Ata-Ul-Monam Rana v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(2) (a) Road Traffic Act 1988 (" the Act "). It relates to a decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 11 August 2025 ("the Decision") to refuse the Appellant's application for a third (trainee) Licence.

2. What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and the law. It does not seek to provide every step of the reasoning. The absence of a reference in this decision to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered. Law

3. The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and he is therefore prohibited from giving paid (as defined) driving instructions by section 123 (1) of the Act unless he holds a Licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

4. To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI") an applicant is required to pass a Qualifying Examination. This is in 3 parts namely part 1 being a written examination, the driving ability and fitness test in part 2 and the instructional ability and fitness test in part 3. Three attempts are allowed at each part.

5. A Section 129(1) Licence may be granted by the Registrar once an applicant has passed part 2. This 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 referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct." A Licence relates to giving paid instruction and is not required to be able to take part 3.

6. By section 129(3) of the Act "The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued." If he does so he must tell the applicant and give particulars of the grounds on which he is considering the refusal. The applicant may make representation within certain time limits and by section 129(8) (c) of the Act "before deciding whether or not to refuse the application" the Registrar must take any such representations into consideration.

7. By section 129(4) of the Act if such an application is refused the Registrar must give notice of that in writing to the applicant and provide the grounds of refusal and by section 129(6) of the Act :- "Notwithstanding any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above prescribing the period for which a licence is to be in force, where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of the application, the previous licence shall not expire— (a)until the commencement of the new licence, or (b) if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limited for an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of." Role of the Tribunal

8. Section 131(2) of the Act provides that "A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar—(a)to refuse an application for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act ...may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal."

9. Section 131(3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:- ( a)for the grant or refusal of the application or, (b)for the removal or the retention of the name in the register, or the revocation or continuation of the licence, (as the case may be) as it thinks fit.

10. The Appellant has the burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and conclusions are reached on the balance of probabilities. When making its decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision being the person tasked with making such decisions (see Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011) . It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision-making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances. Evidence and matters considered

11. For this appeal I considered the content of a bundle of 28 p df pag es and heard from the Appellant. Chronology

12. The Appellant agreed that:- (a) on 30 May 2024 he passed part 1 and on 12 June 2024 he passed part 2. (b) on 15 July 2024 he was issued with a Licence. (c) on 2 January 2025 he failed part 3 for the first time. (d) in February 2025 he was given a second Licence to last to 14 July 2025. (e) on 2 July 2025 he applied for a third Licence. (f) on 9 July 2025 the Registrar indicated he was considering refusing the third Licence about which on 9 July 2025 the Appellant made representations. (g) on 11 August 2025 the Registrar notified the Appellant of the Decision to refuse a third Licence. (h) on 15 August 2025 he failed part 3 for a second time

13. This appeal is against the Decision and was commenced on 22 August 2025. Thereafter:- - (a) the Registrar provided a response on 2 December 2025. (b) a third test has been booked for 23 February 2026. The Appellant's position

14. In his representations and his appeal form the Appellant referred to health issues that had limited his ability to drive for a while and the difficulty in getting a test date.

15. At the appeal he said that the relevant health issues had started to impact his ability to drive from about August 2024. It involved pain which made driving over an hour a day difficult. Some pain relief he took meant he was not able to drive. This lasted to about November 2025. His position was supported by physio booking messages in evidence in the bundle (20- 25). These were dated from January to July.

16. He also said that he had experienced difficulty getting test dates. He said that it took over 6 months to get his first test, then about 7 months to get his second and about 6 months to get the test date due on 23 February 2026.

17. The Appellant also told me that he had stopped giving paid lessons since the Decision. He was directed to the Decision (ie the Registrar's letter of the 11 August 2025) in which his ability to continue giving paid lessons had been explained. He had not understood this nor did it appear that he fully appreciated that the absence of a Licence did not prevent giving lessons only that he could not be paid (as defined) for doing so. It was suggested that he contact the Registrar for guidance. The Registrar's position

18. The Registrar says in summary in his response that:- (a) the Appellant has provided " no evidenc e of lost training time or lack of pupils and has had the benefit of two trainee licences for twelve months." (b) the Appellant has already had 12 months with a Licence which is not to be used as an alternative to registration nor to give an applicant the right to be paid for teaching for however long is needed to pass part 3. (c) he has failed part 3 twice but 12 months "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". (d) by section 129(6) the Appellant has been able to continue with a Licence pending the outcome of this appeal. (e) "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 he 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." Review

19. The statutory purpose for having a Licence is as set out in section 129(1) of the Act which does not include having one up until a successful or final attempt at part 3. A Licence is not needed to be permitted to take part 3 or to provide unpaid lessons.

20. The Appellant was first granted a Licence on 15 July 2024. Although he told me he did not realise it, despite the third application being refused the Appellant has been able, since and despite the Decision, to continue as a paid driving instructor with the benefit of a Licence pending the outcome of this appeal by section 129(6) of the Act . The Appellant could therefore, as at the date of this appeal, have had the benefit of a Licence for just over 18 months and had he been granted a third Licence it would have expired just prior to the appeal hearing.

21. Despite the Appellant's position on the issue of test dates, during the period of the first two Licences, he had one test and a second just after the Licence was due to expire. He did not pass them.

22. I took account of and gave weight to the Registrar's view. The Registrar's position included that there was "5 ... no evidence of lost training time....". The Registrar when making the Decision may not have been aware of the health issues and their impact to the same degree as presented to the appeal hearing. However I accepted what the Appellant said. In my view it did amount to evidence of lost training time and that the issues will have been the cause of there being a limit to the Appellant's ability to drive and gain experience towards the part 3 test for the relatively lengthy period between July 2024 and November 2025. For this reason the Appellant has persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong. Decision

23. Th e appeal is allowed. Signed Judge Heald Date: 26 January 2026