Raahim Uddin v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’), made on 13 th August 2025, to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

2. The decision was made on the papers, as requested by the Appellant. Legal Framework

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

4. A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

5. A 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. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

7. Three attempts are permitted at each part. The final Part 3 test, must be booked within 2 years of passing Part 1. If it is not passed, the whole Qualifying Examination has 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. 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.

10. 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.

11. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant. Factual Background to the Appeal

12. The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 11 th April 2024 and Part 2 on 29 th May 2024.

13. The Appellant was in receipt of two trainee licence which, together, were valid from 22 nd July 2024 to 21 st July 2025.

14. Between July 2024 and November 2024 the Appellant cancelled four bookings for the Part 3 test. He has not explained why.

15. He made his first attempt at the test on 18 th February 2025 and failed it.

16. On 4 th July 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. This application was therefore made after the expiry of the second trainee license. His license is extended to the date of this decision by virtue of that application.

17. On 9 th July the Appellant was informed, by the Respondent, that he was considering refusing the application and invited to make representations.

18. The Appellant made representations to the Respondent the same day. He said that he had been on the waiting list for a further attempt since failing in February and that there were no tests available. He said that if the third license was not granted he would not have a job. He invited the Respondent to look at reviews he had received.

19. The application was refused on 13 th August 2025.

20. The reasons for the Respondent’s decision, in summary, were that: a. no evidence of lost training time had been provided; b. the Appellant had had sufficient time to become competent .

21. The Appellant had one further attempt at the Part 3 test subsequently, which was on 7 th August 2025. He was unsuccessful. Appeal to the Tribunal

22. The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 20 th August 2025.

23. The grounds of appeal were, in summary, that; a. each time he had booked a test he had been on a waiting list for several months; b. each time he could only take partly trained students because he was rushed into doing it; with better students he would have been more successful; c. many people fail in his local test centre; d. he invited the Tribunal to “look into” his successful students but did not provide any evidence from them

24. The Respondent, in his response, stated: a. the Appellant has had ample time to prepare and had not provided evidence of lost training time or lack of pupils; b. the Appellant appeared to be using the trainee license as a source of income; c. the Appellant has had sufficient time to prepare, from the granting of the license to the determination of the appeal; d. despite having had ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; and e. the refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. f. as at 6 th November 2025 no further attempt had been booked. Evidence

25. I read and took account of a bundle of documents prepared by the Respondent. Discussion and Conclusions

26. I may overturn the decision of the Respondent if I am of the opinion that it was wrong. The burden is on the Appellant to show this.

27. I do not accept the Appellant’s evidence with regard to the lack of test dates. The record shows that he cancelled four dates in a six month period. No explanation has been offered for this.

28. The Appellant has provided no evidence with regard to his position after 7 th August 2025 and has apparently not booked in a further test, despite having a current trainee license and having presumably been able to give paid instruction.

29. The Appellant has not persuaded me that the Respondent’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Respondent’s decision and the appeal is dismissed.