Muhammad Asif Afzal v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1233 (GRC)
Mode of Hearing
[1]The parties and the Tribunal agreed that this matter was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rules 2 and 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended. The Tribunal considered a bundle containing 33 pages. Relevant Legislation 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.[2]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.[3]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.[4]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.[5]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
[6]Background The Appellant is not now and has never been on the said Register.[7]Licences under s.129 of the Act were 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. The first licence commenced on 20 January 2025 and a second licence was valid from 20 July 2025 until 19 January 2026.[8]On 10 January 2026 the Appellant applied for a third licence. By way of an email dated 21 January 2026 the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of his application for a third licence. By way of an email dated 2 February 2026 the Appellant made representations.[9]After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application on 12 March 2026 on the grounds that the evidence supplied by the Appellant was only for a limited number of days over 12 months. The Appellant had already been granted to trainees licences for 12 months and it was considered to be a more than adequate period of time.[10]The Respondent in the response gave the following reasons: 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. 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 two trainee licences which covered a period of 12 months. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a third 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 twice and cancelled three more tests booked for 2 September 2025, 21 April 2026 and 28 April 2026. Regrettably, the DVSA cancelled one such test booked for 24 June 2025. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an ADI; and f. the refusal of a third 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 final attempt at the instructional ability test booked but is awaiting an available date. Should the test go ahead, then the regulations determine that any appeal is bound to fail as a trainee licence can only be issued in order that an individual can gain the practical experience required to take the test.Appeal to the Tribunal
[13]In his appeal in form GRC1 dated 25 March and an in email dated 2 February 2026, the Appellant submits the following: I have applied for my third pink badge because when I had my first badge the drive4pass company based in Rochdale they promised me to give me work in Birmingham by advertising their company online so they can establish their business in Birmingham , but unfortunately they didn’t fulfil their commitments and then applied for my second badge with the same school I thought they will be doing something but all efforts gone in vain. Then I changed my driving school in September 2025 and I started getting work and I started doing more practice thanks to SDS Driving School Smethwick Birmingham, but my circumstances got changed my dad got severe sickness and he wasn’t recovering and still is in the same condition. This all happened back in July 2025 as I am the only child of my parents. unfortunately I lost my mom back in November 2019 so I am the only hope for my father so I left everything and went to Pakistan for 12 days from 6th September 2025 to 18th September 2025. I came back to Birmingham and started practicing again but of course I was not emotionally and mentally well enough as my dad’s condition got worst and he had bedsore and this kind of patient needs an urgent surgery for his cervical and lumbar spine and also for his knee replacement. But he is 73 and diabetic so doctors were not agreed to do his surgeries I was so much in agony because of my dads health and I tried couple of attempts but didn’t make it and then I went Pakistan again in December for 15 days to visit him from 5th of December to 21st December 2025so I can arrange few support workers for him as he can’t walk or get up from the bed himself or go to toilet on his own. He can only get up with the help of care workers and they feed him as he has lost his hands grip as well he is unable to even hold anything not even a spoon. I desperately need a third badge so I can focus on my training for my last attempt as I didn’t get enough time to focus and do training appropriately so I shall be very grateful to you for granting me third badge and also I am attaching all the documents my travel tickets and his medical reports as a proof.Conclusion
[11]The Tribunal found that the Appellant was abroad to visit his father from 6 September 2025 until 18 September 2025 and from 5 December 2025 until 21 December 2025. The Appellant’s father became unwell in June 2025 and the medical evidence relating to his father submitted by the Appellant is dated from 27 June 2025 to 30 December 2025.[12]However, the Tribunal found that even excluding the time the Appellant was abroad there was a reasonable period of time in which to reach the qualifying standard and obtain the necessary practical experience in tuition.[13]The Tribunal accepted that the Appellant’s father was unwell as shown by the medical evidence and the Appellant would have been concerned about him. The Appellant asserted that his father’s illness affected his emotional wellbeing and mental health but has provided any evidence in support of this contention and has provided no details of any treatment received for his own mental health issues.[14]The Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of 12 months which is adequate time to prepare for the Part 3 test. He is able to continue to gain experience and take the Part 3 test without a trainee licence. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken. The Tribunal has taken into account the Appellant’s representations and finds he has had ample opportunity to practice for the Part 3 test notwithstanding. The Appellant has filed no documentary evidence in support of his assertion that his wellbeing was affected and he had mental health problems which would have prevented him from practising for the Part 3 test.[15]The Tribunal found that in all the circumstances there is not sufficient evidence of significant gravity presented to upset the Respondent’s decision and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Signed: Date: 19 August 2026 J Findlay Judge of the First-tier Tribunal