Muhammad Usman Ikram Shafqat v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Appellant is not, and has never been, on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

He has previously been granted two trainee driving instructor licences, covering a continuous period of 12 months between 23 September 2024 and 22 September 2025. During that period, he was permitted to give paid driving instruction while seeking to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”).

On 11 September 2025, the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. The Registrar refused that application on 8 October 2025 on the basis that the statutory purpose of trainee licensing had already been met, and that the Appellant had been afforded sufficient opportunity to qualify but had not done so.

The Appellant appeals that decision.

The appeal was heard orally. The Appellant attended and gave evidence.

The Appellant was a courteous and candid witness. During the course of the hearing, he indicated that he understood the Registrar’s position and accepted the substance of the Registrar’s submissions opposing the appeal.

The Appellant confirmed that he has an ADI Part 3 test booked for 8 April 2026.

Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the giving of paid driving instruction unless the person is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or holds a trainee licence granted under section 129.

Section 129 provides the Registrar with a discretion to grant a trainee licence for a limited period to enable an applicant to gain practical experience while working towards qualification as an ADI.

A trainee licence is time-limited and exceptional in nature. Its purpose is to facilitate progression to registration; it is not intended to operate as an alternative to qualification, nor to provide an indefinite opportunity to give paid instruction.

On appeal, the Tribunal considers whether the Registrar’s decision was lawful, reasonable, and proportionate, having regard both to the statutory purpose of the trainee licensing regime and to the individual circumstances relied upon by the Appellant.

The Appellant relied on personal and employment circumstances which he said curtailed his ability to make full use of the two trainee licence periods.

In particular, he relied upon full-time employment as a teacher and a period of eye surgery, which he said reduced his available time for training and instructional practice.

He submitted that these matters justified the grant of a further trainee licence in order to allow him a final opportunity to qualify.

I accept that the Appellant experienced genuine pressures arising from employment and health matters. I also accept that he remains motivated to qualify as an ADI.

However, the question for the Tribunal is not whether the Appellant is acting in good faith, or whether further assistance would be desirable, but whether the statutory test for the grant of a further trainee licence is met. I am satisfied that the Registrar was entitled to conclude that it was not.

The Appellant has already benefited from two trainee licences covering a total period of 12 months. That represents a significant opportunity to gain paid instructional experience while preparing for qualification.

During that period, the Appellant cancelled two booked ADI Part 3 tests and failed one attempt. While there were explanations offered for those matters, no compelling evidence was provided to demonstrate that the Appellant was prevented from making sufficient use of the licensed periods as a result of circumstances which could properly be described as exceptional.

Importantly, a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to sitting the ADI Part 3 test or continuing training. Further preparation can be undertaken without a trainee licence, including through unpaid arrangements or instruction under a qualified ADI.

The Appellant fairly accepted during the hearing that there was nothing extraordinary or exceptional about the circumstances relied upon when viewed against the statutory purpose of the trainee licensing regime.

In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Registrar’s decision was lawful, rational, and proportionate, and that the refusal of a third trainee licence was consistent with ensuring that the trainee licensing system does not become a substitute for qualification and registration.

For these reasons, I am obliged to dismiss the appeal.

I indicated at the hearing that the written decision would not be promulgated immediately. While there will be a short delay before formal promulgation, the decision will take effect upon promulgation in the usual way.