Mohmed Rafik Tai v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

I have conducted a hearing by CVP and considered a bundle of 36 pages and further evidence submitted by Mr Tai attached to an email dated 26 November 2024. I heard a submission from Mr Russell and heard evidence from Mr Tai and his daughter, Miss Tai-Sahel.

Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended (the RTA), prohibits the instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor’s name is in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or the person is the holder of a current licence issued under section 129(1) of the RTA.

Section 125(5) of the RTA requires that a person whose name is held in the Register shall undergo a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction in the driving of motor cars when required to do so by the Registrar. It is the normal practice of the Registrar to allow three attempts to attain the required standard.

The registrar may remove a person’s name from the Register if he is satisfied that the Approved Driving Instructor failed to pass or failed to attend the test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction at any time since their name was entered on it.

Mr Tai’s name was registered before 1990.

The Registrar in an email dated 15 January 2024 advised Mr Tai that consideration was being given to the removal of his name from the Register of Approved Driving instructors subject to representations from Mr Tai.

On 7 March 2024 the Registrar decided to remove Mr Tai’s name from the Register on the grounds that under Section 128(2)(d) of the RTA he failed to pass the test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction. The notice was given in accordance with section 128(6) of the RTA. The decision was made on the basis that Mr Tai failed the test on 15 October 2019 and 2 October 2020 and failed to attend two further test appointments arranged on 17 January 2022 and 13 September 2023.

Mr Tai accepted that he failed the tests on 15 October 2019 and 2 October 2020 but he asserts that he did not fail to attend the test appointments on 17 January 2022 and 13 September 2023.

On 17 January 2022 Mr Tai was unable to attend the appointment and contacted the agency beforehand and the test was rescheduled. Mr Tai had to cancel the appointment because his pupil contracted Covid.

On 28 June 2023 an appointment was made but as this coincided with the religious festival of EID it was agreed that the test should be rescheduled.

On 13 September 2023 Mr Tai attended the appointment but the intended pupil was unable to attend due to emergency circumstances. He provided evidence of the emergency on the day and it was accepted by the examiner. He was informed that the test would be rescheduled. This did not happened

On 13 September 2023 Mr Tai reported to the Test Centre. His daughter, Miss Tai-Sahel, was the intended pupil. Mr Tai had contacted the agency and been told that it was appropriate for a pupil to be a family member. Due to a work emergency Miss Tai-Sahel was unable to attend. Evidence of this emergency was shown to the supervising examiner and it was indicated to Mr Tai that this was accepted. Mr Tai was told that the test would be rescheduled in November or December 2023.

Miss Tai-Sahel in her statement and in oral evidence stated that she attended a training session with her father prior to 13 September 2023. She stated that on 13 September 2023 an unforeseen and emergency situation arose which prevented her from attending.

Mr Tai asserts that he had made extensive efforts to prepare for the third test knowing it was his last opportunity.

He had employed KA Driving School to assist and train him in preparation for the third test. Mr Tai submitted an email from the pupil with whom he undertook the training sessions.

After 13 September 2023, Mr Tai made enquiries of the supervising examiner at the Horsforth Test Centre and was told that all tests were temporarily suspended.

I find that Mr Tai failed two tests and this is not in issue.

I find that Mr Tai did not fail to attend the tests on 17 January 2022 and 13 September 2023. I find that it cannot be said that Mr Tai “failed to take a further two opportunities” to take the test. He has provided reasonable explanations as to why the tests could not go ahead.

I find that Mr Tai has not been given adequate opportunity to attend and take the test on a third occasion.

The powers of the tribunal are set out in section 131 of the RTA. I may make such order as I think fit.

I found Mr Tai and Miss Tai-Sahel to be credible witnesses and I attach weight to their evidence. My decision is made on the basis of their evidence.