Florian Sejfulahi v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

The Tribunal considered the 21-page bundle provided to it along with the Certificate of Compliance completed by the ADI Registrar; it appears that no Certificate of Compliance was provided by the Appellant, but I did not consider it necessary to postpone determination of the appeal to enable that document to be filed.

The parties agreed that this matter was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rule 32 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended (Footnote: ¹). I am satisfied that I can properly determine the issues without a hearing.

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 are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in s.129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (Footnote: ²).

A licence under s129(1) of the Act is granted:

Holding a trainee licence, however, is not a pre-requisite to qualification as an ADI and people do qualify as an ADI without having held a trainee licence.

The Powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the ADI Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the ADI Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions (Footnote: ³). The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the ADI Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

Florian Sejfulahi passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 04 October 2023 and passed Part 2 on 21 December 2023. Florian Sejfulahi applied for a Trainee Licence which was granted and was valid from 15 January 2024. On 29 December 2024 applied for a Third Trainee Licence. As Florian Sejfulahi applied before the Licence expired (and had done the same to obtain a Second Trainee Licence; at the date of this consideration, Florian Sejfulahi has been the beneficiary of a Trainee Licence for a few days over 1 year and 6 months. Florian Sejfulahi took, and failed, the Part 3 test on 20 June 2024 and 27 September 2024 and a Part 3 Test was “Non-Completed” on 25 February 2025 (see DVSA record on paginated page 20).

When Florian Sejfulahi applied for a Third Trainee Licence, the ADI Registrar was considering refusing that application (see letter (email) dated 31 December 2024). An opportunity to make representations was provided and representations were made. The ADI Registrar, taking into account the representations by the Appellant, refused to grant a Third Trainee Licence in a letter (email) dated 22 January 2025 and that is the decision which Florian Sejfulahi appeals to this Tribunal.

Florian Sejfulahi’s written grounds of appeal are found in his Notice of Appeal dated 01 February 2025, they argue:

The ADI Registrar, in his Response, resisted the appeal on the grounds:

I will consider each of the grounds of appeal in turn:

Placing myself in the shoes of the ADI Registrar, I also find that, for the reasons outlined above, Florian Sejfulahi was given sufficient opportunity to prepare for the Part 3 and to pass it, if he was up to the standard required of a driving instructor. It appears that he was not up to the necessary standard.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.