Yasar Mehmood v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. The appeal is dismissed and the respondent’s decision of is confirmed. Background to the Appeal:

2. Mr. Yasar Mehmood appeals against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors to remove his name from the register under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 . • Mr. Mehmood was first registered as an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) in June 2019, with registration due to expire in June 2027. • Under Section 125(5) of the Act , ADIs must undergo a test of continued ability and fitness to instruct when required by the Registrar. • Mr. Mehmood failed three consecutive standards checks: ◦ 08 June 2022 ◦ 22 December 2022 ◦ 15 December 2023 • After each failed test, he was advised to undertake further professional development. • Following the third failure, the Registrar notified Mr. Mehmood of the intention to remove him from the register and invited representations. • Mr. Mehmood submitted late representations, citing recent CPC training with senior examiners and requesting another opportunity. • The Registrar considered these but concluded that the failures over three tests demonstrated insufficient instructional ability. Issues and Law Engaged:

3. Legal Framework: • Section 123(1): Prohibits paid driving instruction unless the instructor is registered or holds a current licence. • Section 125(5) : Requires ADIs to demonstrate continued ability and fitness. • Section 128(2)(d): Allows removal from the register if the ADI fails to meet minimum standards. • Section 128(6): Governs the notification of removal decisions. Key Issues a) Whether the Registrar acted lawfully and fairly in requiring and assessing the standards checks. b) Whether the decision to remove Mr. Mehmood from the register was proportionate and justified. c) Whether the late representations and cited training were sufficient to warrant reconsideration. Response to Grounds of Appeal:

4. Mr. Mehmood’s appeal appears to rest on the argument that: a) He has undertaken further training (CPC with senior examiners). b) This training has improved his instructional ability. c) He should be given another opportunity to demonstrate competence. Registrar’s Response: a) The Registrar allowed and considered the late representations. b) However, the training was undertaken after the third failed test. c) The Registrar concluded that Mr. Mehmood had been given adequate opportunities to improve and demonstrate competence. d) The failures across three tests, despite feedback and advice, indicated persistent shortcomings. The Hearing:

5. The appeal was listed for hearing at 14.00 hours on 07 November 2025 and although the Appellant failed to appear on the CVP, with considerable assistance from GRC administration, he eventually made audio contact. The Appellant had no material submissions to make over and above those he had already made in writing. He asked if he could apply again afresh and was informed by Mr Russell, (who appeared on behalf of the Registrar) that this should be possible. In all the circumstances and considering carefully his written Grounds of Appeal the Tribunal proceeded to determine the appeal. Reasons for Judgment in the Appeal:

6. The Tribunal considered the following in reaching its decision: a) Procedural Fairness : Mr. Mehmood was given three opportunities to pass the standards check, with feedback after each. He was notified of the consequences and invited to make representations. b) Timing and Effectiveness of Training : While Mr. Mehmood undertook training, it occurred after the final test. The Tribunal find that this was too late to influence the outcome of the assessments. c) Public Interest and Road Safety : The Registrar’s duty includes ensuring that only competent instructors remain on the register. Continued failure to meet standards may justify removal in the interest of public safety. d) Proportionality : The Registrar’s decision appears to the Tribunal to be proportionate given the repeated failures and the opportunity for improvement.

7. Accordingly at hearing on 07 November 22025 at 14.00 hours the appeal is dismissed and the respondent’s decision of is confirmed. Brian Kennedy KC 10 November 2025.