Waseem Bostan 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 November 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence. Legal framework

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

3. 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.

4. 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.’

5. 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’).

6. Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant. Factual background to the appeal

10. The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 15 April 2024 and passed Part 2 on 2 July 2024. The Appellant applied for two trainee licences which were granted and were valid from 14 October 2024 to 13 October 2025.

11. The Appellant applied for a third trainee licence on 6 October 2025. As the Appellant applied before the licence expired, this means that, at the date of the hearing, the Appellant has been the beneficiary of a trainee licence for 1 year and 4 months.

12. The Appellant booked and cancelled two further attempts at the Part 2 test, presumably in error, on 15 and 29 July 2024. He cancelled his first attempt at the Part 3 test which was booked for 22 October 2024. The DVSA cancelled a test that was booked for 25 October 2024. The Appellant then cancelled a test booked for 9 January 2025. He failed his first attempt at the Part 3 test on 19 February 2025 and failed his second attempt on 23 June 2025. His final attempt was booked for 21 January 2026. The Appellant cancelled that test and his final attempt is now booked for 14 April 2026. Appeal to the Tribunal

13. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal are that he was not able to complete his training because his wife was not well and he had to look after his wife as well as his children. He asked for a short extension until his test date which, at that time, was booked for 21 January 2026.

14. In his letter to the Registrar of 27 October 2025 the Appellant also said that he did not have a suitable student to teach. He said that he now had a family member who he would be training. He included copies of his wife’s medical notes.

15. The Registrar, in his response to the appeal, states: 15.1. 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. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration. 15.2. The licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. By virtue of the Appellant having applied for a third licence before the expiry date of the second, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal. 15.3. Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice and had cancelled three tests. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. 15.4. The refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. He does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on his own (provided that she does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all. Evidence

16. I read and took account of a bundle of documents. The medical notes provided show that his wife attended the GP 5 times in March 2025, twice in June 2023 and 3 times in September 2025. The nature of her illness is unclear. The Appellant has provided no details of the dates of the illness or its nature or explained its impact on his wife’s ability to care for their children. He has not explained or provided evidence of the impact on his training, in terms of details of missed lessons for example, or the period affected. Discussion and conclusions

17. The Appellant may well have missed some training time as a result of the illness of his wife, but in the absence of any evidence or detail of what the impact was and which period was affected, I am not persuaded that this had prevented him from having a reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act . When the Registrar made his decision, the Appellant had already had a trainee licence for 12 months, which provided him with ample opportunity to gain practical experience, even if he had to take some time away to look after his children and his wife.

18. It is unclear why the Appellant cancelled his third test, which was booked for January 2026, but he has had the benefit of another nearly 5 weeks since then to prepare for his final attempt.

19. If the Appellant wishes to maintain his practical experience until his test, he is permitted to do this in other ways as outlined by the Registrar. In particular if he has a family member as a pupil, the Appellant is reminded that he is permitted to give tuition without taking payment.

20. Having weighed all matters in the balance, 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 the appeal is dismissed. Signed Sophie Buckley Date: 26 February 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal