Sadia Hameed 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 2 July 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 18 August 2023 and passed Part 2 on 5 March 2024. The Appellant applied for two trainee licences which were granted and were valid from 3 June 2024 to 3 June 2025.

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

12. The Appellant cancelled Part 3 exams booked for 30 August and 19 September 2024. The Appellant took and failed her first attempt at the Part 3 exam on 3 January 2025 and failed the second attempt on 10 May 2025. The Appellant cancelled a Part 3 exam booked for 14 August 2025. The DVSA cancelled a Part 3 exam booked for 4 November 2025. The Appellant’s final attempt is booked for 14 January 2026. Appeal to the Tribunal

13. The Appellant submitted an appeal to the tribunal but has not included anything in the section headed ‘grounds of appeal’. In the box entitled ‘outcome of appeal’ the Appellant says ‘Trainee Licence to be Granted’.

14. In the Appellant’s application to the Registrar for a third licence she gives the following reasons: 14.1. The Appellant has had difficulty booking a Part 3 test due to availability of dates following the backlog after Covid. 14.2. The Appellant’s income from instruction is her only income and she needs to support her family. 14.3. The Appellant needs to continue with her training to allow her to take her third attempt at the Part 3 test.

15. I have taken these as the Appellant’s grounds of appeal.

16. The Registrar, in his response, states: 16.1. 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. 16.2. 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 her to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal. 16.3. Since passing her driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice and cancelled three more tests. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. 16.4. The refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. She does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for her 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 her 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 and findings of fact

17. I read and took account of a bundle of documents and heard from the Appellant.

18. The Appellant did not find her first trainer helpful. Once she had failed her second attempt she realised that she was not doing well with his style of training. There was a period of time where her car was off the road for 5-6 weeks following her second test. She said that most of the time she has had students, but there have been times when she has had only one student a day.

19. She started with a new trainer in about July/August 2025 and is doing better with her new trainer.

20. The Appellant described in detail particularly difficult personal family circumstances that took place in June 2025 which meant that she had been unable to focus on her training until about a month ago (early November 2025). As those circumstances involve particularly sensitive information about minors, it is not appropriate to set out the details of those circumstances in a public judgment. I do however accept that this has meant that, between June and November 2025 the Appellant was unable to make proper use of her trainee licence.

21. She did not remember that she had cancelled two tests in August and September 2024. She cancelled the test in August 2025 because of the personal family circumstances referred to above. Discussion and conclusions

22. I accept that some delay was caused when the DVSA cancelled a Part 3 test in November 2025, and that there have been delays in the availability of test dates.

23. Whilst I accept that the Appellant’s first trainer’s style may not have suited her, the Appellant could have found an alternative trainer at an earlier date. She did not do so until after she failed her second test at which point she had already had the trainee licence for 11 months.

24. Even though the Appellant was dissatisfied with her trainer, she still had the benefit of a trainee licence for 12 months up to June 2025, during which period she had regular pupils. 12 months of regular pupils should have been adequate time to prepare even noting the difficulties with her trainer’s style that I outline above.

25. Although the Appellant’s car was out of action for 5-6 weeks following her second test, she had already by this stage had a significant period of time in which to gain practical experience.

26. I accept, as a result of difficult personal circumstances, that the Appellant has been unable to take advantage of her trainee licence from June 2025 to early November 2025 but that period postdates the two 6 month licences and therefore is not an explanation for why she was unable to make use of licence in the 12 month period between June 2024 and June 2025.

27. The Appellant has cancelled three Part 3 tests. Whilst there are no doubt legitimate reasons for cancelling those tests, this has led to significant further time passing.

28. The overall period in which the Appellant was able to give driving instruction up to June 2025 should have provided a reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act . She has also had a further period of approximately one month since her personal circumstances improved and with the benefit of her new trainer. Taken together, this is adequate time to gain practical experience for her Part 3 test, which is booked for 14 January 2026.

29. The Appellant did not put forward in the appeal hearing the fact that she was reliant on the income from providing instruction, and I note that is not the purpose of the trainee licence and is not a reason for granting an extension.

30. 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: 2 December 2025 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal