Aman Jemal v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. Mr Jemal is an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) whose name appears on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”) maintained by the Respondent Registrar. On 30 July 2025, the Registrar notified Mr Jemal that he had decided to remove his name from the Register on the basis that he had failed to pass the test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction (colloquially known as a standards check or check test) on three occasions. Mr Jemal now appeals that decision. Legal Framework

2. The Registrar maintains the Register pursuant to Section 125 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ the Act ”). Section 125(5) provides that the entry of a person’s name in the Register is subject to their submitting themselves for a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction at any time required to do so by the Registrar.

3. By Section 128(2) (d) of the Act , the Registrar may remove the name of a person from the Register if he is satisfied that he failed to pass such a test. Only one failed test is required before the Registrar has power to remove the name from the Register, though in practice the Registrar usually allows three attempts before removal.

4. 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.

5. Section 133(1) of the Act provides that a magistrates’ court may determine whether a test was properly conducted. Section 133(3) provides that no appeal may be made to this Tribunal in respect of which an application can be made to a magistrates’ court under Section 133(1) . Simply put, this Tribunal does not have the power to consider whether or not the conduct of a test was fair. The Decision

6. On 26 March 2025 the Registrar informed Mr Jemal that he was considering removing his name from the Register, subject to any representations made within 28 days.

7. On 23 April 2025, Mr Jemal sent an email headed “standard check appeal”. This email objected to the competency score of his most recent test and claimed that he demonstrated and evidenced he met the requirements to pass.

8. On 28 May 2025, the DVSA Public Liaison team responded to that email. The email addressed a number of points raised in Mr Jemal’s email but concluded that the standards check was conducted under the DVSA’s guidelines and advice. The email informed Mr Jemal of his right to appeal to the magistrates’ court.

9. On 30 July 2025, the Registrar notified Mr Jemal that he had decided to remove his name from the Register on the basis that Mr Jemal had failed the standards check on three occasions: on 20 June 2023, 21 March 2024 and 20 March 2025. The Appeal

10. Mr Jemal’s notice of appeal dated 23 August 2025 says that he was not given chance to demonstrate his ability to teach.

11. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 12 February 2026 resists the appeal on the following grounds: 1.1. Section 125(5) authorises the Registrar to remove a person’s name from the Register after one failed test, though it is the Registrar’s practice to allow three attempts at the test; 1.2. Mr Jemal failed three consecutive tests; 1.3. In two of the tests, he failed to achieve the minimum Risk Management score of 8 as well as the overall minimum score of 31; 1.4. Tests were conducted by different examiners; 1.5. On the first two occasions, the examiner carried out a debrief and advised on personal development; 1.6. On the third occasion, the examiner notified Mr Jemal of his findings and gave him a copy of the assessment form; 1.7. On 23 April 2025, Mr Jemal made representations in the form of an appeal against the outcome of the test on 20 March. That was forwarded to the DVSA Public Liaison Team to be investigated as a complaint but the complaint was not upheld; 1.8. Mr Jemal has provided no explanation as to why he failed the test three times or any evidence of the steps he has taken to address his instructional ability; 1.9. The Registrar is no longer satisfied that Mr Jemal’s ability to give instruction is of a satisfactory standard; and 1.10. In the interests of road safety and consumer protection, his name was removed because he was unable to satisfy the Registrar that his ability to give driving instruction was of a satisfactory standard. Evidence

12. I considered a bundle of evidence containing 35 pages. Submissions

13. As Mr Jemal did not attend the hearing on time, I heard from Mr Russell with the Respondent’s submissions first. They were that: 1.1. Section 125 requires an ADI to submit themselves for a test; 1.2. An ADI can be removed from the Register after one failed test, but in practice, the Registrar usually allows three attempts to give opportunity for an ADI to seek development and to apply their skills and knowledge; 1.3. Mr Jemal failed three attempts; 1.4. After the first two attempts, Mr Jemal was given a debrief and copy of the test report and was encouraged to seek development; 1.5. His third test was with a different examiner, in order to ensure independence, but he failed again; 1.6. The Registrar believes that Mr Jemal has had sufficient opportunity to pass the test but has failed to show he meets the minimum standards; 1.7. The Registrar treated Mr Jemal’s email of 23 April 2025 as a complaint, which was investigated but it was found that the test was conducted properly; and 1.8. The Registrar cannot see any grounds of mitigation as to why Mr Jemal was unable to meet the required standard and therefore believes that the decision to remove him from the Register is correct.

2. Mr Jemal responded by saying that he does not believe that the third attempt at the test was fair to him. He said that he told the examiner that he had recently lost his grandmother and was grieving. He believed that he couldn’t change the date of the test and was told he had to go ahead notwithstanding the bereavement. He said that he tried his best to deliver the lesson and believes that if given another opportunity he would do better. He confirmed that he did not appeal to the magistrates’ court as signposted by the response to his complaint.

3. In response, Mr Russell pointed out that this was the first time that the Registrar had been informed about a bereavement so this information was not available at the time the decision was made to remove Mr Jemal from the Register. Findings of Fact

4. The Registrar requires ADIs to complete tests to show that they have maintained their competence. This is colloquially known as a check test or standards check.

5. Mr Jemal was first registered as an ADI in March 2018. He was removed from the Register in August 2020 after failing a standards check. He requalified and was entered onto the Register again in January 2022.

6. Mr Jemal failed tests on 20 June 2023, 21 March 2024 and 20 March 2025.

7. The record of the test on 20 March 2025 does not refer to Mr Jemal informing the examiner of his recent bereavement. The record does record that it was a poorly structured lesson and that a failure to provide remedial instruction led to the student mounting a pavement at speed.

8. The Registrar wrote to Mr Jemal on 26 March 2025 and informed him that the Registrar was considering removing his name from the Register, inviting Mr Jemal to make representations as to why he should not. Mr Jemal sent an email on 23 April 2025 objecting to the result of the third test. That email does not refer to the bereavement but disagrees with the conclusions of the examiner.

9. The DVSA Public Liaison team responded to that email by saying that the standards check was conducted under the DVSA’s guidelines and advice but informing Mr Jemal of his right to appeal to the magistrates’ court. Mr Jemal did not do so.

10. The Registrar then wrote to Mr Jemal on 30 July 2025 to notify him that he had decided to remove his name from the Register. Conclusions

11. I considered Mr Jemal’s grounds of appeal and his submissions today.

12. The Registrar was not aware of Mr Jemal’s bereavement at the time he made the decision to remove his name from the Register and in fact only became aware when Mr Jemal informed the Tribunal today.

13. It is notable that neither Mr Jemal’s email of 23 April 2025 nor his appeal to this Tribunal refer to the bereavement as being the reason he did not pass his test. The email sets out a detailed critique of the examiner’s findings. The appeal says that he was not given chance to demonstrate his ability to teach.

14. I must decide whether the Registrar’s decision to remove Mr Jemal from the Register was wrong. His name was removed because he failed three tests. I cannot consider whether or not those tests were fair or unfair – that is something about which Mr Jemal would have to make an application to the magistrates’ court.

15. Mr Jemal has not satisfied me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong. Whilst I can and do take account of the bereavement, a fact not known to the Registrar at the time of his decision, I am not satisfied that this means that the decision was wrong. Mr Jemal did not rely on it at the time of his initial representations to the Registrar nor in his appeal document. He mentioned it in oral submissions to the Tribunal today after I informed him that I do not have the power to consider the conduct of the test. In the context of his full test history, I am not satisfied that this was the reason he was unable to demonstrate that he could meet the minimum standards.

16. It is for Mr Jemal to satisfy me that the Registrar’s decision is wrong. He has not done so. I therefore dismiss this appeal. Signed Date: 10 March 2026 Judge Taft