BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Joshi v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 685 (GRC) (09 June 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/685.html
Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 685 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKFTT 685 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT/D/2024/1016

First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport

Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Heard on 9 June 2025
Decision Given On: 9 June 2025

B e f o r e :

JUDGE J FINDLAY
JUDGE K SAWARD

____________________

Between:
ATUL HEMANT KUMAR JOSHI Appellant
and
REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Respondent

____________________

Representation:
For the Appellant: In person.
For the Respondent: Did not attend.

____________________

HTML VERSION OF DECISION
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Decision: The appeal is allowed. The Appellant is granted a second trainee licence for a period of 6 months from 9 June 2025, being the date of the hearing.

    REASONS

    Preliminary matters

  1. The Appellant's name has been recorded in different ways in the material before the Tribunal. At the hearing the Appellant confirmed that his name is Atul Joshi.
  2. The Respondent had indicated in advance that she did not intend to be represented at the hearing. That being so, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of the Respondent. In reaching a decision, the Tribunal has fully considered the Respondent's written submissions.
  3. Analysis

  4. Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act") prohibits the giving of instruction paid for by or in respect of a pupil in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor's name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, or he is the holder of a current licence issued under Section 129(1) of the Act.
  5. The Appellant is not now and has never been on the said Register.
  6. A licence under Section 129 of the Act was granted to the Appellant for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and was valid from 29 April 2024 to 28 October 2024 (page 18).
  7. On 7 October 2024 the Appellant applied for a second licence (page 19). By email dated 16 October 2024 (page 20) the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of his application for a second licence. By way of an email received on 24 October 2024 (page 21) the Appellant made representations. He stated that he had experienced difficulties in obtaining a test date. He stated that he had to take a break during the course of his first licence due to personal circumstances, which he outlined.
  8. After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application. He did not provide any adequate evidence to support the medical issues of a family member being relied upon. He did not comply with the conditions of his first trainee licence, as he did not complete all of the training objectives within the first three months of his licence.
  9. The Respondent gave notice to the Appellant of the decision in accordance with Section 129(4) of the Act by an email dated 6 November 2024 (page 26). The reasons for the Respondent's decision to refuse the application for a second licence are as follows:
  10. (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 while 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 two trainee licences which cover a period of 12 months. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the second, 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.

    (c) Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice. 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 second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. The Appellant 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. The Appellant 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.

  11. It is noted that the Appellant has his final attempt at the instructional ability test booked on 24 June 2025. Should the test go ahead, then the regulations determine that any appeal is bound to fail as a trainee licence can only be issued in order that an individual can gain the practical experience required to take the test.
  12. At the hearing, the Appellant gave an update on his personal circumstances, which are improving. Supporting medical evidence was included within the bundle of 28 pages before the Tribunal. The Appellant explained that he is the sole breadwinner in his family with a wife and two children to support. Whilst he could attempt the instructional ability test again without a second licence, the Appellant explained how he would be placed in a difficult position financially if unable to provide paid tuition.
  13. Since April 2025, the Appellant has been having observations with his trainer sat in the back of the vehicle. He has been training every week and his scores have been improving. From everything that the Tribunal has seen and heard, we are satisfied that the Appellant suffered a catastrophic domestic incident just before the grant of his first licence. Due to the magnitude of the ongoing impacts, the Appellant was unable to train.
  14. The Appellant did not comply with the conditions of his first trainee licence, but he did have reasonable cause for not completing all of the training objectives within the first 3 months of his licence. Taking into account all of his circumstances, we do not consider that it was a reasonable period of time to complete the tuition.
  15. The Appellant's licence has continued up until the date of the hearing. His personal circumstances are only just resolving, and it is therefore fair to grant a further licence for 6 months from the date of the hearing. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
  16. Signed: Judge J Findlay

    Judge K Saward

    Date: 9 June 2025

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010