Mohammed Athsham v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 13 November 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a second trainee licence. Legal Framework

2. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.

3. 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.

4. 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.’

5. 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’).

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. Factual Background to the Appeal

10. The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 11 November 2024. He passed Part 2 on 9 December 2024. He failed a first attempt at the Part 3 on 20 August 2025. The Driving Standards Agency has cancelled a further Part 3 test scheduled to take place on 27 February 2026. At the date the bundle was prepared, there is a further Part 3 test booked and scheduled to take place on 1 April 2026.

11. The Appellant applied for a trainee licence which was granted and was valid from 7 April 1015 to 6 October 2025.

12. The Appellant, applied for a second trainee licence on 3 October 2025 which was refused by the Registrar.

13. The reasons for the Registrar’s decision, in summary, were that the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of his first licence as all additional training was completed late, that the Appellant 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. Appeal to the Tribunal

14. The grounds of appeal are, in summary: a. The Appellant has faced delays in completing his training due to his caring responsibilities in relation to his immobile mother and the passing of a close family member following surgery. b. The Appellant has pupils with confirmed test dates who would be disadvantaged if he cannot continue reaching. c. Refusal of the licence prevents him from achieving and gaining practical experience and undermines the purpose of the licence.

15. The Registrar in his response states: a. The purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavouring to achieve registration. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration. b. The licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the first, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal. c. Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test. Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. d. The refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. He does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on his own (provided that he does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all. e. The Appellant had a second attempt at the Part 3 tests booked for 1 April 2026. Evidence

16. I read and took account of a bundle of documents. Discussion and Conclusions

17. I accept that the Appellant has experienced some delays as a result of his caring responsibilities although he has not provided any evidence to the Tribunal in this regard, so the extent of those caring responsibilities is not known. However, I also note that the Appellant, in his response to the Registrar, admits that the necessary training has now been completed.

18. The Appellant has failed one Part 3 test. However, I note that, at the time the bundle was prepared, the Appellant had secured a further date for his attempt at the Part 3 test on 1 April 2026.

19. I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of one trainee licence covering a period of 6 months. This should have been adequate time to prepare and obtain the relevant minimum training hours required. Moreover, by virtue of his application for a second licence prior to the expiry of his first licence, the Appellant has retained his trainee licence until the date of this decision and has been permitted to provide paid instruction during this time.

20. The overall period in which the Appellant has been able to give driving instruction should have provided a reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act .

21. The Appellant can continue to study and practice and is able to continue to gain experience and take the test without a trainee licence.

22. The trainee license is not a substitute for taking and passing the test. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken.

23. Having weighed all matters in the balance, the Appellant has not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and the appeal is dismissed.