Emdadur Chowdhry v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

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 two six-month periods from 1 st July 2024 to 30 th June 2025. He was refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 2 nd July 2025 . The Appellant now appeals that decision.

2. The case was listed for a paper hearing. Neither party attended the hearing. Having considered the evidence before me, I was satisfied that the Tribunal could properly determine the issues in the absence of the parties, within rule 36 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended).

3. What follows is a summary of the written submissions, evidence and my view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of my reasoning. The absence of a reference 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 he holds 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. 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.

9. 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."

10. 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."

11. 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."

12. 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.

13. 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

14. In the Appellant’s representations to the Registrar (dated 20 th June 2025), the Appellant explains: “ I have submitted a renewal application. unfortunately [sic] refused. I believe my PDI badge should be allowed to renew another 3 months. Reason (1) my test been cancelled 2 times by DVSA I was badly disappointed. (2) After long searched I found on local trainer I was awaiting for more than 2 monts [sic] to get a schedule. (3) My trainer re scheduled few times for his illness. My training time been behind ¾. Months [sic] (4) currently few of my pupils are waiting for their driving. Test [sic]. I don’t want to leave them until they passes there driving test . [sic] (4) ADI part 3 traing [sic] cost are really expensive hard to survive without some Lerner [sic]’.

15. The Registrar’s decision letter, dated 2 nd July 2025 states that he has considered the representations made on 20 th June 2025, but has refused the application because ‘ no evidence to support lack of pupils or practice time, You have already been granted two trainee licences of 6 months’’.

16. The Appellant’s notice of appeal dated 26 th January 2025 relies on the following grounds of appeal: ‘1. DVSA 2 times cancelled my part 3 test without any valid reason

2. Couldn’t find any trainee – I was waiting for 3 months to start my Part 3 training

3. My pupils booked test they need more time to get ready That’s why I need to extend my trainee licence 3 months please’.

17. The Registrar’s statement of case dated 13 th October 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that: i. 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; ii. 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. The Appellant has already had two trainee licences which cover a period of 12 months. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a third licence before the expiry date of the second, 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; iii. since passing her driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability twice and cancelled two more such tests booked for 18 October 2025 and 13 November 2025. Regrettably, DVSA cancelled three such tests booked for 31 January 2025, 25 April 2025 and 07 October 2025. (Annex A) Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; and iv. the refusal of a third 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.

18. I note, importantly, that the Test History states the Appellant: a. Passed Part 1 on 5 th October 2023; b. Cancelled Part 2 on 22 nd November 2023; c. Failed Part 2 on 19 th January 2024; d. Passed Part 2 on 25 th April 2024; e. Cancelled Part 3 on 18 th October 2024; f. DSA cancelled Part 3 on 31 st January 2025; g. DSA cancelled Part 3 on 25 th April 2025; h. Failed Part 3 on 10 th July 2025; i. Failed Part 3 on 25 th September 2025; j. DSA cancelled Part 3 on 7 th October 2025; k. Cancelled Part 3 on 13 th November 2025; l. Has a test booked for 19 th November (ie yesterday). The results of that test have not been provided to the Tribunal. The evidence

19. I considered a bundle of evidence containing 22 numbered pages, including the Appellants full trainee licence history from the registrar. Conclusions

20. I have considered the Appellant’s points of appeal. I note: a. I have considered the Appellant’s submissions relating to the ‘ unforeseen and deeply personal circumstances ’, albeit I note that no dates have been provided to the Tribunal. As such as it is difficult to know how they related to the different licences/proposed licence. b. The Appellant did not respond to the Respondent’s submission that ‘ no evidence has been provided of lost training time’ . c. The Appellant stated that he had applied for his Part 3 test and was awaiting a date (at the time he completed his notice of appeal). d. I am aware that it can be difficult to book a Part 3 test and it is common for the system to take a booking but immediately place it ‘on hold’ without a date being set for the Part 3 Test. e. However, I also note that the Appellant took and failed the Part 3 Test on 24 th October 2024 and also on 13 th March 2025. f. The Appellant had a further test booked for 24 th October 2025 which he cancelled (I am unaware of the reasons why he cancelled this appointment). g. The Appellant has a further appointment scheduled on 29 th December 2025.

21. The application is refused because: a. It is not the case that individuals are entitled to continual renewal of trainee licences until they pass their Part 3 test. The six month period of such licences is set on the basis this is an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 Test, and it is not necessary to hold a Trainee Licence in order to either prepare for or to take the Part 3 test. b. I take into account the circumstances put forward by the appellant; however he has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of twelve months (these came to an end on 30 th June 2025) . c. The Appellant had the opportunity to take the test again on 18 th October 2024 and also 13 th November 2025 – I am aware he cancelled these tests, however I have not been provided with an explanation as to the reason for this. d. Additionally, by applying for a third trainee licence the Appellant has had the benefit of s.129(6) (b) of the Act extending his trainee licence until this appeal is disposed of (i.e. a period of almost 5 months).

22. The Appellant asked for a further 3 months on his appeal notice, dated 11 th July 2025. He has had more than 3 months, so he has achieved what he wanted, simply by bringing an appeal.

23. Had the third trainee licence been granted this would have expired on 30 th December 2025, a little over a month after the date of this hearing. I find it is proportionate in the circumstances to refuse the application, the Appellant has had the benefit of a further (just under) 5 months, just by bringing the appeal.

24. It is important to note that the Appellant passed his Part 1 test on 5 th October 2023 and so his two-year period within which he must have passed both the Part 2 and Part 3 tests expired on 4 th October 2025 (ie before the scheduled date for his Part 3 Test on 19 th November 2025). I am not able to grant him an extension of time past the statutory maximum period of 2 years.

25. I am not persuaded that the Registrar’s decision was wrong. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and dismiss this appeal.

26. I note for completion, that I received (i) an email from the Appellant stating that he had failed his part 3 and did not need a hearing; (ii) an email from the Respondent applying for the case to be struck out because the Appellant had failed his part 3 test. I received both these emails after I had already decided the appeal. I did not consider it necessary to consider these applications, as I had already decided the case at the time the emails were received. Having considered the overriding objective as set out at Rule 2 of the Procedure Rules, I find that it would cause unnecessary delay (as I would have wanted the Respondent to consent to the withdrawal and/or submissions from the Appellant on the strike out) and it is not proportionate to do so. I have refused the substantive appeal, I am not required in the circumstances to consider a separate strike out application/application to withdraw. Signed: Judge Kiai Date: 20 th November 2025