Nazia Ahmed v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(2)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act"). It relates to a decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 21 October 2025 ("the Decision") to refuse the Appellant's application for a second (trainee) Licence.

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

The Appellant represented herself. Prior to the start of the hearing I was told that a request may be made for her to be accompanied by a relative. Having considered rule 11(5) The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 ("2009 Rules") I indicated to her that this would be allowed but, as the appeal progressed, she did not ultimately consider it necessary.

The Registrar did not attend. His position was taken to be as set out in his letters of 9 September 2025 and 21 October 2025 and in his response to the appeal. By rule 36 2009 Rules:-

I am satisfied that the Registrar was aware of the date and time for this appeal hearing. Having also considered the overriding objective in rule 2 2009 Rules, it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrar.

The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and she is therefore prohibited from giving paid (as defined) driving instructions by section 123(1) of the Act unless she holds a Licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 ("the 2005 Regs").

To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI") an applicant is required to pass a Qualifying Examination. This is in 3 parts namely part 1 being a written examination, the driving ability and fitness test in part 2 and the instructional ability and fitness test in part 3. Three attempts are allowed at each part.

A Section 129(1) Licence may be granted by the Registrar once an applicant has passed part 2. This 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 referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct."A Licence relates to giving paid instruction and is not required to be able to take part 3.

The 2005 Regs set out conditions for a Licence. Part 5 15(3)(a) states that:-

By section 129(3) of the Act "The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued." If he does so he must tell the applicant and give particulars of the grounds on which he is considering the refusal. The applicant may make representation within certain time limits and by section 129(8)(c) of the Act "before deciding whether or not to refuse the application" the Registrar must take any such representations into consideration.

By section 129(4) of the Act if such an application is refused the Registrar must give notice of that in writing to the applicant and provide the grounds of refusal and by section 129(6) of the Act:-

Section 131(2) of the Act provides that "A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar—(a)to refuse an application for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act...may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal."

Section 131(3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:-

The Appellant has the burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and conclusions are reached on the balance of probabilities.

When making its decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision being the person tasked with making such decisions (see Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011). It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision-making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances.

For this appeal I considered the content of a bundle of 24 pdf pages and I heard from the Appellant.

I accept that:-

This appeal is against the Decision and was commenced on 3 December 2025. I accept that thereafter:-

The Registrar's grounds of refusal in the Decision and as further explained in the Response were that:-

In the representations of 9 September 2025 the Appellant said the reason a 2nd Licence was needed was because:-

In the appeal form the Appellant said:-

At the appeal the Appellant told me that it was not correct to say that she had failed to comply with the conditions of the Licence. She thought the difference of view may be as a result of confusion caused when she changed trainers.

The Appellant also told me that since the Decision she has carried on (as allowed) teaching between 6 and 8 paying pupils and currently has about 8 at different stages of development. She said that if she has to stop giving paid lessons as a result of the outcome of this appeal she will try to ensure her pupils find new instructors but it will cause disruption for them.

I took account of and gave weight to the Registrar's views. I accept, for example, his submissions about the ability to train and take part 3 without a Licence and that 1 Licence may be adequate to gain sufficient experience. I also accept that the statutory purpose of a Licence does not include being an alternative to registration as an ADI nor to give an applicant as long as is needed to pass part 3.

From the chronology it is clear that the Appellant is taking a relatively long time in seeking to become an ADI. During the course of her journey she has had the benefit of Licences for extended periods. However, having heard her at the appeal, it is not my view that she is seeking Licences as an alternative to registration as an ADI.

Ignoring the Licences granted between 2023-2024 the Appellant had, by the time of this appeal, been in receipt of a Licence since 17 March 2025 (a period of just over 14 months). By operation of the provisions of the Act the Appellant has been able to continue with a Licence for over 8 months since 16 September 2025 which is in excess of 2 months longer than had she been issued with a 2nd Licence.

As regards the concern about obtaining part 3 test dates I accept that this can be an issue for applicants but in this particular case, by the time of the appeal, the Appellant had managed to obtain 4 part 3 test dates on 15 April, 29 April, 4 December and 16 December. It was also her decision to wait a further 4 months until early May 2026 before applying for a new test date. In my view any issue in obtaining part 3 test dates is not a supportive factor in this appeal.

The Registrar's Decision included a concern that the Appellant had not complied with certain conditions of the Licence and in his response he added that the Appellant had not provided any explanation for this.

ln the Registrar's letter to the Appellant of 9 September 2025, in which he invited the Appellant to make representations about why her application should not be refused, he did say that he would take into account whether or not the Appellant had complied with the conditions of the Licence. However he did not, at that stage, indicate that it was his view that the Appellant had failed to comply with the conditions or how. I accept, from hearing from the Appellant, that she did not believe that she had failed to comply with those conditions. It is not remarkable therefore that she did not address this issue when she made her representations on 9 September 2025.

When the Registrar issued the Decision on 21 October 2025 he said that he had decided not to issue a new Licence because for example "you have not complied with the conditions of the trainee licence as all additional training completed after three months." The Appellant responded to this in her appeal form saying "I also had late training as my first 20 hours training was rejected so I had to redo it also."

The Appellant's assertion that she had carried out training as required but had to redo it was not addressed in the Registrar's response which just stated:-

Although it is correct to say that the Appellant did not provide an explanation as to why she failed to comply with the conditions she did, in her appeal form, seek to explain her view as to why she had complied with those conditions. It would have assisted if the Registrar had dealt with the explanation put forward by the Appellant.

In the bundle form ADI 21AT was provided. It appears to show 20 hours of training between 28 August 2025 and 1 September 2025 which was later than 3 months after the issue of the Licence. In explaining her position at the appeal the Appellant remained adamant that she did in fact complete 20 hours of training within the first 3 months of the Licence as required but because she changed providers and because of confusion this caused she thought that those initial 20 hours had been rejected and that she therefore redid that training. As the Registrar was not represented at the appeal hearing he was not able to respond to these submissions.

I accept from the evidence I saw that she did carry out 20 hours of training after 3 months had expired. On the balance of probabilities I have also concluded, from hearing directly from the Appellant, that she also carried out the training as required within the 3 months but then carried it out again later. I am therefore not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant breached a condition of the Licence as alleged by the Registrar.

By operation of the relevant section of the Act an applicant who has not been granted a further Licence can continue instructing paying pupils but that right ends if and when any appeal against the Registrar's decision is dismissed. This creates a cliff-edge for the ADI applicant/the Appellant but also for paying pupils in their different stages of training towards taking their driving tests. I gave some weight to this issue.

By section 131(3) of the Act the Tribunal may make such order for the grant or refusal of the application as it thinks fit.

Had this appeal hearing taken place during the 2nd 6 month Licence period I would have allowed it principally because of my conclusions on the question of the Licence conditions. However so much additional time has now elapsed that any issue relating to the conditions is no longer a relevant factor.

I had regard in particular to the following-

However I have decided to allow the appeal and grant the Appellant a short extra period with a Licence because I consider it proportionate to ensure there is a managed end to the Appellant's right to have paid pupils and to avoid any cliff-edge as described above.

Accordingly I direct that the Appellant’s trainee Licence is extended but only to 5pm on 26 June 2026.