Shoaib Ullah Tufail Deo v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of The Road Traffic Act 1988.

In this decision, I use the following terms to denote the meanings shown:

This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

The Appellant is an aspiring ADI who has previously been granted two Licences. The Appellant applied for a third Licence (the Application), resulting in the Registrar’s Decision.

The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision are set out in paragraph 7 below.

The Appellant’s grounds of appeal stated that he was unable to properly prepare for Part 3 of the Qualifying Examination because he had certain caring responsibilities. He also stated that the grant of a third Licence would help support his family financially.

The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s response to the appeal stated that:

The Appellant asked for the appeal to be decided without a hearing. The Respondent did not request an oral hearing, effectively indicating their consent to the appeal being determined without a hearing. The Tribunal has the benefit of the bundle referred to in paragraph 10 below. Having reviewed the same, I did not consider that further information was required from either party in order to make an informed decision.

I was therefore satisfied that the appeal was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rule 32 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 and that it was fair and just to conduct the appeal in this way.

The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle which included the Appellant’s reasons for the appeal, the Respondent’s response and details of the Appellant’s Licence history from the Registrar, as well as other written arguments and supporting evidence from both parties.

All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision.

Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor is an ADI or the holder of a current Licence.

A person must pass a qualifying examination in order to qualify as an ADI. The qualifying examination is made up of:

An application to take the ‘Part 3’ test must be made within two years of passing the ‘Part 1’ test, otherwise the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

Three attempts are permitted in respect of each part of the Qualifying Examination. If any part of the Qualifying Examination is failed after three attempts, the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

The grant of a Licence enables a person to provide instruction for payment before they qualify as an ADI. The purpose for which a Licence is granted is set out in section 129(1). In essence, a Licence is granted for the purpose of enabling a potential ADI to acquire practical experience as a driving instructor, with a view to them undergoing ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination. The circumstances in which Licences may be granted are set out in section 129 and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

An applicant may be granted a Licence if they have passed ‘Part 2’ of the Qualifying Examination and if they are eligible to take the ‘Part 3’ test. An application for a Licence must be made within two years of passing ‘Part 1’ of the Qualifying Examination.

A Licence lasts for six months. When a Licence expires, giving paid driving lessons is prohibited unless (as set out in paragraph 12 above) a further Licence is obtained or ADI status is achieved.

Subject to certain conditions being met, the Registrar must grant a person’s first application for a Licence. However, pursuant to section 129(3), the Registrar has the discretion to refuse any subsequent application for a Licence. Where an applicant appeals to the Tribunal in respect of the Registrar’s decision to refuse a new Licence, the Licence continues in effect until the appeal is determined.

Holding a Licence is not necessary in order to take ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination or to qualify as an ADI. Many people qualify as an ADI without having held a Licence.

An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the grant or refusal of the Application, as it thinks fit.

However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for them to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

Where the Tribunal makes an order for the refusal of the Application, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply for a Licence for a period of up to four years.

Whilst I understand the Registrar’s argument that the Appellant had not provided any specific evidence directly showing any adverse impact on being able to use his previous Licence in order to prepare for the ‘Part 3’ test, in my view it is fair to take into account that the Appellant has had caring responsibilities (supported by the medical evidence provided regarding health issues affecting his wife). The Appellant also provided evidence of various medical appointments for his wife during the previous of his previous Licence (and subsequently) and it seems fair to accept that attending medical appointments with his wife and/or the time then needed to care for his children will have impacted on the time available to the Appellant to prepare for the ‘Part 3’ test.

However, I am also conscious that the Application sought a third Licence to start on 15 December 2025 (which is now only one week short of six months ago) and that the Appellant has had the benefit of his previous Licence remaining in place, pending the determination of his appeal. Accordingly, the Appellant has now had the benefit of his previous Licence continuing for almost the same six-month period which would have been granted had the Application been successful. For that reason, as well as the fact that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two Licences for twelve months, I conclude that it is not necessary to grant a further Licence.

Moreover, as I have noted, holding a Licence is not necessary to in order to take the ‘Part 3’ test or to qualify as an ADI and many people qualify as an ADI without ever having held a Licence. As the Registrar also submitted, the Appellant does not need a Licence in order to attend a training course, study and practice with an ADI and give tuition on their own (provided that they do not receive payment of any kind for this).

Accordingly, there is still scope for the Appellant to develop and practice for the purposes of taking the ‘Part 3’ test. The only additional benefit to holding a Licence is that driving lessons can be given on return for payment. The Appellant has stated that the grant of a third Licence would help support his family financially but, again, the Appellant has now had an additional period of almost six months entitling him to be paid for driving lessons pursuant to the continuation of his previous Licence pending the determination of his appeal. Therefore there has now been a total period of almost eighteen months during which the Appellant has been entitled to be paid for driving lessons.

For all of the reasons I have given, I am not persuaded that the Registrar’s Decision was wrong or that it would be otherwise appropriate to grant the Application. I therefore dismiss the appeal and I order that the Application is refused.