Nahida Hanif v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 7 November 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a second 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 1 May 2024. She passed Part 2 on 26 February 2025. She failed a first attempt at the Part 3 test on 12 December 2025. At the date the bundle was prepared, the appellant had not booked her second attempt at the Part 3 test.

11. The Appellant applied for a trainee licence which was granted and was valid from 7 April 2025 to 6 October 2025.

12. The Appellant, applied for a second trainee licence on 17 September 2025 which was refused by the Registrar.

13. The reasons for the Registrar’s decision, in summary, were that no evidence to substantiate lost training time had been provided by the Appellant and that the Appellant had already had a sufficient amount of time to gain experience to assist in passing Part 3 of the Qualifying Examination and that it was not the intention of Parliament that candidates should be issued with trainee licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination, and that the trainee licence system must not be used as an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor. Appeal to the Tribunal

14. The grounds of appeal are, in summary: a. The Appellant has faced exceptional and unavoidable circumstances which prevented her from completing her training. Throughout the period of her trainee licence she was the primary carer for her mother-in-law, who had been diagnosed with lung cancer and required regular hospital visits and assistance with daily personal care. Her caring responsibilities were unpredictable and could not be delegated. b. As a result, Appellant was forced to cancel significant amounts of training sessions, often at short notice. c. The Registrar’s decision was wrong in that it states that the provision of evidence of her mother in law’s condition does not substantiate lost training time but the appellant avers that the documentation demonstrates a genuine and ongoing medical condition for which her mother-in-law required daily care and support. d. The appellant’s mother in law’s condition is now stable and the appellant is now able to continue training. Granting a second licence would give her a fair and realistic opportunity to pass her examinations.

15. The Registrar in his response states: 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. b. 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. The appellant has already had a trainee licence which cover 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 her to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal. c. Since passing her driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once. Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. d. 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. e. The appellant has not booked her second attempt at the Part 3 test. f. The evidence provided by the appellant relating to her mother’s illness does not substantiate lost training time. g. The appellant could have returned her trainee licence if she was unable to use it. Evidence

16. I read and took account of a bundle of documents. Discussion and Conclusions

17. I accept that the Appellant has had caring responsibilities following her mother-in-law's diagnosis with lung cancer. I accept that the nature of her responsibilities would be unpredictable and that she was required to assist daily until such time that her mother-in-law's condition had stabilised. I further accept that the appellant cancelled lessons at short notice and accordingly, lost significant training time.

18. I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of one trainee licence covering a period of 6 months. Moreover, by virtue of this application for a second licence prior to the expiry of her first licence, the Appellant has retained her trainee licence until the date of this decision and has been permitted to provide paid instruction during this time. However, I accept that the circumstances of the Appellant have meant that she has not had reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act .

19. Having weighed all matters in the balance, I am persuaded that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in that the Registrar failed to give adequate regard to the Appellant’s family circumstances which explained, in part, why she had not been able to gain the necessary skills and experience to pass her Part 3 test earlier. These are relevant factors which should have been taken into account by the Registrar. I also consider that the Registrar was wrong in determining that the evidence provided by the appellant did not substantiate her reasons for applying for a second trainee licence.

20. I am mindful that, because this appeal was lodged “in time,” the appellant has in effect already benefited from the continued validity of her licence pending the outcome of the Appeal. This has extended her licence by 4 months. In practical terms, the Appellant has already partly received the advantage she sought. I have also considered the points raised by the Registrar regarding the intended purpose of a trainee driving licence.

21. I note that the 2 years during which the Appellant must apply to take all parts of the Advanced Driving Instructor examinations is due to expire on 1 May 2026. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate and fair and just in the circumstances to extend the time of the appellant's trainee licence to 1 May 2026, at which point her time for applying to take the Part 3 test will have expired in any event.

22. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and direct that the Appellant’s trainee licence is extended until 1 May 2026.