Shehab Ahmed v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Registrar”) made on 1 September 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

2. The Appellant is 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 2 September 2024 to 1 September 2025. He was refused a further licence. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

3. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). All parties joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The Appeal

4. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 11 September 2025 relies on the grounds that his efforts to book a second attempt at the Part 3 test were hindered by the current and well-documented backlog. He did not attend his first booked test because of a missed notification email, and then failed his first attempt. He asks for a further licence to continue teaching his pupils and receive ongoing support from his trainer before his next attempt on 27 November 2025.

5. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 4 December 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the purpose of the licence is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the Part 3 test. The Appellant has failed to complete a booked test on 29 January 2025 and then failed his first attempt. The DVSA cancelled a test booked for 27 November 2025. He had another test booked for 15 December 2025. The Registrar says that the Appellant can still attempt the test and obtain unpaid experience without a further licence.

6. The Appellant did not provide a Reply. The law

7. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in section 129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

8. 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 ”.

9. In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This is made up of: the written examination (Part 1); the driving ability and fitness test (Part 2); and the instructional ability and fitness test (Part 3). Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1, otherwise the whole examination has to be retaken.

10. A candidate may be granted a trainee licence if they have passed Part 2. However, holding a trainee licence is not necessary in order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, and many people qualify without having held a trainee licence.

11. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act . The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit ( section 131(3) ). 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 evidence

12. I have considered a bundle of evidence containing 23 pages.

13. This includes evidence of the Appellant’s full licence history from the Registrar. This shows that the Appellant has failed to attend the Part 3 test on 29 January 2025, and failed the Part 3 test on 14 April 2025. The DVSA cancelled the test booked on 27 November 2025. Another test was booked for 15 December 2025.

14. I heard submissions from the Appellant at the hearing. The Appellant confirmed that he failed the second attempt at the Part 3 test on 15 December 2025. He did have a final attempt booked for 10 March 2026, but this was cancelled by the DVSA. He now has another test booked for 2 April.

15. At the hearing, the Appellant explained his concerns about the delay in obtaining test dates. It took eight months for him to attend his first attempt, and another four months for a second attempt. After having another date cancelled by the DVSA he is asking for a trainee licence to remain in place until his next booked date on 2 April. Conclusions

16. I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of 12 months which is adequate to prepare for the Part 3 test. He is able to continue to gain experience and take the test without a trainee licence. As the Registrar has said, it is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken. As the Appellant applied for a third licence before the second one expired, the licence has remained in force until this hearing and he has been able to attempt the test again after submitting this appeal.

17. I do have some sympathy for the Appellant’s point about delays in obtaining dates for the Part 3 test. I note that booked dates have been cancelled twice by the DVSA so far, and he is understandably concerned that the April date may be cancelled again. However, due to an error in missing an email he did not attend his first test date, which was less than five months after he first obtained a trainee licence. If he had attended, he would have had at least two attempts at passing the test before his two licences expired.

18. As I explained at the hearing, I would not be able to extend the trainee licence to April. The appeal is against the Registrar’s decision not to grant a third licence. At most I could find that a third six-month licence should have been granted until 28 February 2026.

19. The Appellant has not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and I now dismiss this appeal.