Tahir Imran v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who registered to begin training on the 7 February 2024, and then progressed through the process till they applied for their first trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”) on the 25 March 2025. They were refused a trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 11 April 2025 . The Appellant now appeals that decision.

2. The parties have agreed to a paper determination of the appeal. The Tribunal is satisfied that it can properly determine the issues without a hearing within rule 32(1)(b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended).

3. What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference by us to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered. Legal Framework

4. The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and is therefore prohibited from giving paid driving instructions by section 123 (1) of the Act unless they hold a trainee licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act .

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

6. In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’ comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

7. The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1, and only three attempts are allowed for each Part, failure to comply with either of these requirements results in the whole examination needing to be retaken.

8. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence if they meet all the relevant conditions (including as set out in s.129(2) (b) the requirement in s.125(3)(e) that the individual is a fit and proper person) .

9. 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.

10. 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."

11. By section 129(8) (c) of the Act "before deciding whether or not to refuse the application, the Registrar must take into consideration any such representations made within that period."

12. By section 129(6) of the Act :- "Notwithstanding any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above prescribing the period for which a licence is to be in force, where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of the application, the previous licence shall not expire— (a)until the commencement of the new licence, or (b) if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limited for an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of."

13. 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.

14. 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. The Appeal

15. The Appellant’s notice of appeal dated 21 April 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal (summarised below): a. The Appellant had a clean driving licence since they first held a UK licence up until the incident that gives rise to this appeal. b. The no insurance offence was a result of a genuine misunderstanding because a friend asked to test drive the Appellants vehicle and assured the Appellant he had insurance that would cover this. The Appellant had no reason to doubt him. c. The friend had offered to pay for fuel and the Appellant believes this is what was interpreted by the officers as driving for remuneration. The Appellant then immediately upgraded their insurance to business insurance that same day. d. The Appellant accepts responsibility for the mistake and now takes every precaution to remain fully compliant with motoring laws. e. The Appellant has a genuine commitment to the profession and has passed Part 1 and Part 2 already and believes having a trainee licence is crucial to preparing for Part 3. f. The Appellant is the sole breadwinner in the family and so the licence is vital for career progression and for their family’s future and financial stability. g. The Appellant believes they are a fit and proper person.

16. The Appellant’s notice of appeal also stated that the desired outcome of the appeal is “ the tribunal allow the appeal and set aside the Registrar’s decision ...”

17. The Appellant’s representations to the Registrar of the 27 March 2025 repeats substantially the same points as made in the notice of appeal.

18. The Registrar’s notice of refusal dated 11 April 2025, takes the representations made by the Appellant into consideration. The reasons for the refusal were that the Appellant cannot be considered a fit and proper person because of the fact of the acceptance of a fixed penalty notice for the offence of no insurance relating to an incident on 14 September 2024.

19. The Registrar’s statement of case dated 30 July 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar, in summary states that: a. The Appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having accepted a fixed penalty notice for the offence of using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. b. The Appellant failed to notify the Registrar of this offence within 7 days, a requirement that is set out clearly and which the Appellant agreed to when registering to start training as an ADI. c. The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Anyone who is an ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task which should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. The Appellant has not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that is expected from a potential ADI. d. Registration represents official approval, it would be inappropriate to condone motoring offences of this nature as it would effectively sanction such behaviour if transgressors are allowed entry on to the register to teach others. e. It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as such, who have scrupulously observed the law for this recent relevant conviction to be ignored, and could undermine public confidence in the system. The evidence

20. We considered a bundle of evidence containing 35 numbered pages. Conclusions

21. The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.

22. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. ADIs and those training to become ADIs are rightly held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are (or are seeking to be) registered as ADIs will act professionally, reliably, and with integrity whilst also adhering to the highest standards of motoring, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils.

23. The offence of causing or permitting the use of a vehicle whilst uninsured is a particularly serious one as regards persons entrusted to teach others the standards expected of drivers and to demonstrate model behaviours. The threat posed to road safety as well as to the lives and health of other road users by uninsured drivers is hard to underestimate. Ensuring that your vehicle is only driven by someone with valid insurance is a fundamental cornerstone of responsible and lawful driving.

24. In this case there is the significant aggravating feature that the Appellant failed to notify the Registrar of the offence within the seven days required and in fact did not do so for a period of almost 6 months. Even then the notification was not a proactive choice of the Appellant but rather was triggered by specific questions on the application form for a Trainee licence. But for those questions the notification may never have taken place. The registration form the Appellant completed on 7 February 2024 very clearly sets out the requirement for notification of such offences within 7 days and this was signed by the Appellant. The Appellant’s assertion that he wasn’t aware of this requirement and that it wasn’t previously raised with him is just not credible.

25. The Appellant has sought to give an explanation for the offence as an ‘honest mistake’ and even suggest that despite accepting guilt and the fixed penalty notice they perhaps were not guilty of the offence as they suggest that the insurance should have been sufficient as the driving was not ‘for remuneration’. However, the fact is he has accepted guilt for this offence and the Tribunal will take that at face value, especially as the Appellant has provided no evidence that they are seeking to overturn the acceptance of the fixed penalty.

26. The Appellant also sought to stress the financial implications refusal of a trainee licence would have on them and their family. However, as this is not a case where the individual is a current ADI nor a case where the individual has an existing Part 3 licence then this argument is of little weight. This is because there is no legal way for the Appellant to be earning money as regards providing driving lessons without first having a Part 3 licence, and so they must already have and rely upon other sources of income.

27. The Appellant has not persuaded us that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, we agree with the Registrar’s decision and dismiss this appeal. Signed Tribunal Judge T Barrett Date: 25/11/2025