First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 516 (GRC)

 Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0905

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Transport

 

Heard by Cloud Video Platform

Heard on: 9 May 2025

Decision given on: 9 May 2025

Before

 

JUDGE TAFT

 

Between

 

IMRAN UMAR AHMED

Appellant

and

 

REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Represented himself

For the Respondent: Did not appear

 

Decision: The appeal is Allowed

 

Mode of hearing:      The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing using Cloud Video Platform (CVP) The Appellant was able to attend. The Respondent has indicated that it does not intend to appear at hearings of this nature for the foreseeable future. The Tribunal considered Rule 36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended), noted that the Respondent was given notice of the hearing and determined that it was in the interests of justice to proceed.

 

 

 

REASONS

Introduction

1.      The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the "Act"), for one six-month period from 1 April to 30 September 2024. He was refused a second trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ('the Registrar') made on 24 October 2024. The Appellant now appeals that decision.

Legal Framework

2.      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').  The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1. Only three attempts are allowed for each Part. The whole examination must be retaken if an applicant fails Part 2 or Part 3 three times or does not pass both within the two years. 

 

3.      If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a licence under section 129(1) of the Act:

'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.'

 

4.      This is commonly known as 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.

 

5.      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." 

 

6.      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."  

 

7.      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." 

 

8.      Section 131 of the Act gives a right of appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit. In doing so, the Tribunal must consider whether the Registrar's decision was wrong. The Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it but must give 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 Decision

9.      On 1 October 2024 the Registrar informed the Appellant that he was considering refusing his application for a second trainee licence. The Appellant made representations on 7 October 2024 that he could not fully focus on training due to his mother's ill health, for which reason he had to leave the country for a period of time. He further stated that he had difficulty obtaining a test date.

 

10.  On 24 October 2024, the Registrar notified the Appellant that it refused his application for a second trainee licence. The notice of refusal states the reasons for the refusal as:

a.      The Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the first licence.

b.      The Appellant had already been granted one trainee licence of six months duration which is considered to be a more than adequate period of time.

c.       It was not Parliament's intention that the candidates should be issued licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination and the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor.

The Appeal

11.   The Appellant's notice of appeal dated 27 October 2024 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal:

a.      The Appellant struggled to get a date for his Part 3 test before successfully arranging a test for 19 September 2024, in which he was not successful due to lack of practice.

b.      The Appellant had urgent business in Pakistan that took him out of the country for almost a month.

c.       The Appellant has no other source of income having withdrawn his cab licence. He has bought a new car for training, for which he borrowed money from a friend.

 

12.  The Registrar's statement of case dated 29 November 2024 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that:

a.      The Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of his first licence by failing to return his ADI 21S training record with evidence of mandatory additional training.

b.      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 (para 6(i)).

c.       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 (para 6(ii)).

d.     Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. (para 6(iii)).

e.      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 her 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 (para 6(iv)).

The evidence

13.  The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence containing 22 pages, including the Appellants full trainee licence history from the registrar and confirmation of flights to and from Karachi on 30 May and 3 July 2024.

 

14.  The Appellant told the Tribunal that he was able to complete 38 hours of lessons in April and May 2024 before visiting Pakistan and a further 2 hours on his return. He had completed his ADI 21S but returned only page 1 in error. He says that the Registrar did not ask him for the rest of the form.

 

15.  The Appellant said that he had only three students between July and September 2024 and this was not enough to give him the practical experience he needed to pass the test. Since then, he has had more lessons and is teaching some students. He has a test booked for 14 May 2025 before which he has more lessons scheduled.

Tribunal's Findings of Fact

16.  The Appellant passed his Part 1 Test on 4 October 2023 and Part 2 test on 15 January 2024. The Appellant's first trainee licence was granted on 1 April 2024 for a period of six months. During those six months, he had to travel to Pakistan for a period of approximately 5 weeks in order to visit his sick mother. This impacted his training and practical experience.

 

17.  The Appellant failed his Part 3 Test on 19 September 2024. He has another test booked for 14 May 2025.

Conclusions

18.  The Tribunal considered the Appellant's points of appeal.

 

19.  The six-month period of trainee licences is set on the basis that this is considered to be an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 Test. The Appellant has already had the benefit of one trainee licence covering a period of six months from 1 April 2024 to 30 September 2024. However, he provided evidence that he needed to travel to see his sick mother for a period of approximately 5 weeks. The Registrar failed to take that evidence into account. The Registrar's decision was therefore wrong.

 

20.  However, by applying for a second trainee licence the Appellant has had the benefit of s.129(6)(b) of the Act extending the first trainee licence until this appeal is disposed of. Had the second trainee licence been granted this would have expired before the consideration of this Appeal. The Appellant did not suggest that his training or preparation has been impacted during this time.

 

21.  The Appellant should have been granted a second trainee licence, in accordance with Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, from 1 October 2024 to 31 March 2025. However, that licence would now have expired. Accordingly, the Appellant should not be granted a further licence today.

 

22.  The Appellant is still able to receive lessons and take his test on 14 May 2025 notwithstanding that he will no longer be able to receive payment for providing lessons.

 

 

Signed                                                                                  Date: 9 May 2025

                                                                 

Judge Taft