Rashid Mehmood v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’), made on 11^th February 2025, to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

The Appellant appeared at the hearing. The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.

A certificate of compliance was completed by the Respondent on 27^th June 2025, acknowledging the hearing date. I am therefore satisfied that the Respondent had notice of the hearing. This Tribunal has been notified that the Respondent has made a decision not to attend trainee license appeal hearings for the foreseeable future.

Rule 36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 allows the Tribunal to continue in the absence of a party if it is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party, and it is in the interests of justice to do so.

I took account of the overriding objective and was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.

A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted: ‘for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination... as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.’

In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, 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 final Part 3 test, must be booked within 2 years of passing Part 1. If it is not passed, 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. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor 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 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.

The Appellant had not previously been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 3^rd October 2023 and Part 2 on 27^th December 2023.

The Appellant was in receipt of a trainee licence which was valid from 5^th February 2024 to 4^th August 2024 and which was later extended by the Respondent until 4^th February 2025.

The Appellant’s first attempt at the Part 3 test, booked for 2^nd August 2024, was cancelled by DVSA the day before the test was due. It was re-booked for 25^th October 2024 but this too was cancelled by DVSA the day before.

The test was rebooked for 30^th October 2024 but this was cancelled by the Respondent.

The Appellant had his first attempt at the Part 3 test on 21^st January 2025 but failed it.

On 21^st January 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. This application was therefore made before the expiry of the first trainee license. His license is extended to the date of this decision by virtue of that application and subsequent appeal to this Tribunal.

The Appellant also failed his second attempt at the Part 3 test, which was on 28^th April 2025. This post-dates the filing of his appeal, which was on 20^th February 2025.

On 22 January 2025 the Appellant was informed, by the Respondent, that he was considering refusing the application and invited to make representations.

The Appellant made representations to the Respondent on 22^nd and 23^rd January 2025. He stated that he had faced long delays waiting for test dates and had had two cancelled. He felt it was unfair to have to wait so long for a test.

The application was refused on 11^th February 2025.

The reasons for the Respondent’s decision, in summary, were that the Appellant had already had the benefit of two six month trainee licenses and had had adequate time to gain experience to pass the Part 3 examination.

The Appellant has a Part 3 test booked on 5^th September 2025.

The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 20^th February 2025.

The grounds of appeal were, in summary, that:

The Respondent, in his response, states:

I read and took account of a bundle of documents.

I heard evidence from the Appellant, who told me that his greatest concern was what would happen if the test on the 5^th September were to be cancelled at short notice, as has happened in the past.

The Appellant told me that he worked part time in a taxi control role and that his hours of driving tuition varied from eight to twelve hours a week. He had three students available to accompany him to the Part 3 test on 5^th September and his trainer was going to help him choose the most suitable towards the end of August. He is focussing more on training than providing tuition at the present time.

The Appellant conceded that he would be able to continue to provide training without charging for it but that it would make it very difficult for him to pay his franchise fee and to lease and insure the specialist car he is using to provide training. He is also paying £40 - £50 per hour for training.

I may overturn the decision of the Respondent if I am of the opinion that it was wrong. The burden is on the Appellant to show this.

I accept the evidence of the Appellant with regard to the difficulties presented by the cancellation of test dates at short notice.

I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of trainee licences, initially covering a period of time from 5^th February 2024 until 4^th February 2025 but then, by virtue of this application, up to today’s date. This is over 18 months, which in theory should have been adequate time to prepare, but it is against a background of an inefficient test system with cancellations at short notice and re-booking adding significant delay and uncertainty.

I accept the Respondent’s position that the trainee license is not a substitute for taking and passing the test and that it is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken. The Appellant ought to be in a good position to pass the test on 5^th September, given the time he has had to prepare, and he stated that he would be able to take the test without a trainee license. However removing the right to take paying students would leave him in some difficulty, in terms of maintaining practice opportunities, if the test is cancelled again.

The test on 5^th September 2025 is the Appellant’s third and final attempt, after which he will either pass and be registered or he will be ineligible for further attempts. He has invested significant time, energy and money into the process and is nearing his final chance to complete the test.

I allow the appeal accordingly. The trainee license shall be extended for three months from the date of this decision in order to allow the Appellant to provide paid instruction in preparation to take his test on 5^th September, or to rebook if it is cancelled.