Jamal Rajab v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is the appeal of the Appellant, Mr Jamal Rajab, against the decision of the Respondent, the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (hereafter ‘the Registrar’), conveyed in a letter of 19 December 2025, to refuse his request for a third trainee licence.

The matter was listed before me for consideration on paper. I was satisfied that it was just and appropriate to proceed in that way.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’), s123(1) prohibits the giving of paid driving instruction except where the instructor’s name is included in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (Footnote: ¹) (‘the Register’) or he/she holds a trainee licence.

Candidates for membership of the Register must fulfil a number of conditions. These include the requirement to pass an examination divided into three parts (‘the examination’): theory; driving ability and fitness; and instructional ability and fitness (the Act, s125(3)(a)). They must apply for a part three test within two years of passing part one; if they do not, they must re-take the entire examination. Candidates who fail part three on three occasions must also re-take the entire examination. (Footnote: ²)

By the Act, s129(1) it is provided that trainee licences are granted for the purpose of enabling prospective ADIs who have passed parts one and two of the examination to gain practical experience in driving instruction with a view to taking part three. Trainee licences are valid for six months only. The Registrar is expressly empowered to refuse to grant a trainee licence to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued (s129(3)).

The effect of the Act, s129(6) is that, where a holder of a temporary licence applies during its currency for a fresh licence, the life of the original licence is extended until the commencement of the new licence or, if the application is refused and the holder appeals, until disposal of the appeal.

By the Act, s131(2) an appeal lies to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision to refuse an application for the grant of a licence. On the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order for the grant or refusal of the application as it sees fit (s131(3)).

The background facts can be summarised as follows.

Mr Rajab passed parts one and two of the examination on 13 June and 4 October 2024 respectively.

On Mr Rajab’s application, the Registrar granted him two consecutive trainee licences, together covering the period from 28 October 2024 to 27 October 2025.

Mr Rajab’s application to the Registrar for a third licence, which was made during the currency of the second licence, was refused by the letter of 19 December 2025, to which I have already referred.

Given the timing of the application for the third licence, the life of the first licence was extended by the Act, s129(6) to the date of disposal of this appeal (see above).

Mr Rajab booked part three tests for 4 April and 11 June 2025 but cancelled both. A third booking, for 14 October 2025, was cancelled by DVSA. A fourth booking was made for 1 December 2026 and went ahead on that day, but unfortunately Mr Rajab was unsuccessful. A fifth appointment, for 18 March 2026, was cancelled by DVSA. A sixth booking was made for 9 April 2026. I have no information about the outcome.

Mr Rajab booked a second part three test for 12 March 2026. I have no information about the outcome.

In his notice of appeal dated 31 December 2025 Mr Rajab stated that: (a) he had to travel abroad between 5 and 12 July 2025 to deal with a family emergency, losing that week’s ‘licence time’ and (b) the cancellation of the part three test booked for 14 October 2025 (owing to the unavailability of an examiner) had resulted in added delay as a consequence of a convenient fresh date (presumably 12 March 2026) not being offered until ‘this month’ (presumably some time in December 2025). I accept that the facts asserted in the notice of appeal were as Mr Rajab stated them.

In his notice of appeal, Mr Rajab relied on the matters summarised in para 8.7 (a) and (b) above and argued that a further licence would give him more opportunities to practise and prepare for the ‘upcoming’ test.

The Registrar resisted the appeal, stressing the importance of not allowing trainee licences to serve as an alternative to the registration system and the fact that eligibility to take the part three test is not conditional upon possession of a trainee licence.

I am not persuaded that there is a good reason to allow this appeal. I accept that, through no fault of his own, Mr Rajab was unable to take the tests booked for 14 October 2025 and 14 March 2026. In a proper case, failures by DVSA to provide timely opportunities for part three tests, or to honour bookings made, may justify the Tribunal allowing appeals in cases of this sort. But I see no sound basis for such a decision here. In so far as they are relevant, I agree with the general remarks on the nature and purpose of the trainee licence system contained in the Registrar’s response and on its website (see above). Moreover, as already explained, the effect of the appeal is that the current licence was automatically extended until the date of the Tribunal’s decision. In other words, he has by appealing secured the protection of ‘the badge’ for a consecutive period of well over 19 months to date. There is nothing to justify any extension beyond the date of publication of my Decision. I hope that Mr Rajab has by now passed the part three test (on 9 April 2026 or on some subsequent date). If so, this appeal will have become academic. If not, I see no warrant for directing the Registrar to issue a further six-month licence now, extending his period of cover to over two years. That would amount to a misuse of the trainee licence system.

For the reasons stated, I must dismiss the appeal.