Adil Mahmoud v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is the appeal of the Appellant, Mr Adil Mahmoud, against the decision of the Respondent, the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (hereafter ‘the Registrar’), conveyed in a letter of 12 November 2025, to refuse his request for a second trainee licence.

The matter was listed before me for hearing by CVP. Mr Mahmoud represented herself; the Registrar relied on his written case and did not attend.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’), s123(1) prohibits the giving of paid driving instruction except where the instructor’s name is included in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors

Candidates for membership of the Register must fulfil a number of conditions. These include the requirement to pass an examination divided into three parts (‘the examination’): theory; driving ability and fitness; and instructional ability and fitness (the Act, s125(3)(a)). They must apply for a part three test within two years of passing part one; if they do not, they must re-take the entire examination. Candidates who fail part three on three occasions must also re-take the entire examination.

By the Act, s129(1) it is provided that trainee licences are granted for the purpose of enabling prospective ADIs who have passed parts one and two of the examination to gain practical experience in driving instruction with a view to taking part three. Trainee licences are valid for six months only. The Registrar is expressly empowered to refuse to grant a trainee licence to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued (s129(3)).

The effect of the Act, s129(6) is that, where a holder of a temporary licence applies during its currency for a fresh licence, the life of the original licence is extended until the commencement of the new licence or, if the application is refused and the holder appeals, until disposal of the appeal.

By the Act, s131(2) an appeal lies to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision to refuse an application for the grant of a licence. On the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order for the grant or refusal of the application as it sees fit (s131(3)).

The background facts can be summarised as follows.

Mr Mahmoud passed parts one and two of the examination on 7 November 2024 and 19 March 2025 respectively.

On Mr Mahmoud’s application, the Registrar granted him a trainee licence, covering the period from 12 May 2025 to 11 November 2025.

During the currency of that licence Mr Mahmoud applied to the Registrar for a second licence. That application was refused by the letter of 12 November 2025, to which I have already referred.

Given the timing of the application for the second licence, the life of the first licence was extended by the Act, s129(6) to the date of disposal of this appeal (see above).

Very soon after obtaining his trainee licence, Mr Mahmoud booked a part three test. The first available date was 16 September 2025 and unfortunately he was unsuccessful. He immediately applied for a second test and was notified, no later than 27 October 2025, that his application had been placed ‘on hold’ owing to scarcity of test places. Eventually he was offered a date, 10 February 2026, but unfortunately was again unsuccessful. He has since applied for his third part three test. No date has yet been offered and he fears that the wait may last some months.

Having heard his detailed account, I entirely accept what Mr Mahmoud has told me about significant difficulties and worries affecting family members and him during the period over which he has been working towards qualifying as an ADI. To his credit he did not seek to overplay these factors, but I fully affect that he has faced considerable practical and emotional headwinds which have made his task of building a new career even more challenging than it would otherwise have been.

In his notice of appeal, Mr Mahmoud referred to the difficult personal circumstances which he had experienced, explained that any failure to comply fully with the conditions of the initial licence have been accidental, stressed his commitment to qualify as an ADI and laid emphasis on the value of gaining relevant instructing experience in order to do so. As I have mentioned, further details of the difficult personal circumstances relied upon emerged in his presentation of the appeal before me.

The Registrar resisted the appeal, stressing the importance of not allowing trainee licences to serve as an alternative to the registration system and the fact that eligibility to take the part three test is not conditional upon possession of a trainee licence. He made some particular points about alleged failures by Mr Mahmoud to comply fully with the obligations of the initial licence (including the surprising complaint that his training had covered ‘20 of the 20 objectives’ specified in a statutory schedule). Generally, he contended that the decision which Mr Mahmoud seeks to challenge was solidly based and there was no good reason to disturb it.

As I explained to Mr Mahmoud, in practical terms, there may be little real difference from his perspective between the two possible outcomes of this appeal. At worst, he gets the protection of the extended licence up to the date of the Tribunal’s decision. At best, he gets the benefit of a second six-month licence, treated as having run from 12 November 2025, and accordingly expiring quite soon, on 11 May 2026. But I do not approach my task by measuring the relative benefits to Mr Mahmoud of the alternative outcomes.

On balance, I have concluded that this is a proper case in which to allow the appeal and uphold Mr Mahmoud’s entitlement to a second trainee licence. It seems to me that, given the troubling delays in the system, the Registrar faces growing difficulty in resisting applications for second licences and I am satisfied that the application in this case was certainly made on valid delay-based grounds. Moreover, I accept Mr Mahmoud’s contention that difficult personal and family circumstances impaired his ability to give his chosen new career the energy and attention which, in happier times, he would have been well-placed to devote to it. These factors lean in his favour.

For the reasons stated, I allow the appeal and I hope that Mr Mahmoud and his family benefit from the small advantage to be derived from my decision.