Nisar Akram v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), for two six-month periods. They were refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 1 September 2025. 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.

9. Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 confirms that a trainee licence expires the day following the trainee’s third unsuccessful attempt at the instructional ability test.

10. Under Rule 8(3), the Tribunal may strike out a case where: (a) the Appellant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure by the appellant to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings or part of them; (b) the Appellant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal to such an extent that the Tribunal cannot deal with the proceedings fairly and justly; or (c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding.

11. Under Rule 8(4) The Tribunal may not strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings under paragraph (2) or (3)(b) or (c) without first giving the appellant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out. The evidence

12. No bundle having been prepared, I considered the following documents from the Tribunal file: (a) The Registrar’s letter of 12 August 2025 informing the Appellant that it was considering refusing a third licence; (b) The Registrar’s letter confirming his refusal to grant a third trainee licence; (c) The Appellant’s GRC1 and grounds of appeal; (d) The Registrar’s response; and (e) The Registrar’s GRC5 dated 6 January 2026 applying for strike out.

13. I was not supplied with the Appellant’s licence or test history. The Decision

14. On 12 August 2025 the Registrar informed the Appellant that he was considering refusing his application for a third trainee licence. The Appellant made representations on 26 August 2025. I have not seen a copy of those representations.

15. On 1 September 2025, the Registrar notified the Appellant that it refused his application for a third trainee licence. The notice of refusal states the reasons for the refusal as: (a) The Appellant failed to provide any evidence of lost training time; (b) The Appellant had already been granted two trainee licences of six months duration which is considered to be a more than adequate period of time; and (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

16. The Appellant’s notice of appeal dated 11 September 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal: (a) The Appellant left his previous employment and has invested significantly in their training; (b) The absence of a trainee licence would cause them severe financial hardship and prevent them progressing towards qualification; (c) They are contractually bound to ongoing costs even if they are unable to work; (d) They rely on Article 23(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the public law principle of proportionality; (e) There has been no direct availability of Part 3 tests in their area, only the “book to hold” option, which leads to months of waiting without dates; (f) They were not therefore able to secure a date before their licence expired; (g) They have been informed that dates are likely to be 3-4 months from allocation; (h) There have been no Part 3 dates available within a reasonable travelling distance; (i) Systemic DVSA issues have denied them fair opportunity to take their test; and (j) The franchise they joined was unable to supply pupils consistently due to pupil hesitation around test availability.

17. The Registrar’s response dated 16 September 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that: (a) The Appellant had already had the benefit of two licences lasting 12 months which has given him sufficient opportunity to gain the necessary experience; and (b) He failed to provide any evidence of lost training time during his second licence period.

18. On 6 January 2026, the Registrar applied to strike out the Appellant’s appeal on form GRC5 on the basis that it said that the Appellant failed his third attempt at the Part 3 test on 5 January. Tribunal’s Findings of Fact

19. I have no evidence of the Appellant’s test history save that contained within the GRC5 application for strike out, informing me that the Appellant failed their third attempt at the Part 3 test on 5 January. In the absence of any evidence from the Appellant to the contrary, I find that they did fail their third attempt at the Part 3 test on 5 January. Conclusions

20. I cannot strike the appeal out because the Appellant has not been given notice under Rule 8(4).

21. Nevertheless, I have considered the contents of the GRC5 and found as a fact that the Appellant failed their third attempt at the Part 3 test.

22. Whether or not the Registrar’s decision was wrong, I cannot now substitute a decision granting a third trainee licence: that would be academic as the licence would be treated as having expired on 6 January 2026 in any event.

23. I therefore dismiss this appeal. Signed Date: 6 February 2026 Judge Taft