Said Masiullah Pacha v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00592 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT/D/2025/1051
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport
Decided without a hearing
Decision given on: 17 April 2026
Before
JUDGE TAFT
Between
SAID MASIULLAH PACHA
Appellant
and
REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Decision: The appeal is Dismissed
REASONS
Introduction
Mr Pacha is a trainee driving instructor who was granted trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), for two 6-month periods. He was refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 8 September 2025. Mr Pacha now appeals that decision.
The parties have agreed to a paper determination of the appeal. I am satisfied that I can properly determine the issues without a hearing within rule 32(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended).
Legal Framework
In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’ comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’). The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1. Only three attempts are allowed for each Part. The whole examination must be retaken if an applicant fails Part 2 or Part 3 three times or does not pass both within the two years.
If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a licence under section 129(1) of the Act:
“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.”
This is commonly known as 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.
By section 129(3) of the Act
"The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued."
By section 129(8)(c) of the Act
"before deciding whether or not to refuse the application, the Registrar must take into consideration any such representations made within that period."
By section 129(6) of the Act:-
"Notwithstanding any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above prescribing the period for which a licence is to be in force, where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of the application, the previous licence shall not expire—
(a)until the commencement of the new licence, or
if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limited for an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of."
Section 131 of the Act gives a right of appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit. In doing so, the Tribunal must consider whether the Registrar’s decision was wrong. The Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it but must give 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 Mr Pacha.
The Decision
On 18 August 2025, the Registrar informed Mr Pacha that he was considering refusing his application for a third trainee licence. Mr Pacha made representations on 31 August 2025 that
his franchise had assigned him only 17 students of whom many had taken fewer than 10 hours;
he had to travel to Egypt for 20 days to support his brother’s urgent cardiac treatment;
despite actively monitoring multiple test centres, he was unable to secure an earlier Part 3 test date; and
these challenges were compounded by working with diverse communities, where building trust and communication takes time, making it difficult to find a suitable pupil to take to the test.
On 8 September 2025, the Registrar notified Mr Pacha that it refused his application for a third trainee licence. The notice of refusal states the reasons for the refusal as:
the evidence provided indicates only 8 lost practice days in the 12 months Mr Pacha had held a licence;
Mr Pacha had already been granted two trainee licences of 6 months duration which is considered to be a more than adequate period of time; and
it was not Parliament’s intention that the candidates should be issued licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination and the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor.
The Appeal
Mr Pacha’s notice of appeal dated 20 October 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal:
The Registrar’s conclusion doesn’t reflect the reality of his situation, which was far more than 8 days’ lost practice time;
His franchise had assigned him only 17 students of whom many had taken fewer than 10 hours;
He had independently secured 4 more students but this was insufficient to provide consistent teaching practice;
He had to travel to Egypt for 20 days to support his brother’s urgent cardiac treatment; and
Despite actively monitoring multiple test centres, he was unable to secure an earlier Part 3 test date.
The Registrar’s statement of case dated 6 February 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that:
The flight details Mr Pacha supplied only affected 8 days of his 12 months’ licence.
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.
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 6 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. Mr Pacha was given two trainee licences totalling 12 months. Moreover, by virtue of Mr Pacha 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.
Since passing his driving ability test Mr Pacha has failed the instructional ability test twice. Despite ample time and opportunity Mr Pacha has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor.
The refusal of a third licence does not bar Mr Pacha 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. Mr Pacha could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor 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.
Mr Pacha has a test booked for 24 March 2026. If this goes ahead, the appeal is bound to fail as Mr Pacha can only benefit from a trainee licence to gain practical experience for that test.
The Evidence
I considered a bundle of evidence containing 33 pages, including Mr Pacha’s full trainee licence history from the Registrar.
Findings of Fact
Mr Pacha passed his Part 1 test on 5 June 2024 and Part 2 test on 12 July 2024. Mr Pacha’s first trainee licence was granted on 19 August 2024 for a period of 6 months. Mr Pacha’s second trainee licence was due to expire on 18 August 2025. During that period, the franchise with whom Mr Pacha has a contract supplied him with 16 pupils. A further pupil was referred on 30 August 2025. He was also able to secure 4 pupils himself. Mr Pacha flew to Egypt on 10 August 2025, returning on 29 August.
The DVSA cancelled Mr Pacha’s first scheduled Part 3 test on 8 January 2025. He failed his first attempt at the Part 3 test on 20 February 2025 and second attempt on 18 June 2025. The DVSA cancelled Mr Pacha’s scheduled third attempt at the Part 3 test on 5 January 2026. A further test was arranged for 24 March 2026. I do not know the outcome of that test but take judicial notice of the fact that the Registrar would likely have applied to strike out the appeal if Mr Pacha failed on that occasion.
Conclusions
I considered Mr Pacha’s points of appeal.
The 6-month period of trainee licences is set on the basis that this is considered to be an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 test. Trainee licence holders can apply for a suspension of their licence if circumstances prevent them using it to prepare for the Part 3 test.
Mr Pacha has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of twelve months. Additionally, by applying for a third trainee licence Mr Pacha has had the benefit of s.129(6)(b) of the Act extending the first trainee licence until this appeal is disposed of (i.e. a period of almost 8 months). Had the second trainee licence been granted this would have expired before the consideration of this appeal.
Whilst Mr Pacha supplied evidence of his travel to Egypt for 20 days, only 8 of those days were during the period of the licence – his second licence expired during the trip. The Registrar was not therefore wrong to suggest that Mr Pacha had only provided evidence of 8 lost training days within the 12-month period of the licences.
I must give appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. A trainee licence must not become an alternative to qualification by passing the Part 3 test.
The Registrar did not directly engage with Mr Pacha’s representations about low pupil numbers or the fact that he needed to build trust to facilitate taking a pupil with him to the test. The Registrar does however point out that it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence to take the Part 3 test and that some trainees acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all. I can infer therefore that the Registrar did not consider that Mr Pacha’s representations about low pupil numbers were sufficient to warrant a third licence.
Further, the Registrar’s decision did not engage with Mr Pacha’s assertion that delays in offering him a test date prevented him from having three attempts at the test within the trainee licence period. This is not a case of an ADI cancelling tests – indeed two were cancelled by the DVSA. The 6 months’ duration of the trainee licence is of course only a reasonable period in which to pass the Part 3 test if a test date is available within a reasonable period of time after booking.
However, Mr Pacha has not provided any detail to support his assertion – he has not, for example, given any detail as to when he looked for tests, at which centres, or being placed “on hold” for a test.
Mr Pacha has not therefore discharged his burden of satisfying me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong: I am not satisfied that low pupil numbers warrant a third licence, only 8 days at the very end of the second licence were lost due to family commitments, and there is insufficient evidence supplied to support the assertion of difficulty booking a test.
I therefore dismiss this appeal.
SignedDate: 15 April 2026
Judge Taft