Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0048
Choose jurisdiction.
Before
Judge Brian Kennedy KC
Between
SHAID ALI
Appellant
and
THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Shaid Ali as a litigant in person.
For the Respondent: N/A
Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) prohibits the giving of instruction paid for by or in respect of a pupil in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor's name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, or he is the holder of a current licence issued under Section 129(1) of the Act.
The Appellant is not now and has never been on the said Register.
Two licences under Section 129 of the Act were granted to the Appellant for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and were valid from 11 December 2023 to 10 December 2024 (D1).
On 22 November 2024 the Appellant applied for a third licence (D2). By way of an email dated 25 November 2024 (D3) the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of his application for a third licence.
By way of an email received on 25 November 2024 (D4) the Appellant made representations stating that his most recent test was booked to hold by the DVSA, which left him with uncertainty. He also stated that he received poor training during the period of his first licence. He feels that a third licence should be granted to allow him to take all attempts at the test, and to allow him to gain more knowledge and experience.
After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application on the grounds that that did not provide any evidence of lost training time or a lack of pupil’s and has already had two licences for twelve months.
The Respondent served Notice of their decision in accordance with Section 129(4) of the Act by an email dated 20 December 2024 (D5)
The reasons given for refusal by the Respondent were as follows:
thepurposeoftheprovisionsgoverningtheissueoflicencesistoaffordapplicantstheopportunityofgivinginstructiontomembersofthepublicwhilstendeavouringtoachieveregistration.Thesystemofissuinglicencesisnotandmustnotbeallowedtobecomeanalternativetothesystemofregistration.
thelicencegrantedtoapplicantsisnottoenabletheinstructortoteachforhoweverlongittakestopasstheexaminations,buttoallowuptosixmonthsexperienceofinstruction.Thisprovidesaveryreasonableperiodinwhichtoreachthequalifyingstandardintheexaminationandinparticular,toobtainanynecessarypracticalexperienceintuition.TheAppellanthasalreadyhadtwotraineelicenceswhichcoveraperiodof12months.Moreover,byvirtueoftheAppellanthavingappliedforathirdlicencebeforetheexpirydateofthesecond,thatlicencehasremainedinforcetothepresenttimeandwillallowhimtocontinuetogivepaidinstructionuntildeterminationoftheappeal;
sincepassinghisdrivingabilitytest the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice and cancelled three more such tests booked for 27 February 2025, 03 March 2025 and 30 April 2025. (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
the refusal of a third 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 is noted that the Appellant has his final attempt at the instructional ability test booked for 09 July 2025. Should the test go ahead, then the regulations determine that any appeal is bound to fail as a trainee licence can only be issued in order that an individual can gain the practical experience required to take the test.
The Appellant appeared before the Tribunal and in essence disputes the assertion that he provided no evidence of lost training time and argues on grounds of unfairness his appeal should be allowed but I am satisfied any of his reasons do not establish a case to render the Respondents decision unreasonable or the exercise of their discretion unreasonable or amount to an error of Law.
The Appellant confirmed (as is often the case) that it is extremely difficult to obtain a date for a test, but he is fortunate enough to have been able to book a test for 09 July December 2024 and is quite optimistic that he will pass this test.
For all these reasons I have decided to dismiss this appeal
Signed Brian Kennedy KC Date: 30 June 2025.