Adam Moosa v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This appeal concerns the decision of the Registrar dated 11 January 2024 to remove the Appellant, Mr Adam Moosa, from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“ADI Register”) under section 128(2) (d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 , following his failure to pass three Standards Check tests between 2020 and 2023.

2. The Appellant contends that the decision was unlawful and unfair on grounds of indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 , breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149, and failure to implement the Respondent’s own Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy. Findings of Fact

3. The Appellant has been a registered ADI for over two decades.

4. He failed three Standard Check tests administered by the DVSA between 2020 and 2023.

5. The DVSA policy requires all ADI tests to be conducted in English or Welsh and prohibits interpreters. This policy was introduced in 2014 following a public consultation and impact assessment conducted in 2013.

6. The Appellant did not raise language concerns at the time of the tests but now asserts that the English-only requirement placed him at a disadvantage due to his South Asian background and limited English fluency.

7. The Respondent relied on the 2013 consultation and impact assessment as evidence of compliance with equality duties. No equality impact assessment specific to ADI testing has been conducted since that time.

8. The Appellant’s test records show consistently low scores in communication-related competencies. Legal Framework

9. Road Traffic Act 1988 , s.131(3) : The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

10. Equality Act 2010 , ss.19 & 149: Indirect discrimination and Public Sector Equality Duty. Key Arguments: Appellant’s Case:

11. Indirect Discrimination : The Appellant argued that the English-Welsh only requirement for the ADI standards check constituted a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) that indirectly discriminated against individuals with the protected characteristic of race (specifically, ethnic or national origin), as defined under section 9 of the Equality Act 2010 . The Appellant, a native Gujarati speaker, contends that the language requirement places and has placed him at a particular disadvantage, especially in high-pressure oral/practical assessments.

12. Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) : The Appellant submits that the Respondent failed to comply with its continuing duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity. The Respondent’s reliance on a 2013 consultation and 2014 impact assessment is said to be outdated and not specific to ADI testing.

13. Fairness and EDI Policy : The Appellant contends that the Respondent failed to implement its own Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy, which includes commitments to remove barriers for individuals with protected characteristics. The Appellant argues that this failure renders the testing process procedurally unfair. Respondent’s Case:

14. Legitimacy and Proportionality : The Respondent argues that the English-Welsh only requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim—namely, ensuring that ADIs can effectively instruct learner drivers in English and Welsh, which is necessary for road safety and regulatory compliance.

15. No Disadvantage Proven : The Respondent submits that the Appellant had previously passed assessments in English and did not raise any language concerns at the time of the tests. There is no evidence that the Appellant’s failures were due to language barriers and he failed to make any such case at the material time of the relevant tests.

16. Compliance with PSED : The Respondent relies on the 2013 consultation and 2014 impact assessment, asserting that these documents considered the equality implications of removing language support and applied to all practical driving tests, including those for ADIs.

17. Fairness : The Respondent maintains that the testing process is fair and consistent with statutory requirements. The EDI policy was aspirational and did not impose enforceable obligations. Discussion and Reasons:

18. The Tribunal recognises and accepts that the Respondent requires all ADI tests are to be conducted in English or Welsh and prohibits interpreters. The testing requirement serves legitimate aims, including road safety ensuring that instructors can teach learners who must themselves take tests in English. The Tribunal accept the policy is not inherently unlawful and applies uniformly to all candidates. Equality Duty and Procedural Fairness:

19. However, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent failed to demonstrate rigorous and ongoing compliance with section 149 of the Equality Act. Reliance on a consultation and impact assessment conducted over a decade ago, without any subsequent review or mechanism for individual adjustments, falls short of the rigorous consideration required by law.

20. The Appellant’s low scores in communication-related criteria, coupled with his background, suggest a potential disadvantage that was not properly investigated. While the Tribunal does not conclude that the decision was substantively wrong, it finds that the process fell short of the standards required by equality law and fairness principles.

21. For these reasons, the appeal is partially allowed. The Tribunal does not quash the decision to remove the Appellant from the ADI Register. Directions Order:

22. The Registrar is directed to reconsider the Appellant’s case, taking into account: a) The need to comply with section 149 Equality Act 2010 ; b) The potential for individual disadvantage arising from the English-only policy; c) The Respondent’s own EDI commitments.

23. The reconsideration must include a mechanism for assessing whether reasonable adjustments or alternative measures are appropriate in the circumstances pertaining. The Appellant may reapply for registration subject to a reassessment process that complies with the Equality Act 2010 and principles of procedural fairness. Brian Kennedy KC 12 November 2025.