3 examination.

I accept that the Appellant had two Part 3 tests cancelled by the DVSA. Having failed the Part 3 test twice, the Appellant has secured a further test date on 3 November 2025. I am also sympathetic to the Appellant’s personal circumstances and financial need to qualify as an ADI.

Whilst the DVSA did cancel two tests, it is simply unknown whether the Appellant would have passed on either occasion. It is a factor that carries little weight in my deliberations. Had the application for a third licence been granted for another 6 months it would have expired by now.

It is only 10 days (from the date of hearing) until the Appellant’s next test. Should the Appellant fail that third and final attempt, then any trainee licence would expire the day after, and the Appellant would need to start the Qualifying Examination again.

I am not satisfied that granting a new licence for a short period would serve the required purpose of section 129(1) of the Act of enabling the Appellant to acquire the practical experience required in giving driving instruction to take the test. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken

Having weighed all matters in the balance, I am not satisfied that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and the appeal is dismissed.