Naveed Adnan 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: Naveed Adnan. Application: The Appellant’s application to the Registrar, dated 26 August 2025, for the grant of a second 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 letter to the Appellant dated 11 September 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 one Licence. The Appellant applied for a second Licence (the Application), resulting in the Registrar’s Decision.

5. The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision are set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 below. The appeal The grounds of appeal

6. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal stated that the Registrar’s Decision was unfair because (in essence): a. There were no students available for training because test dates for ‘Part 3’ of the of the Qualifying Examination were not available on the DVSA site. b. The Appellant found a new school which promised to make students available to him for practising ahead of the ‘Part 3’ test. c. There are no ‘Part 3’ tests available in his region, so the Appellant has put his Part 3 test on hold waiting for a test date to become available. The Registrar’s case

7. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s response to the appeal stated that the reasons for refusing the Application were that the Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of his first Licence, because: a. the Appellant returned training record form ADI 21AT but not completed all training objectives; b. training was also completed by a school not named on the Licence.

8. The Registrar also stated 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 granted not 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. Mode of hearing

9. The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel and the Appellant joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. There were some technical difficulties when the Appellant first tried to join the hearing, but once he had joined there were no further problems.

10. The Registrar did not attend the hearing and was not represented (having previously indicated that they would be content to rely on their written submissions if there was an oral hearing). The evidence and submission

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. During the hearing, the Appellant reiterated the point from his grounds of appeal that there were ongoing problems trying to secure dates for the ‘Part 3’ test. He stated that this was still a problem and that he has not been able to get any test dates at all in the London area, or further afield.

27. The Appellant also stated that it was not possible for him to obtain insurance to instruct students unless a Licence was held and that, in turn, without insurance it was not possible to practice with students. He went on to explain that this was particularly problematic in respect of undertaking the ‘Part 3’ test, because a genuine student was needed to participate in it. Consequently, the Appellant was frustrated by not being able to practice with students for the purposes of the preparing for (and then subsequently taking) the ‘Part 3’ test because he did not have insurance to do so, but he would not be able to get that insurance without another Licence.

28. The Appellant accepted that he had held a Licence since March 2025 (contrary to the Registrar’s response to the appeal recording this as March 2024). However, he stated that he needed the second Licence, because of the ongoing problems securing ‘Part 3’ test dates, for the reasons referred to.

29. The Appellant also explained that he had undertaken his first attempt at the ‘Part 3’ test without a Licence because he was keen to progress towards ADI qualification but, having failed that attempt, he recognised the need to obtain practical experience with students, which is why he obtained the first Licence and subsequently made the Application.

30. I am aware that some prospective ADIs have problems securing ‘Part 3’ test dates. In my view, the Appellant has given good reasons why it is appropriate for him to be granted a second Licence.

31. Turning briefly to the points made by the Registrar regarding the Appellant failing to comply with the conditions of his first Licence: a. Whilst the Regulations require that a specified number of hours training must be completed in respect of all the specified matters in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations as a condition for applying for a Licence, there is no requirement regarding training to be completed in all such matters for supplementary training once a Licence is held. Form ADI 21AT submitted by the Appellant to the Registrar showed that the requisite number of hours had been completed for the supplementary training. b. The Regulations also require that if a Licence holder arranges to have their supplementary training undertaken by a different ADI from the person named in their Licence application, they must submit to the Registrar full details of any consequential changes, together with an indication of consent of the new ADI to that arrangement. The Appellant did provide such details to the Registrar, by way of the Application and it is therefore not clear to me that the Appellant has breached such requirement. c. In my view, therefore, the Registrar has not demonstrated that the Appellant was in breach of the conditions of his first Licence such that it would be appropriate to refuse the Application.

32. For all of the reasons I have given, I conclude that the Registrar’s Decision was incorrect. I therefore allow the appeal and I order that the Application be granted. Signed: Judge Roper Date: 10 March 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal