Mehmet Guven v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Preliminary matters

1. References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of T he Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. In this decision, I use the following terms to denote the meanings shown: ADIs: Approved Driving Instructors (those whose name appear on the Register) . Appellant: Mehmet Guven. Application: The Appellant’s application to the Registrar, dated 23 October 2025, for the grant of a third Licence. Licence: A licence under section 129 to give paid instruction in the driving of a motor car (see paragraph 17 below); often referred to as a ‘trainee licence’. Register: The Register of Approved Driving Instructors maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Registrar: The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Respondent). Registrar’s Decision: The decision of the Registrar, by way of email to the Appellant dated 4 December 2025, refusing the Application. Regulations: The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. Qualifying Examination: The qualifying examination referred to in paragraph 14 below. Introduction - background to the appeal

3. This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

4. The Appellant is an aspiring ADI who has previously been granted two Licences. The Appellant applied for a third Licence (the Application), resulting in the Registrar’s Decision.

5. The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision are set out in paragraph 8 below. The appeal The grounds of appeal

6. The material aspects of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal stated (in essence): a. The Appellant’s access to regular pupils and sustained teaching hours was significantly limited, for reasons outside of his control, including “ difficulty securing consistent pupil availability and interruptions to planned instructional time ”. b. Consequently, the level of experience gained during the period of his Licences “ did not reflect the level of exposure normally expected over an equivalent uninterrupted period .”.

7. The Appellant also stated that he was committed to becoming an ADI and that an extension to his Licence would provide a proportionate and structured opportunity to consolidate his skills in readiness for the ‘Part 3’ test of the Qualifying Examination. The Registrar’s case

8. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s response to the appeal stated that the reasons for refusing the Application were that: a. 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 as an ADI. The system of issuing Licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration as an ADI. b. A Licence is not granted to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the Qualifying Examination, but to allow up to six months experience of (paid) instruction. c. The Appellant has had ample time and opportunity to reach the required standard for qualification as an ADI.

9. The Registrar also stated that the Appellant had provided no evidence of lost training time, or a lack of pupils and has had the benefit of two Licences for twelve months. Mode of hearing

10. The Appellant asked for the appeal be decided without a hearing. The Respondent did not request an oral hearing, effectively indicating their consent to the appeal being determined without a hearing. The Tribunal has the benefit of the bundle referred to in paragraph 11 below. Having reviewed the same, I was therefore satisfied that the appeal was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rule 32 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 and that it was fair and just to conduct the appeal in this way. The evidence and submissions

11. The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle which included the Appellant’s reasons for the appeal, the Respondent’s response and details of the Appellant’s Licence history from the Registrar, as well as other written arguments and supporting evidence from both parties.

12. All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant legal principles

13. Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor is an ADI or the holder of a current Licence.

14. A person must pass a qualifying examination in order to qualify as an ADI. The qualifying examination is made up of: a. a written examination (Part 1); b. a practical test of ability and fitness to drive (Part 2); and c. a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct (Part 3).

15. An application to take the ‘Part 3’ test must be made within two years of passing the ‘Part 1’ test, otherwise the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

16. Three attempts are permitted in respect of each part of the Qualifying Examination. If any part of the Qualifying Examination is failed after three attempts, the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

17. The grant of a Licence enables a person to provide instruction for payment before they qualify as an ADI. The purpose for which a Licence is granted is set out in section 129(1). In essence, a Licence is granted for the purpose of enabling a potential ADI to acquire practical experience as a driving instructor, with a view to them undergoing ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination. The circumstances in which Licences may be granted are set out in section 129 and in the Regulations.

18. An applicant may be granted a Licence if they have passed ‘Part 2’ of the Qualifying Examination and if they are eligible to take the ‘Part 3’ test. An application for a Licence must be made within two years of passing ‘Part 1’ of the Qualifying Examination.

19. A Licence lasts for six months. When a Licence expires, giving paid driving lessons is prohibited unless (as set out in paragraph 13 above) a further Licence is obtained or ADI status is achieved.

20. Subject to certain conditions being met, the Registrar must grant a person’s first application for a Licence. However, pursuant to section 129(3), the Registrar has the discretion to refuse any subsequent application for a Licence. Where an applicant appeals to the Tribunal in respect of the Registrar’s decision to refuse a new Licence, the Licence continues in effect until the appeal is determined.

21. Holding a Licence is not necessary in order to take ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination or to qualify as an ADI. Many people qualify as an ADI without having held a Licence. The role and powers of the Tribunal

22. An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

23. The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the grant or refusal of the Application, as it thinks fit.

24. However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for them to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

25. Where the Tribunal makes an order for the refusal of the Application, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply for a Licence for a period of up to four years. Discussion and findings

26. In my view, the Appellant has not demonstrated that the grant of the Application is appropriate.

27. The main reasons given by the Appellant in support of his appeal were, in summary, that: (a) his access to regular pupils and sustained teaching hours were limited; and (b) he had not obtained the level of experience normally expected to be gained during the period of his two Licences.

28. As stated by the Registrar, the Appellant had not provided any evidence of lost training time, or a lack of pupils, during the time that he held his two Licences. Moreover, whilst the Appellant stated that his access to regular pupils and sustained teaching hours were limited for reasons outside of his control, he did not explain what those reasons were (merely stating that they included “ difficulty securing consistent pupil availability and interruptions to planned instructional time ”). Consequently, the Appellant has not demonstrated that there was any adverse impact on his ability to prepare for the ‘Part 3’ test such that the grant of the Application would be appropriate.

29. Likewise, whilst the Appellant has stated that an extension to his Licence would provide a proportionate and structured opportunity to consolidate his skills in readiness for the ‘Part 3’ test, he has not set out any reasons as to why a third Licence is necessary for that aim.

30. As I have noted, holding a Licence is not necessary in order to take ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination or to qualify as an ADI. Accordingly, there is still scope for the Appellant to develop and practice for the purposes of taking ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination. As the Registrar submitted, the Appellant does not need a Licence in order to attend a training course, study and practice with an ADI and give tuition on his own (provided that he does not receive payment of any kind for this). These options are used by some prospective ADIs and, as I have noted, many people qualify as an ADI without ever having held a Licence.

31. Also, as the Registrar submitted, because the Appellant made the Application before the expiry date of their second Licence and subsequently appealed the Registrar’s Decision, that Licence has remained in force pending determination of the appeal. Accordingly, the Appellant has already had the benefit of a Licence since 4 November 2024 until the present date, a period of over 16 months. In my view therefore (and in the absence of any extenuating circumstances), the Appellant has already had sufficient time to use his Licence as part of his preparation for the ‘Part 3’ test. The Appellant has his second attempt at the ‘Part 3’ test booked for 23 March 2026, which is now less than one week away.

32. For all of the reasons I have given, I am not persuaded that the Registrar’s Decision was wrong. I therefore dismiss the appeal and I order that the Application is refused. Signed: Judge Roper Date: 17 March 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal