Aftab Ahmed Ali v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

The Appellant held a trainee licence under Section 129(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 from 16 December 2024 to 15 June 2025.

On 10 June 2025, he applied for a second trainee licence. The Registrar refused the application on 02 July 2025, citing non-compliance with training conditions and failure to meet qualifying standards.

The Appellant appealed the decision, citing personal difficulties including health issues and a custody case, and challenges in booking the Part 3 instructional ability test.

Under Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, paid driving instruction may only be given by individuals on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or those holding a valid trainee licence under Section 129.

The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005, Regulation 15(3)(a), requires that a trainee instructor must complete not less than 20 hours of additional training within the first three months of the licence period or before the first Part 3 test, whichever is sooner.

The purpose of the trainee licence scheme is to provide a limited opportunity (up to six months) for candidates to gain practical experience while preparing for qualification. It is not intended to be a substitute for registration.

The Appellant failed to complete the required 20 hours of training within the first three months of his licence, as evidenced by the incomplete ADI 21AT training record.

The Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice and has not booked his final attempt.

The Registrar’s decision letter dated 02 July 2025 sets out clear reasons for refusal, including the Appellant’s failure to meet the training condition and the availability of alternative routes to qualification.

The Appellant’s representations, while sympathetic, do not provide sufficient justification for non-compliance with statutory requirements.

The Appellant was accompanied by a friend, Mr Raqueeb Ahmeed who supported his appeal and gave evidence of the additional financial hardships the Appellant is suffering from. The Appellant himself confirmed his written grounds of appeal and explained he had gone into his test “blindsided” and not ready causing his failure. He had many distractions including his divorce and marital problems. He confirmed he had had difficulties getting dates for a test. The Tribunal referred to the grounds as set out by the Respondent at pages 14 and 15 of the hearing bundles including the following reasons for the refusal decision:

“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. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the first, 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;

iii.

It is a condition of the licence that the appellant must have completed not less than 20 hours additional training in the first three months of the duration of the licence, or by the date of the first part 3 test, whichever is soonest. This condition is set out in Regulation 15(3)(a) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. The appellant failed to comply with this condition as evidence on the ADI 21AT form.

iv.

since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice. (Annex A). Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; and

v.

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.”

It should also be noted that the Appellant has not yet booked his final attempt at the instructional ability test.

The Tribunal accepts the Registrar’s position that the trainee licence system must not become an alternative to registration. This principle was affirmed in R (on the application of Hussain) v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2009] EWHC 1234 (Admin), where the High Court upheld the Registrar’s discretion to refuse a second licence based on failure to meet training standards.

The Appellant’s personal circumstances, while unfortunate, do not override the statutory requirements under Regulation 15(3)(a).

The Tribunal notes that the Appellant retains the right to attempt the instructional ability test without holding a trainee licence and may pursue further training through unpaid means or with an Approved Driving Instructor.

The Tribunal finds that the Registrar acted within his statutory powers and in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Any party dissatisfied with this decision may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The application must be made within 28 days of the date this decision is sent.