Hearing Heard on: 19 August 2026Date 26 August 2026
Transport
Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Before
JUDGE FINDLAY
Between
NASHWAN AHMED ABDULNOOR GHILANAppellantREGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentThe Appellant: Mr Nashwan Ghilan for The Respondent was not representedDecision: The appeal is allowed.REASONS
Mode of Hearing
[1]The appeal was listed as a Cloud Video Platform hearing. The Respondent did not join the hearing. The Respondent had indicated that an oral hearing was not required. The Appellant attended and gave evidence. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was just and fair to proceed without a representative of the Respondent having considered rules 2 and 36 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended. The Tribunal considered a bundle containing 27 pages.
The Law
[2]The Law To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”), 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’). Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.[3]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. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”). However, holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an ADI and people qualify as an ADI without having held a trainee licence.[4]The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. S.123(1) of the Act prohibits the giving of instruction paid for, by or in respect of a pupil, in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor’s name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or they are the holder of a current licence issued under s.129(1) of the Act.[5]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.[6]When making its decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors, the Respondent, and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.
Background
[7]Background The Appellant is not now and has never been on the said Register.[8]A licence under s.129 of the Act was granted to the Appellant for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and was valid from 28 July 2025 until 27 January 2026.[9]On 18 January 2026 the Appellant applied for a second licence. By way of an email dated 4 February 2025 the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of his application for a second licence. By way of an email dated 4 March 2026 the Appellant made representations. He stated that he was involved in a road traffic accident on 29 January 2026 and as a result he was unable to put his training into practice or submit documentation on time.[10]After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application. He has failed to comply with the conditions of his first licence as the training objectives on his ADI 21AT training record form were not completed within the first three months of the licence period. The evidence provided is for a period of time after the training should have been completed.[11]The Respondent gave the following reasons:a. the Appellant has failed to comply with the conditions of holding a trainee licence. Part 5 (15)(3)(a) of The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 states that a minimum of 20 hours of training must be completed within the first 3 months of the validity of his licence. The Appellant did not completed any hours of training within the 3-month time frame;b. 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;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;d. the Appellant has already had one trainee licence which covered a period of 6 months. 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;e. since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability once. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an ADI; andf. the refusal of a second 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 ADI 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. 12. The Respondent stated that it should be noted that the Appellant has his second attempt at the instructional ability test booked but is awaiting an available date.
Appeal to the Tribunal
[12]In his appeal in form GRC1 dated 22 March 2026 and an email dated 4 March 2026, the Appellant submits the following grounds of appeal:a. The Respondent's decision contains factual errors and fails to consider all relevant circumstances under section 129(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.b. The training requirement was met in that he completed 20 hours with an approved driving instructor within the first licence. The ADI 21AT shows full compliance.c. He was proactive and on 19 January 2026 submitted the AD1 3L(MD). On 27 January 2026 the DVSA accepted the application and confirmed “continuing rights to instruct.”d. He was ready to submit the AD1 1AT form but had a road accident on 29 January 2026.e. On 4 February 2026, DVSA granted him a 14 day representation period.f. He was medically incapacitated for the 14 day period from 4 to 18 February 2026 with a head injury. He has submitted medical evidence in support.g. His submission was delayed due solely to his medical incapacity. He offers his sincere apologies for the delay.h. He seeks the quashing of the Respondent’s decision and he asks that he be granted a six month training licence starting on the 8th March 2026.i. He is now fully fit to resume his training and professional duties.
Conclusion
[13]The Tribunal considered all the papers and heard oral evidence from the Appellant. The Tribunal found the Appellant to be a credible witness and attached weight to his evidence.[14]Part 5 (15)(3)(a) of The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 provides that a minimum of 20 hours of training must be completed within the first 3 months of the validity of the licence. The Appellant’s licence start date was 28 July 2025 and the ADI 21AT Instructor Training Declaration records that 20 hours of training took place between the 19 December 2025 and 18 January 2026 (page 25).[15]The Tribunal finds that the Appellant did complete at least 20 hours of training within the 3-month time frame as required from 28 July 2025 until 27 October 2025 in addition to the 20 hours completed after 19 December 2025. The Tribunal accepted the Appellant’s evidence that this was the case. The Appellant read out a number of WhatsApp messages from his Instructor confirming training appointments in August 2025. The Tribunal finds these were likely to be accurate and indicative that over 20 hours of training had taken place between 28 July 2025 and 27 October 2025.[16]The Appellant told the Tribunal that he had done well in excess of 40 hours training delivered by an ADI from the start of his licence until 18 January 2026 but he only gave the details in the form AD1 21AT of the last 20 hours completed. He did this in response to the email from the Respondent dated 4 February 2026 which stated:
“I note that you have not returned a form AD1 21AT. It is a condition of your licence that you complete a minimum of 20 hours additional training delivered by an ADI.”
The Appellant told the Tribunal that had the Respondent asked for details of all the training undertaken since 28 July 2025 or asked for details of all the training completed in the three months after 28 July 2025, he would have provided it.[17]The Tribunal finds that the Appellant had a road traffic accident on 29 January 2026 and suffered concentration issues afterwards as confirmed by Dr Hyder, Honorary Speciality Registrar Neurology, in his undated letter (page 20). The Tribunal accepted that the Appellant’s concentration problems contributed to him not responding timeously to the Respondent and providing the AD1 21AT with details of the training from 19 December 2025 and not from 28 July 2025.[18]The Tribunal considered the Appellant’s representations and considered it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant a further trainee licence to enable the Appellant to take the Part 3 test on a second occasion. He is presently awaiting an offer of a date. It is reasonable to give him this opportunity. The application for a second licence is granted.[19]Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Signed: Date: 19 August 2026 J Findlay Judge of the First-tier Tribunal