Khaled Maouas v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted two trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), each for a six-month period that ran back-to-back from 9 December 2024 to 8 December 2025.

They were refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 6 January 2026.

The Appellant now appeals that decision.

The parties have agreed to a paper determination of the appeal. The Tribunal is satisfied that it 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).

What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference by us to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered.

The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and is therefore prohibited from giving paid driving instructions by section 123 (1) of the Act unless they hold a trainee licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. A trainee licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted:

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, and only three attempts are allowed for each Part, failure to comply with either of these requirements results in the whole examination needing to be retaken.

If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence if they meet all the relevant conditions (including as set out in s.129(2)(b) the requirement in s.125(3)(e) that the individual is a fit and proper person) .

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 and the statutory framework does not require persons to hold trainee licences when undertaking the Part 3 exam.

By section 129(3) of the Act

By section 129(8)(c) of the Act

By section 129(6) of the Act:-

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.

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.

The Appellant’s undated notice of appeal relies on the following ground as the reason for the appeal. There were delays in obtaining a Part 3 test. With a 3 month delay before the first attempt, that was unsuccessful, then a 6 month wait till the second attempt.

The Appellant’s notice of appeal also stated that the desired outcome of the appeal is to “renew my trainee licence so I can keep working to support my family... also so I can fulfil; my commitment towards my clients who have been learning to drive with me”.

The Appellant made representations to the Registrar on the 8 December 2025. These set out the following points:

The Registrar’s notice of refusal dated 8 December 2025, takes the representations made by the Appellant into consideration andstates the reasons for the refusal as:

The Registrar’s statement of case dated 3 February 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that:

We considered a bundle of evidence containing 24 numbered pages.

The Appellant has provided little in terms of reasoning as to why a further trainee licence is necessary for the “purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars” as intended by the legislation, and even less in terms of evidence. Rather, the rationale put forward by the Appellant is that a further licence is necessary in order that the Appellant can continue working to support their family given that there have been delays in obtaining Part 3 Test dates. This implicitly assumes that Trainee licences exist to perform a continuous ‘on-ramp’ function for individuals to seamlessly transition from Trainee instructor to fully qualified instructor with an unbroken period of business and income from teaching driving students. That is not however the purpose of such licences.

Despite it being a common misunderstanding, it is not the case that individuals are entitled to continual renewal of trainee licences until they pass their Part 3 test. The Trainee licence is designed as a specifically time limited and predominantly ‘one-off’ in nature training facility, it should not be seen by individuals as a profession itself or as a continuous route into a profession. Whilst individuals are entitled to (and do) derive an income from teaching whilst relying on a Trainee licence, that is designed to be an exceptional and temporary circumstance because the purpose of the licence is to provide necessary experience and any other benefit (such as income) is purely incidental.

Trainee licences are set by default at the period of six months. Individuals using Trainee instructors for their lessons should therefore be aware that the default position is always that the Trainee Instructor can only guarantee availability for that period of six months, no more. An instructor might happily qualify in that period, alternatively they might exceptionally be granted a further Trainee Licence but neither of these things are in the Trainee instructor’s gift and neither can be guaranteed. Learners must therefore be aware and take into account the fact that a Trainee Instructor may have to cease providing tuition during their training. The default position of all such instructors and learners should be that the availability of Trainee instructors to teach will likely be limited to a single six month period and it can never be an indefinite period. This is however clouded by the exceptional position that occurs when such a licence is applied for before the expiry of an existing licence and an appeal is launched. Because this extends the validity of the original licence until such time as the appeal is determined. The six month period of such licences is set on the basis this is an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 Test.

The Tribunal is aware that it can be difficult to book a Part 3 test but that in itself is not a reason to grant further licences given it is not necessary to have such a licence in order to take and pass the Part 3 test. The Appellant has seemingly inferred that the path to full qualification should be capable of being seamless in that if a Part 3 Test cannot be provided during the term of a Trainee Licence, then further licences should be granted till the Part 3 test can be taken and passed. But this entirely misunderstands the purpose of the Trainee licence, it is not to provide an income, it is solely to provide a means to gain relevant experience for the test. Once a sufficient level to take the test has been obtained there is no ongoing necessity to continue obtaining further experience. An individual might have a single Trainee licence and then not take the test for 9 months but still pass, similarly there are persons who take and pass the test having never had a Trainee licence. It is not designed to (and cannot be allowed to) become a valid alternative to obtaining full qualification and/or a method for providing a regular income. The Trainee licence is an exceptional dispensation that is granted to provide an educational benefit to the Trainee. Further grants of such licences must further that aim and cannot simply be for income or similar such reasons.

The Appellant in this case has had the benefit of not one but two Trainee Licences already and these ran for two consecutive 6 month periods between 9 December 2024 to 08 December 2025. Additionally, because of the rules regarding appeals set out above the Appellant has additionally benefited from a further period of almost 5 months where the last Trainee Licence was extended till this appeal has been determined. The Appellant in this case has had the benefit of almost 17 months in which to provide paid instruction, in contrast to many such trainees who only receive or require a period of 6 months, and some trainees who fully qualify as an ADI without any period as a trainee ADI providing paid instruction.

In all the circumstances the Appellant has not persuaded the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. Therefore, we agree with the Registrar’s decision and dismiss this appeal.