Arandeep Singh Nagra v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), for two six-month periods from 25 December 2023 to 24 December 2024. He was refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 13 January 2025. The Appellant now appeals that decision.

The case was listed for an oral CVP hearing. Neither party attended the hearing. The Tribunal called the Appellant twice, but he did not pickup or return the call. There was no application to adjourn and the Tribunal was not provided with any reasons for the absence of the Appellant (the Tribunal was not expecting the Respondent to attend, as is the norm in such cases). Having considered the evidence before me, I was satisfied that the Tribunal could properly determine the issues in the absence of the parties, within rule 36 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended). I was satisfied that the parties were notified of the hearing/reasonable steps were taken to notify the parties of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.

What follows is a summary of the written submissions, evidence and my view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of my reasoning. The absence of a reference to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered.

The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and is therefore prohibited from giving paid driving instructions by section 123 (1) of the Act unless he holds a trainee licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. A trainee licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted:

In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’ comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1, and only three attempts are allowed for each Part, failure to comply with either of these requirements results in the whole examination needing 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. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

By section 129(3) of the Act

By section 129(8)(c) of the Act

By section 129(6) of the Act:-

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 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 burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

In the Appellant’s representations to the Registrar (dated 2^nd January 2025), the Appellant explains:

“I am writing to explain my need for an additional trainee license [sic] as I have been unable to find a Part 3 ADI Test whilst having my current (expired) trainee license.

I lost time over the majority of my first license and used the 2^nd granted license to gain teaching experience – during this time, I have been trying to find a Part 3 exam but have never had any luck when searching for a test due to the huge backlog. I have spoken to DVSA examiners as Sidcup, Belvedere and Erith and they have all said there is a shortage of examiners who can examine the Part 3 exams.

From October through to November 2024, I have also suffered from very painful shoulder dislocations, which I have been seen for by Benenden Hospital. They have conducted initial consultations and exams and I am waiting to see the results of these – this injury has hindered my ability to drive at times and has caused me to miss an opportunity to fully utilise my trainee license towards the end of its expiry. I have attached my letter from the hospital outlining all the appointments I have had along with the dates’.

The Registrar’s decision letter, dated 13 January 2025 states that he has considered the representations made on 2^nd January 2025, but has refused the application because ‘the medical evidence supplied does not substantiate practice time lost as the purpose was investigation. If you are unable to use your licence it should have been returned. You have already been granted two trainee licences of 6 months’ duration for the purpose of gaining sufficient experience to pass the final part of the ADI qualifying examination. This is considered to be a more than adequate period of time. It was not Parliament’s intention that candidates should be issued licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination and the trainee license must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor’.

The Appellant’s notice of appeal dated 26^th January 2025 relies on the following grounds of appeal:

The Appellant’s notice of appeal states that he is seeking the following from his appeal:

“I am seeking an additional trainee licence to start from after my surgery recovery (around mid April 2025), in order to give me an opportunity to find and pass the D Part 3 exam with recent experience as I have been out of teaching practice due to my injury and will not be able to conduct any training until after my surgery has been completed.

An additional licence will allow me to teach after my surgery to keep my knowledge up to date and give me the best possible chance to pass the ADI Part 3 exam”.

The Registrar’s statement of case dated 18^th June 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that:

I considered a bundle of evidence containing 22 numbered pages, including the Appellants full trainee licence history from the registrar.

I have considered the Appellant’s points of appeal:

It is unclear from these documents what the impact of the shoulder dislocations was on the Appellant’s ability to work as a trainee driving instructor (of note, the letter from the hospital dated 15^th January, does not state it had any impact on his ability to work). It was unfortunate that the Appellant did not attend the hearing to explain such issues to the tribunal – especially as he had not provided a written response to the Respondent’s assertion that the medical evidence did not substantiate that training time was lost. I accept that he would have been unable to work for the 6 weeks that his arm was in a sling from 26^th February 2025 – after the second licence had expired.

It is not the case that individuals are entitled to continual renewal of trainee licences until they pass their Part 3 test. The six month period of such licences is set on the basis this is an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 Test, and it is not necessary to hold a Trainee Licence in order to either prepare for or to take the Part 3 test.

I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of twelve months from 25 December 2023 to 24 December 2024. Additionally, by applying for a third trainee licence the Appellant has had the benefit of s.129(6)(b) of the Act extending his trainee licence until this appeal is disposed of (i.e. a period of almost 20 months).

I further note that had the third trainee licence been granted this would have expired in June 2025, before the consideration of this appeal.

I attach particular weight to the fact that the Appellant passed his Part 1 test on the 24 April 2023 and so his two-year period within which he must have passed both the Part 2 and Part 3 tests had expired by 24 April 2025.

The Appellant has therefore had the benefit of being able to train by giving instruction for payment for an additional period of almost 8 months. Notably exceeding the fixed statutory maximum period within which he must pass the Part 3 test. I am not able to grant him an extension of time past the statutory maximum period of 2 years

I am not persuaded that the Registrar’s decision was wrong. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and dismiss this appeal.

I note for completion, that an application to strike out the case was received from the Respondent on 31^st July 2025. I did not consider it necessary to consider this application, as I had already decided this case at the time it was received. Having considered the overriding objective as set out at Rule 2 of the Procedure Rules, I find that it would cause unnecessary delay (as I would have wanted submissions from the Appellant on this point) and it is not proportionate to do so. I have refused the substantive appeal, I am not required in the circumstances to consider a separate strike out application.