[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Iqbal v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 467 (GRC) (30 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/467.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 467 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport

		Heard by Cloud Video Platform Heard on: 23rd April 2025
		Decision Given On: 30 April 2025

Decision: The appeal is dismissed

REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("The Registrar"), dated 2^nd October 2024, refusing his application for a third trainee licence.
2. The Appellant had previously been granted two trainee licences, which were valid over the period from 11^th September 2023 to 10^th September 2024. On 27^th August 2024, he applied for a third trainee licence.
3. On 29^th August 2024, the Registrar notified the Appellant, by email, that consideration was being given to refusing his application. The Appellant was invited to make any written representations in response.
4. The Appellant responded by email on 10^th September 2024, stating that he had been suffering with medical issues during the period of his trainee licences, that he had provided a letter from his doctor which detailed the nature and impact of his condition, and that the letter should verify the missed training time as a consequence of these issues.
5. The doctor's letter, dated 10^th September 2024, referred to a long-standing issue with TMJ dysfunction, characterised by joint noise and jaw locking, causing discomfort and pain. The condition was said to be worsening and aggravated by talking for extended periods, which is problematic in his work environment.
6. On 2^nd October 2024, the Respondent gave the following reasons for refusing the application for a third trainee licence:

a) The evidence provided by the Appellant does not evidence how much training time was lost.

b) The Appellant has had the benefit of two trainee licences for a period of 12 months, providing them with an additional 6 months beyond that which one licence permits. This provided the Appellant with more a more than adequate period within which to gain experience of instruction and to reach the qualifying standard in the Part 3 assessment.

c) The Appellant has failed the Part 3 assessment twice and has cancelled an assessment which was booked in for 4^th December 2024. He has consequently not met the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor.

d) The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as an Approved Driving Instructor.

e) It is not necessary to hold a trainee licence to sit the Part 3 assessment, nor is it essential for the Appellant to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. It was pointed out that he could attend a training course, or study and practise with an Approved Driving Instructor, or give tuition on his own, provided that he does not receive payment of any kind for this.

7. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal was received by the Tribunal on 14^th October 2024. It was completed and signed on his behalf by Qaseem Raja of Peterborough Driving School. The Notice of Appeal does not state why The Appellant considers that the Respondent's decision is wrong, but it goes on to explain that his "health issues disrupted his training progress and he missed out 7 months of training.". Now fully recovered, he states that he is "eager to continue his training and prepare for the Part 3 test, for which we are currently on the waiting list.". He confirms that he seeks a further 6 months extension "to make up the time he missed due to his illness", and to "give [Mr Raja] enough time to complete [the Appellant's] training to pass his Part 3 exam".
8. Within the appeal notice, Mr Raja advances on the Appellant's behalf that "[The Appellant] has no intentions to make a living on his trainee badge as he fully understands its only for my training purpose. He is under my supervision and I watch him teaching while I sit in the back of his lessons to give him feedback and support.". This is of course one of the methods suggested by the Registrar for the Appellant to gain practical experience without the need of a trainee licence (see paragraph 6(e) above). Paid instruction may of course only be given by someone who is either on the Register of Approved Instructors or the holder of a trainee licence (s.123 Road Traffic Act 1988).
9. In the Registrar's response to the appeal, his reasons for refusing the application reiterate the reasons for refusal set out above. Additionally, the Registrar points out that whilst the Appellant has failed the Part 3 assessment twice, a further assessment, which was booked for 4^th December 2024, was cancelled by the Appellant. His view is that the Appellant has had ample time and opportunity to reach the required standard, but has nonetheless failed to do so.

Legal Framework

10. The circumstances in which a person may be granted a trainee licence are detailed within Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("The Act"), and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. The granting of a trainee licence permits applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified and placed on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. The granting of a trainee licence under section 129(1) of the Act is:

"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."

11. 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').
12. The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing the Part 1 examination, and whilst there is no restriction on the number of attempts a candidate may have for Part 1 of the qualifying examination, Parts 2 and 3 permit only three attempts at each. Should an applicant fail to comply with these requirements, the entire examination would need to be retaken (i.e. Parts, 1, 2 and 3). However, they would not be permitted to retake any part of the examination until 2 years after the date when they passed their Part 1 examination.
13. Upon passing Part 2, an applicant may be granted a trainee licence. The granting of a trainee licence permits applicants to provide driving instruction for payment before they are fully qualified and on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (s.123(1) of the Act). It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.
14. Section 129(3) of the Act permits the Registrar to "refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued". However, he must give written notice stating that he is considering the refusal of the application and give particulars of the grounds upon which he is considering this (s.129(7) of the Act). Once notice of this consideration has been given, section 129(8)(c) provides that:

"before deciding whether or not to refuse the application, the Registrar must take into consideration any such representations made within that period."

15. The period referred to within that section is a period of 14 days from the date when notice was given by the Registrar (s.129(8)(a)of the Act), and the Registrar is not permitted to decide to refuse the application for the licence until after this period has come to an end (s.129(8)(b)).
16. Section 129(6) provides as follows:

"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."

17. The Appellant's right of appeal and the powers of the Tribunal to determine this appeal are set out within s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such an order as it thinks fit.
18. 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.
19. It is for the Appellant to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent's decision was wrong.

The Appeal Hearing

20. The hearing took place by video link with the Appellant and Qaseem Raja, who had drafted the Appeal Notice on behalf of the Appellant. The Respondent was not in attendance, but had provided a comprehensive response to the appeal notice which was before the Tribunal as part of the 22-page appeal bundle. The Appellant confirmed that he and Mr Raja had this same bundle available to them during the hearing.
21. The Appellant referred to his medical condition when making submissions, and confirmed that this affects his jaw, causing locking and causes pain in his neck. He stated that he has to talk a lot when giving instruction to students, and this limits what he can do. He referred to the letter of Dr Tabasum Shah, which had been provided to the Tribunal with his Notice of Appeal, and he confirmed that what is said in that document is correct. Specifically, he confirmed that he was referred to oral surgeons by his doctor, and that this referral was rejected, but he went on to explain that he has been referred back to a specialist following his mother being diagnosed with cancer and him having had some issues with his glands. He confirmed that this was the second condition referred to within the doctor's letter, but he wanted to get checked out when he found out his mother had cancer. Save for saying that he found his condition painful, the Appellant was not able to specifically set out how this condition prevented him from providing driving instruction to students.
22. The Appellant was referred by the Tribunal to his Appeal Notice, dated 14^th October 2024, which states that he is now "fit to carry on his training", and he confirmed that this was the case. However, he stated that the reason for cancelling a booked Part 3 assessment on 4^th December 2024 was that he was "not ready for the test". When asked further questions about this, he simply stated that his lack of training was the reason for this. Mr Raja then stated to the Tribunal that the Appellant could not get his car insurance renewed as a consequence of being informed that his application for a third trainee licence had been refused. The Appellant confirmed this to be the position, but the Tribunal had not been provided with any documentary evidence of this. However, Mr Raja was permitted to read out what was purported to be an email from the insurer. It was apparent that this was not a flat refusal to insure the Appellant, but rather requested certain information from him, which did not appear to have then been sent on to the insurer.
23. When questioned about this, Mr Raja told the Tribunal that the Appellant had telephoned the insurer to inform them that an appeal was pending and that a test date was booked in for December 2024. However, he stated that the insurer had informed him that the test date was too far away, and that because he didn't have a valid 'badge', they would not be renewing his insurance. The Appellant confirmed this to be accurate.
24. Whilst the Appellant was essentially submitting that he could not carry out any training without the proper insurance, it came to light through Mr Raja that he was able to train with him in his car under Mr Raja's insurance. Whether or not this was factually correct, this was corroborated by the Notice of Appeal where Mr Raja had stated "[The Appellant] has no intentions to make a living on his trainee badge as he fully understands its only for my training purpose. He is under my supervision and I watch him teaching while I sit in the back of his lessons to give him feedback and support.". This of course suggests that he was able to continue training under Mr Raja's supervision, albeit without the ability to receive payment for any instruction himself.
25. The Appellant stated that one of the issues he has had with his training is that he has found it hard to get students. Mr Raja then informed the Tribunal that the Appellant has been able to carry on with his training, but that he hasn't done very much.
26. The Appellant informed the Tribunal that he had another Part 3 assessment booked in on 18^th March 2025, but when he got there his car wouldn't start at the test centre and the examiner was unwilling to go ahead with the test.
27. Though unrepresented today, the Respondent's reasons for refusing the application for a third trainee licence are documented in the response to the Appeal Notice. In essence, the Respondent's position is that the system of issuing trainee licences is not and must not become an alternative to registration as an Approved Driving Instructor, and that the Appellant has had the benefit of two trainee licences for a total period of 12 months, which is 6 months beyond the period of time provided by one licence. Consequently, it is submitted that the Appellant has had a more than reasonable period of time to gain practical experience and to pass the Part 3 assessment. Additionally, it is highlighted that the Appellant's cancellation of the Part 3 assessment in December 2024 would have provided him with an opportunity to complete the Qualifying Examination.

Conclusions

28. In considering the Appellant's submissions, it is accepted that his personal circumstances and medical problems may have had some limited impact upon his ability and availability to train. It is additionally accepted that the holding of a trainee licence is necessary in order to maintain the necessary insurance needed when training by giving instruction 'for payment'. However, it is noted that the Appellant was able to carry out training in Mr Raja's car, under his insurance, albeit it without receiving payment.
29. Despite it being a common misunderstanding, it is not the case that individuals are entitled to the continual renewal of trainee licences until they pass their Part 3 assessment. The 6-month period of such licences is set on the basis that this is an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 assessment, as it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence in order to either prepare for or take the Part 3 assessment.
30. We note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of 2 trainee licences covering a period of 12 months. Additionally, by applying for a third licence the Appellant has had the benefit of section 129(6)(b) of the Act, extending the second trainee licence until this appeal is despised of (i.e. a period of 7 months).
31. It is further noted that had the third trainee licence been granted, this would have expired at the beginning of March 2025, before the consideration of this appeal. Additionally, as the Appellant passed his Part 1 assessment on 18^th January 2023, the two-year period within which he must have passed both the Part 2 and Part 3 assessments had expired by 19^th January 2025. The Appellant has therefore had the benefit of being able to train by giving instruction for payment for an additional period of almost 8 months, exceeding both:

(a) The period of 6 months which a third trainee licence would have permitted; and

(b) The fixed statutory maximum period within which he must pass the Part 3 assessment.

32. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has taken into account all of the evidence submitted to it in advance of this hearing, and has considered all of the circumstances relevant to the appeal. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the Registrar was wrong to refuse the application for a third trainee licence.
33. The appeal is dismissed.

Signed: Judge Armstrong-Holmes

Date: 29^th April 2025