Rashid Yasin v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 4 November 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

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 whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole 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 passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 18 July 2024. He passed Part 2 on 22 August 2024. He has failed two attempts at the Part 3 test on 19 September 2024 and 6 August 2025. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (“DVSA”) has cancelled two Part 3 tests, and the Appellant has cancelled 12 more such tests.

The Appellant applied for a trainee licence which was granted and was valid from 14 October 2024 to 13 October 2025 following the application for a second licence.

The Appellant, applied for a third trainee licence on 6 October 2025 which was refused by the Registrar.

The reasons for the Registrar’s decision, in summary, were that the Appellant had not provided any evidence od lost training time, had already had a sufficient amount of time to gain experience to assist in passing Part 3 of the Qualifying Examination and that it was not the intention of Parliament that candidates should be issued with trainee licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination, and that the trainee licence system must not be used as an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor.

The original grounds of appeal were that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in that the Appellant had provided evidence of lost training time due to his son suffering with severe epilepsy and the caring responsibilities which the Appellant had assumed as a direct result.

The Registrar in his response states:

However, circumstances have now changed, and since the Appellant had lodged his appeal, his son has very sadly passed away. The Appellant now requests that his licence is extended to the 2 year anniversary of him having passed Part 1 of his examination. He now is in a position to commit the time required to his training and confirmed that he has his third and final attempt at the Part 3 test booked for 1 July 2026.

I read and took account of a bundle of documents and heard submissions from the Appellant.

The Appellant has failed two Part 3 tests and cancelled 12 Part 3 tests. However, I heard fromt he Appellant regarding his caring responsibilities for his son and accept that he was unable to attend tests nor commit the requisite time to his training ahead of those tests which were cancelled.

Whilst I accept that the trainee license is not a substitute for taking and passing the test, the unique circumstances of this case mean that I am satisfied that it is fair and in the interests of justice to allow the Appellant a further trainee licence for a period expiring on 18 July 2026, which is the 2 year anniversary of the Appellant passing Part 1 of the examination. I consider that the Registrar failed to properly consider the Appellant’s personal circumstances when making his decision.

The Parties are reminded that pursuant to Regulation 3(4)(c) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations an application to take the instructional ability and fitness test must be made within 2 years of passing the written examination, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.

Accordingly, I allow this appeal and direct that the Appellant’s trainee licence is extended to 18 July 2026.