Moursleen Azam v The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA)

Introduction:

1. This is an appeal under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 against the decision of the Registrar dated 13 August 2025 refusing the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence under Section 129 of the Act .

2. The Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence contained in the appeal bundle and the written representations of both parties. Background:

3. The Appellant was granted a first trainee licence on 6 January 2025, valid until 5 July 2025, pursuant to Section 129(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 .

4. On 27 June 2025, the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence. The Registrar issued a notice of intention to refuse and invited representations. The Appellant responded citing difficulties in obtaining a Part 3 test date, a DVSA test cancellation, and time off due to a family bereavement.

5. On 13 August 2025, the Registrar refused the application on the grounds that the Appellant failed to complete the training objectives within the first three months, provided no evidence of bereavement-related disruption, and that repeated licences undermine statutory intent. Summary of Evidence:

6. The Tribunal reviewed the Appellant’s application forms, correspondence with the Registrar, and DVSA test booking records. The Appellant asserted that a test was cancelled by DVSA and that bereavement caused delays, but no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate these claims.

7. The Registrar’s evidence included the original licence record, training progress reports, and policy guidance indicating that trainee licences are intended for short-term experience only. Issues:

8. Whether the Registrar acted lawfully and reasonably in refusing the second licence.

9. Whether the Appellant’s circumstances justify an exercise of discretion in his favour. Applicable Law: Section 123(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits giving paid instruction unless registered or licensed under Section 129 . Section 129(1) empowers the Registrar to grant a temporary licence for up to six months to enable a person to gain practical experience before examination. Section 129(4) provides that the Registrar may refuse a licence if conditions are not met. Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, Rule 23 governs the provision of the Registrar’s statement Submissions:

10. The Appellant contends that delay was caused by DVSA cancellation and bereavement, and refusal is disproportionate, given other persons have been granted extensions.

11. The Registrar submits that licences are intended for short-term experience, not indefinite extensions, and that alternatives exist for training without a licence. Specifically, the Registrar set our comprehensive and compelling reasons for their decision as follows; a) the purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford b) 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; c) 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. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the first, 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; d) since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once. Regrettably, DVSA cancelled one such test booked for 11 July 2025 (Annex A) . Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; and e) the refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. f) 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. g) It should be noted that the Appellant has not yet booked his second attempt at the instructional ability test. Findings of Fact:

12. The Appellant held a first licence for six months and did not complete training objectives within the first three months.

13. The Appellant failed one instructional ability test and has not booked a second attempt.

14. No documentary evidence was provided to substantiate bereavement-related disruption. Reasons:

15. The statutory purpose of Section 129 is clear: to provide a limited opportunity for practical experience, not to create an alternative route to registration.

16. The Appellant had six months to prepare and attempt the qualifying examination. While the DVSA cancellation and bereavement are regrettable, the absence of supporting evidence and failure to book a second test weigh against the Appellant.

17. The Registrar’s decision was consistent with the statutory scheme and proportionate. The Appellant retains the ability to attempt the examination without holding a licence and can train without charging fees. Decision:

18. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Registrar acted lawfully and reasonably. The appeal is dismissed. Order: The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Registrar dated 13 August 2025 is upheld. Judge: Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy Date: 25 November 2025