Abdul Rauf v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. Mr Rauf is an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) whose name appears on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”) maintained by the Respondent Registrar. On 8 September 2025, the Registrar notified Mr Rauf 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 test) on two occasions: on 27 November 2019 and 19 February 2020. Mr Rauf 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.

6. The Tribunal does not have the power to order that the Registrar pay compensation for any loss suffered by an Appellant as a result of its decision. The Decision

7. On 12 June 2025 the Registrar informed Mr Rauf that he was considering removing their name from the Register, subject to any representations made within 28 days. On the same day, Mr Rauf made the following representations: (a) he tried to attend (presumably the test on 14 May) but his family member couldn’t make it; (b) he failed his previous test because he didn’t know the area and the examiner was very unfair; and (c) he has various issues that make it difficult for him to work including caring for his wife, who is disabled.

8. On 16 June 2025, Mr Rauf provided a letter confirming that he had worked with a driving school franchise from 2012 to 2015 during which time he performed well.

9. On 8 September 2025, the Registrar notified Mr Rauf that he had decided to remove his name from the Register on the basis that Mr Rauf had failed the standards test on two occasions: on 27 November 2019 and 19 February 2020. The Appeal

10. Mr Rauf’s notice of appeal dated 25 September 2025 refers to a number of personal problems during the period 2021 - 2023. He contends that the test he took in 2020 was unfair. He further refers to a family member was suffering from hay fever at the time of his test in May 2025. Mr Rauf seeks £100million compensation.

11. The Registrar’s Response to the appeal dated 29 September 2025 resists the appeal. Its Statement of Case dated 27 January 2026 provides that: (a) 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; (b) Mr Rauf failed two tests on 27 November 2019 and 19 February 2020 following which he received feedback; (c) On the second test Mr Rauf not only failed to achieve the overall minimum required score but also failed to achieve the minimum required score for competence of Risk Management; (d) Following the failed tests, Mr Rauf has booked ten tests, six of which have been cancelled by the DVSA, one cancelled by Mr Rauf and three are recorded as Mr Rauf failing to attend; (e) Of those, no correspondence was received either in advance or subsequent to a test on 15 November 2021 to inform the DVSA why Mr Rauf did not attend; (f) Mr Rauf informed the DVSA that he was unwell and did not have a pupil to attend a test on 25 August 2022 but did not provide a medical certificate when asked to do so; (g) Mr Rauf informed the DVSA that a family member was unwell so he could not attend a test on 14 May 2025; (h) Mr Rauf has not shown sufficient regard or attention to his instructional ability or the conditions upon him as an Approved Driving Instructor to attend a test as required; (i) Mr Rauf has been given adequate opportunity to pass the test but has failed to do so; (j) 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; and (k) The medical information supplied with the appeal was not available at the time of the decision to remove but does not change the Registrar’s position because it does not mitigate Mr Rauf’s non-attendance at the booked tests. The evidence

12. After granting the Registrar’s application for an extension of time to provide the bundle, I considered a bundle of evidence containing 44 pages, which included all the material relied upon by Mr Rauf with his GRC1 and which he showed me during the hearing. The bundle also contained the records of Mr Rauf’s tests on 27 November 2019 and 19 February 2020 as well as invites to subsequent tests.

13. On 22 January 2026, Mr Rauf emailed documents to the Tribunal, largely relating to his wife but also a copy of his badge. He had not sent these to the Registrar. After confirming with Mr Russell that the Registrar did not deny that Mr Rauf’s wife is disabled, I decided that I did not need to review these documents because this issue was not disputed. Submissions

14. Mr Rauf stated that he had passed many standard and check tests in the past, particularly while working in London, and that his difficulties only began after moving to Huddersfield in 2015. He maintained that the more recent failed tests were unfair.

15. He explained that changes to the test regime required him to provide a pupil for assessment, but he currently had no pupils and therefore could not comply. He reiterated that he was willing to take the test as soon as he had a suitable pupil and a dual-controlled vehicle. He submitted that he did not presently have a car because financial hardship following a serious accident had left him without the means to purchase one. He said that he no longer had the level of financial stability he had enjoyed when working in London.

16. Mr Rauf referred to significant personal and medical difficulties, including MRSA, diabetes, asthma, PTSD resulting from the accident, and recurrent abscesses. He said these conditions had affected his ability to work and that he was also required to remain at home to support his wife. He submitted that he had nonetheless kept his knowledge up to date through CPD and intended to undertake further lessons, education and refresher training. He stated that he had provided the DVSA with emails and letters from his doctors.

17. He acknowledged that the DVSA had informed him about medical suspension and the option of returning his licence temporarily, but he had not done so because he hoped he could resume work. He submitted that he had wanted to return to work as soon as possible, but circumstances had prevented him.

18. Mr Rauf stated that he had received strong feedback from learners over many years, including positive comments online, and that he had trained numerous successful drivers. He added that his former employer, Walkers, had provided a reference attesting to his abilities.

19. He raised concerns regarding the conduct of a specific examiner, stating that she had undermined his confidence by suggesting that he did not know where the blind spot was. He compared historic test scores of 36 and 26 with a later score of 23 under this examiner, which he described as unfair and indicative of a negative attitude rather than a genuine assessment of his competence.

20. He clarified that he could not take the test in May 2025 because a family member, who he had arranged to pose as a pupil, was affected by hay fever.

21. He reiterated that he was not afraid of taking the test, but that without a pupil and a dual-controlled car he could not.

22. Mr Russell, for the Registrar, submitted that the standards-check regime changed in 2014. Under the former system, the examiner could role-play the pupil and simulate faults. Mr Russell submitted that this created challenges because this did not realistically reflect a driving lesson or allow an assessment of how an instructor interacted with a genuine learner. Under the current system, instructors are required to bring an actual pupil so that the assessment reflects real-life teaching and the instructor’s ability to manage a genuine learning environment. Mr Russell noted that Mr Rauf had passed a standards check in 2015 with a score of 34 under the new system.

23. Mr Russell stated that Mr Rauf subsequently failed two further standards checks. Mr Russell submitted that although the legislation requires only one failure for removal from the register, it is normal practice to afford instructors additional opportunities in order to support professional development. In this case, Mr Rauf was offered several further tests but did not proceed with them. Mr Russell submitted that, despite these opportunities, Mr Rauf had not demonstrated the required level of instructional ability, and the decision to remove him from the register was correct.

24. Mr Russell further submitted that an instructor does not have to bring a paying learner to a standards check: some candidates use a family member for that purpose. Where an instructor is unable to operate, they may return their certificate voluntarily; this option was presented to Mr Rauf by email. Alternatively, an instructor may provide medical evidence to support a period of medical suspension.

25. Mr Russell explained that the Registrar’s position was that Mr Rauf had been given appropriate options but had chosen to remain on the Register. In those circumstances, he was required to comply with the conditions of continued registration, including the obligation to undergo and pass a standards check. Tribunal’s Findings of Fact

26. Mr Rauf has been an ADI for a number of years. He worked with Walkers School of Motoring between 2012 and 2015 during which time he performed well. After this he moved from London to Huddersfield.

27. The Registrar requires ADIs to complete tests to show that they have maintained their competence. Until 2014, this test was colloquially known as a check test. Mr Rauf successfully completed a check test on 30 January 2013. The format of the test changed in 2014, with the new test being colloquially known as a standards test. One of the key differences is that ADIs must attend with a learner driver whereas under the old check test, the examiner could role play. It is not necessary however for the learner to be a pupil of the ADI – friends or family members can role play if no actual pupil is available. Mr Rauf successfully passed the new standards test on 12 March 2015.

28. A letter of 27 June 2018 confirms that Mr Rauf is a type 2 diabetic and at that time had multiple abscesses on his buttocks and thigh, which caused pain and discomfort such that he was unable to sit in the same position for long periods.

29. Mr Rauf was invited to another standards test on 27 November 2019. He failed that test. He was invited to a further test on 19 February 2020. He failed again.

30. On 3 November 2020, Mr Rauf notified the DVSA that he was unwell and had not worked since February. In response, he was advised that whilst in possession of an ADI badge, he was required to attend a standards test when called for whether instructing or not, but did have the option of suspending his badge on medical grounds or resigning from the Register after which he would be able to re-apply within a year.

31. Mr Rauf failed to attend a check test on 15 November 2021. He cancelled a test scheduled for 13 April 2022.

32. Mr Rauf was due to attend a check test on 25 August 2022. On 20 August 2022, Mr Rauf notified the DVSA that he was not well. He was asked to provide medical evidence. He did not attend the test. On 15 September, he sent an email claiming to have phoned his GP but was unable to obtain an appointment.

33. Mr Rauf allowed his registration to lapse from 1 November 2022. A letter of 23 February 2023 confirms that Mr Rauf was at that time unable to work. Mr Rauf then applied to be entered onto the Register again in October 2023.

34. Mr Rauf was due to attend a test on 14 May 2025. On that day, he notified the DVSA he could not take the test because a family member was unwell. In fact, this family member had been due to pose as his pupil. He was not able to bring an actual pupil because he has not worked for some considerable time.

35. Mr Rauf is not currently working and has not practised as a driving instructor for a number of years. He is not financially able to purchase a car with dual controls. He wishes to remain on the Register in the hope that he may be able to do some work in the future. However, from all that he told me about his difficult personal circumstances, I find that it is unlikely that he will be able to present himself for a standards test in the foreseeable future. Conclusions

36. I considered Mr Rauf’s points of appeal and supporting evidence.

37. The Tribunal does not have the power to order compensation. I cannot therefore make any order that the Registrar pay Mr Rauf compensation.

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

39. Mr Rauf has health problems and difficult personal circumstances. He was advised of his option to suspend his badge on medical grounds or resign from the register. He allowed his registration to lapse for a year in 2022/23. Nevertheless, he presently remains on the Register and so must show that he can pass the standards test.

40. He failed two tests in 2019 and 2020. Since then, he has been offered multiple opportunities to present himself for a further test. He has not been able to do so. It is unlikely that he will be able to present himself for a test in the foreseeable future.

41. I am not satisfied that the Registrar’s decision was wrong: Mr Rauf failed two check tests, he has not presented himself for a test in the intervening six years and it is unlikely that he will be able to do so in the foreseeable future. He is aware of the option of applying for medical suspension or resigning from the register if he is temporarily unable to practise but, other than for 12 months between October 2022 and 2023, he has not done so. If he wishes to remain on the Register, Mr Rauf must pass a standards test but he is not able to do so. The Registrar’s decision that Mr Rauf has not satisfied him that his ability to give driving instruction is of a satisfactory standard and that it is therefore appropriate to remove Mr Rauf from the Register in the interests of road safety and consumer protection is not wrong.

42. I therefore dismiss this appeal. Signed Date: 12 February 2026 Judge Taft